RE: New Content Flagging System With Feedback
I always comment and give a reason when I flag/downvote. I find the idea of a dialog box to encourage that and make it easier to be a good thing.
Where I don't agree is your idea of voting to remove a flag. Upvotes and downvotes are part of the balance and an important way that the system finds consensus in allocating rewards. When there are downvotes it means that someone (or multiple people) disagree and there isn't a strong consensus. That doesn't mean the post is bad (after all, good and bad are always someone's opinion and not objective), but it does mean there are questions about it, and for that reason the rewards are reduced (though with more upvotes than downvotes, there will still be some reward). By allowing a majority to override the minority you are rejecting the idea of requiring strong consensus to award large amounts of money, which I don't think is a good idea.
Of course, we know that the reward pool is essentially fixed so when one post has reduced rewards, other posts -- which do have a strong(er) consensus supporting them -- receive higher rewards. To me this makes perfect sense. I'd rather see the bulk of the reward money flowing where all agree it is deserved than have it awarded based on a narrow majority.
Hi smooth, good comments. I also think that the dialog box is a good, or maybe even an essential component to the flagging system. It is essential because flagging is providing negative feed back. This is always touchy as misunderstandings can lead to upset between the two parties and thought of an unfair playing field. It is first essential (and sorely lacking currently) to have a clear set of rules, )a constitution if you will ) that all agree to play by. We all know that spam and plagiarism is against the social consensus. We need to expand on that list of social expectations and pin it visibly on the site. This rule book should be the bases of all flagging action noted on @bendjmiller222 's dialog box. In doing this we get clear documented expectations and clear documented violation. This way, very efficiently, one can check the " accepted rules", against the "rules" their being accused of breaking.
Regarding using flagging for down-voting, I have an idea for possibly a better way for reaching consensus that I hope will be considered.
Lately there has been a lot of down voting of top paying posts, who have no visible violation of rules of social consensus (that I can see anyway). I've seen a lot of comments about this. People are assuming the cause to be jealousy, dis-like etc. I must admin many times I am left with simular notions. Whether that be true or not, "perception is reality" as they say. I would submit the idea that negative feedback in a broad mass-communication social network is not a good thing. Negative feed back opens the social group up to the potential of a whole host of emotional driven actions that usually end up being harmful. So, Instead of ( + / - vote ) to reach consensus I would propose ( + / 0 vote ) .
"Up Vote / No Vote" - These would be the two binaries between which consensus would be achieved. Doing this we remove the emotionally charged issue of negative voting. Think of it as simular to how the Steemit system gets around the negative stigma of asking members to pay upfront for operational costs by actually acquiring its resources through inflation. The end result is the same, but the phycological negative barrier is neutralized,. In the case of counter voting (down voting) it leaves the flagging system alone to deal strictly with rule breakers and transfers the responsibility to the "up vote" algorithm
So then, how to we deal with blog awards being to high if this is in fact an issue? I am not a mathematician, but it seems the general up-vote weighing calculated by the program would need to come down. So, build the counter weight into the up vote algorithm to hide it, just like Steemit's ability to obtain resources is hidden in to the inflation.
That said, it could very well be that the voting algorithm is working just fine now, and what we are seeing in the large awards is simply the free market at work.
Thanks. Enjoyed reading your ideas.
sophistry.
Basically what youre saying is that you want people only to be able to upvote. In your model, someone "0 vote"ing would have just the same effect as someone who never read the post at all and never acted.
I love the back and forth going on here and am constantly thinking about how to best develop this feature. Just a completely different thought.
Maybe there could be a reward system for correctly flagging content.
Like if multiple people flag content for the same reason and the poster makes no change, the flaggers should be rewarded since to the best of my knowledge, flagging uses your steempower.
Accountability in flagging could help new users to make some simple money flagging content correctly and having their flags looked at by other parties (very early idea in my mind), but basically there should be a way to make money flagging content without needing to post a list of everything you have flagged.
Maybe a trusted person could be hired by the community like the witnesses and be in charge of making sure "flag abuse" doesn't occur and looking over more heavily flagged content.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but when I click a flag sometimes I think I'm wasting my steem power and usually only do so if it is really blatant.
although i hate to indulge this idea, here's a thought. a method of "flag control" if you will.
set it up so that downvotes have to reach a certain critical mass before theyre visible or effect payout. Maybe something like 10% of upvotes.
So for example, say a post gets $1K worth of upvotes.... anything under 200 worth of downvotes are just invisible, they don't count toward payout, they don't show in the UI, etc. At $101 they all count though.
this way, matters of legitimate controversy can play out, but just "autohate" for high paying posts gets discarded as white noise.
its also relatively non-intrusive on the market, because past a certain pay point most posts have a certain number of downvotes, so something like this would effect them all equally.
I thought of that too. its gamable. DUCY?
bad actor creates a sybil to post dickpics or whatever, then flags it with his "real" account (and obvi hes the first one on it because he knows when its going to post) then rakes in the rewards.
OK, heres my problem. Youre depending on a definition of "abuse" that doesnt exist anywhere. In fact, youre depending on the term "flagging" thats not written down anywhere. So basically what you have is a little picture of a flag, and a whole bunch of (completely unsubstantiated) theories about when someone ought to be allowed to click on it. And you want to hire someone to i guess what, cast chicken bones and decide what constitutes abuse.
Me personally, i think its the individuals vote, and nothing they do with it can legitimately be considered abuse. The minute you say "well its OK to vote this way, but not to vote that way"... well then youre really not talking about a free market anymore.
Like ill give you an example that i brought up in the DV thread. Dan makes a post that theyre finally finished with account recovery. It starts to get into the 4 digits and smooth flags it (and comments that a site admin related post shouldnt be getting paid that much). Is that abuse?
I personally do not think it is. I think posts like that one getting paid make the platform as a whole look bad. I think smooth did the platform a service.
Now if you do think thats abuse, i just disagree with you about what constitutes abuse. but again, i point out that any rule about how people are allowed to cast votes kind of obviates the purpose of having votes.
If you don't think its abuse, then why is smooth entitled to his opinion on how much that post gets paid and @berniesanders isnt entitled to take the same action on the same opinion about @dollarvigilante? WHy aren't I entitled to (if i wish) downvote a makeup tutorial because i just don't think it deserves to make $40K... (40K that comes out of others rewards) i didnt btw, im just saying that theres nothing wrong with it.
Now i understand there are differnces in these situations, but again, given that the term flag isnt written down anywhere, where do you turn to decide where to draw the line, except to individual conscience.
Because ultimately when crap, or scammy looking garbage makes it to the front page and makes $20K, it hurts the platform. It hurts the price of steem, and we all suffer.
What youre not seeing, is there IS a mechanism of protection against flagging. I disagree with you. You disagree with me. Why don't we bust out the flag cannon? Because we know we both lose out in the end.
Im not the guy who steps out and automatically defends the whales just based on their balance, but theres nothing to indicate that BS habitually misuses flags. He made a call that you didn't like. Great fair enough.
@sigmajin but in the current system one hundred people that didn't like you could flag your content, ruin your reputation and make your posts next to invisible.
If users are forced to give a reason about why they flagged content then everyone else would be able to see "hey he flagged this as spam, but that's not spam" or _____ fill in the blank.
I like that you see from a polar opposite position than I do, because that adds a new dynamic to the equation. Some things are cut and dry. Like is this plagiarized, posted in the wrong category etc. I don't feel you should be penalized for incorrect flagging, but maybe there is a way to fix this with a completely different idea.
Hi @smooth. I was wondering if you could do me a favor . . . . It appears as if the new reputation system (at least initially) doesn't pay attention to up-votes on comments. As a result, after that stupid move of mine and your very generous repair, under the new system I have a reputation of 1 (newbies start at 25). I posted a blog post which offers a Steemit PowerPoint that I prepared for the Extreme Futures and Technology Forecasting conference in Seattle last week (https://steemit.com/steemit/@mark-waser/my-steemit-powerpoint-for-the-extreme-futures-and-technology-forecasting-conference-seattle-wa). If you think that it is a worthwhile post, do you think that you could see your way clear to helping my reputation? Thanks for reading this in any case!
You make a great point.
The overturn flag part was the weakest part of my proposal, but maybe downvoting/flagging should be two completely different buttons.
I don't feel disagreement should warrant the loss of money for a poster.
I think this is a great case in point to study how the flagging system might evolve. Help Us Launch The First Steemit Marketing Initiative That Pays You To Refer
I would be interested in seeing the reason behind the flags especially on this post. It had extremely mixed views from many influential users. But I also feel that on a decentralized platform, your post should not be flagged for disagreement and your reputation tarnished.
Maybe having the option to downvote (but not flag) content you disagree with would be an option that would not effect a users reputation, but a downvote and a flag would, like it currently does now.
I guess since most influential users aren't jealous or flag content as spam for no reason so overturning may not be the best idea, but for a new person someone could troll them with lots of flags simply because they dislike them without any repercussions.
I understand steemit is in beta and many of these features will be rolled out in the near future, but I knew your opinion would help me formulate my original post better and add or remove from it. I am glad you found my proposal to warrant you commenting on it.
Always a pleasure @smooth! Glad to have you here rewarding people and being a friendly whale people always hope surface in their posts and make a big splash. Keep up the great work it is very appreciated!
This is a fundamental disagreement and indeed a completely different perspective. From my point of view, it isn't "a loss of money", it is that the money isn't being awarded because there is no strong consensus (i.e. there is disagreement among voters) that it should be awarded (or more precisely is awarded elsewhere to a stronger consensus).
I do understand that seeing a number on the site and then seeing a lower number makes it feel like a loss, and that is an issue, but when it comes down to it those numbers are always tentative estimates. When the site first opened, the first few votes had posts with rewards of $100K or something. Those numbers adjusted over time as more votes occurred to eventually indicate something closer to what was actually paid out (more like thousands for good payouts than hundreds of thousands). No money was "lost" there, but estimates were updated and the number did indeed drop.
I've had an idea to maybe not display the full estimated amount of the reward immediately but to slowly spin up the payout over time, with the rate determined by the voting. As votes (or possibly downvotes/flags) are processed, they would affect (and possibly even completely stop) the rate of increase in the displayed reward, but it wouldn't be possible for it to actually drop. That seems like it might be more user-friendly. What do you think (perhaps my explanation isn't so clear)?
Agree that the discussion is a pleasure. Thank you for offering your point of view in a thoughtful and well-presented manner. I respect that even when I disagree.
I happen to dislike the reputation system as it is currently implemented and maybe the whole idea at all, so perhaps we agree on this aspect of it. The focus on my comments is more on the voting system as a mechanism for awarding payouts. When it comes to reputation there are some trickier issues involved and I can very much see (and have experienced) how downvotes/flags can become highly problematic.
@smooth Is there a reason comments can only go 6 deep? I feel that this limits some great back and forth dialogue.
I would also love to have a suggestions based on upvotes feed too if it could be fixed.
As I said before I'm really not worried how well this individual post will do, but I know you have the ability to drive more conversation here, and I have the time to converse with everyone right now and respond to comments.
If you feel it would be in the best interest of steemit, would you consider posting a link to this from your blog?
The few people that have been here have greatly improved upon my original idea and that was exactly what I hoped would happen.
I understand you may have other more pressing issues or don't really wish to promote it. I'll leave that decision in your hands ("flippers").
I never want to be known as someone who begs whales or dolphins for votes. If I earn it I earn it if not I just keep trying to keep the content at as high a level of quality as I can.
It isn't entirety clear. It used to be that some of the rewards "flowed up" to the parent comment, and a depth limit was needed so that the computational cost of processing votes didn't become too high. That feature was removed though,so it isn't clear whether the limit is still needed. At this point it may just be that development resources are spread pretty thin.
Yes many agree with you. The developers are aware of it.
This makes perfect sense to me now.
I think multiple aspects of both our ideas would benefit everyone. It's nice to have the perspective of someone heavily invested. You have a lot of people viewing your comments and questions. And I see the big picture I think we are all seeing as a mutually benfitial platform with discussions and content that engages people.
I believe that sort of dynamic is what sets steemit apart. Anyone can have a great idea and have it implemented, whether a new user or a veteran whale.
The developers truly listen when people come to a consensus and try to implement a solution that will benefit the most people as possible and I have the utmost respect for them even sharing any rewards with users, as steemit could have solely been a cool decentralized platform on a blockchain.
@spookypooky (I hope you see this since I can't actually reply to you).
There used to be suggestions based on your upvotes (it showed new posts being voted by others who typically vote similarly to you) but it was removed for technical reasons. Up until it was removed, it was my favorite way to browse the site. I hope at some point a version of it can be brought back.
My personal rub with the system is not so much related to the loss of rewards, but to the loss or lack of visibilty. Curation being based so largely on posting time and 'monetary value' can make finding stuff you like a slog. The feed system is already a great step to removing that barrier, but feeds are a closed clique, new writers or niches will always have to deal with visibility issues.
I'd like to see suggestions based on my follow lists and recent upvotes. I think that would greatly increase the value of a lot of posts that currently fly under the radar completely, which in turn would do heaps of good for the network.
Seeing the same constant circlejerks populate the pages, be they boobs, anarchy or travel, is no good. There's lots of fine tuning to be done, but I think more ways to sort posts and blogs would be a massive compounder of entertainment, value and ease of use.
@smooth - you, sir, are awesome! Is there anything I can do for you?