A premium cost to self-vote?
So far, it has been mostly everything that came before Brilliant! But, I will keep plugging away as for me it helps me satisfy a few of my goals.
Firstly, it helps me look at the system a little more objectively which means I can slowly build a better understanding.
Then, it allows me to put ideas forward for 'peer review' where I am told that they are Brilliant! (rare) or stupid (common). This serves two purposes, one where people themselves can think a little and two, it keeps my ego in check.
After, it also lets me put ideas forward that people much more qualified than me may be able to use to inspire much better ideas.
I see this as my way of 'helping' the community develop even if my ideas themselves are not overly useful as put forward.
Pay myself at a cost
Now, I am a self-voter. Not on comments as I think that is largely stupid, but on my own articles. I don't always upvote my own content but lately over the last few weeks I mostly have. I do however try to upvote every comment I get a few percent also, even if I disagree. Unless it is spam of course as I am starting to flag that.
What I was wondering if there should be a premium on self voting where a 100% vote to the self is for example a 75 percent vote but costs the voter the 100. the remaining 25 stays in the pool. This means that both upvote and the curation is 75 percent for the voter. Perhaps for example sake, a self-vote on a comment could have a higher premium attached.
I wonder if this would discourage some voters from self voting their content (especially comments with the higher premium) and also leave more reward in the pool. What this may mean that if going on current voting behaviour, those that self vote forgo 25 percent of their voting power which gets spread to the rest of the community by way of a larger pool. This increases voting power for all of the non-self-voters which is less able to be utilised by the self-voters as their voting power has decreased.
Would this give more power to initiatives like @minnowsupport where their collective voting power is boosted by the self-voters leaving more in the pool? @aggroed, @ausbitbank, @teamsteem, @canadian-coconut (key-supporter)?
Would it reduce self voting on comments if there was a premium?
Would @smackdownkitty have less to do and therefore be more smack happy against the big comment self-voters? @personz?
I don't think this is going to be a very popular idea but was wondering if one of the smarter people than me (just about anyone) could have a quick look and perhaps estimate if this would have any effect at all or if in fact would be harmful to the platform.
I do think however that there should be some cost to self-voting. Which brings me to another part.
I have a low reputation of myself
Another option is that each self-vote has a negative reputation effect where a self-vote counts as a down-vote on reputation. This would mean that in time, the self-voters could potentially force their own content to be hidden. Perhaps like above, a self-vote on one's own comment counts double towards a reputation negative.
Again, I am not part of the development team (thankfully for Steemit) nor is this my normal area of play. I say this not so you will be kind in your evaluation of the idea, nor if you choose to attack me personally but, so you understand who you are dealing with. A person interested in helping Steemit grow into a useful and profitable platform for as many people as possible globally.
Also, I ask that if this idea has some merit, forward it on to someone who could possibly develop it into something usable, please.
Okay, ...Go!
Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]
Very clever proposal my dear friend @tarazkp. Yes indeed, I bet the loss of reputation, effecting negatively self reputation hard enough, surreptitiously spiraling downwards their inflated reputation numbers by upvoting their own comments, would works wonders to discourage this uncaring behavior the most. No matter how many multiple accounts these large SP holders may have to perpetrate this unjust behavior. All of them, indistinctly, would show low & poor numbers in such way that this would be easier for everyone to pinpoint who really is behind each of them. }:)
I suspect that the simply loss of that illusory sensation of Prestige, Influence & Reputation that these fictional reputation numbers provide to their greedy minds and accounts. Once perceived the impact downwards for having been voting their own crappy comments would keeps everyone's ego in check. And it would most likely make them stop to think twice before upvoting their own meaningless comments again, and again and again, at least.
Unless.. they may be a bit masochistic and they also enjoy watching as those numbers on their profiles come down, as they at the same time shed one or another teardrop from time to time. :)
So ¡Yes! self-vote on a comment MUST have a higher premium attached!!
I absolutely support this idea. And for that reason alone, I will upvote and resteem this post.
It would be interesting to be able to test it for a little while and follow the accounts of known self-voters to see if behviour changes at all.
Yup, I agree that this would be an interesting experiment to bring about & observe the possible good results.
But as for following the accounts of the known self-voters afterwards... Uhm! I also believe that then, we will have to be very careful where we step following their accounts. It is not going to be a matter of slipping away with the tears shed all over the floor by the masochist self-upvoters!! }:)
I really like the idea of losing some reputation for self upvoting. I am not a self voter except in the last few weeks for the contest I run and I do it for a very specific reason which some may agree with and some may not. The trouble is there are so many of these grey areas on steemit that it really is starting to feel like the wild west for all the wrong reasons. I've seen so many posts lately about this issue or that issue and I have my own position on a lot of them but I have seen so many hypocrites bemoaning this issue when they are happy to overlook that issue that I don't want to make the same mistake, so for now I am staying out of it. :)
If this isn't a social experiment, then it is certainly a missed opportunity! :)
I keep shifting as I grow here in different ways. Some things I did I stopped, some things I didn't I started. For me it is trying to balance my development and return with the development of the platform. I don't always succeed at either but it is a path that slowly starts to take shape over time, I think.
I can't take a completely long-term view because frankly, not many others are but, if I only look short-term, the gains I am likely to attract are insignificant.
I think it is a plot run by the CIA.
as a minnow I still think it is advisable to self vote (not the comments but at least the blogs)
i know that i do the same but at a certain point it might be nice not to in order to spread the wealth a bit more but then the question is... where is the line on where to stop self upvoting....
for the moment i am just pumping all i earn back into steemit just to get my steem power up and every cent matters
I guess its just a matter of deciding for yourself but it might be that people would be more inclined to upvote someone that do not upvote themselves (if they can see that its not self upvoted) and thus incentivising this behaviour
i hope you understand this rambling but i think this might be a good idea
Yes, I think that the biggest issue is not the content but the comment self-vote. I would rather see that get penalised than all self-voting but perhaps some cost should be incurred. I used 25% as an arbitrary number, maybe to for content, 50 for comment.
I think that what may happen is if the pool is larger, the votes that you would get would more than compensate for the small fee if you did upvote, but the people who are posting and upvoting trash will lose out.
I think...
I would rather not upvote even though i did it in the beginning it just seems so desperate and lame. Onwards and forwards @rogerblu
Some interesting suggestion, the one effecting self reputation my work. However many Steemians have multiple account, so any rule created that works withina single account, will be bypassed to those who are cleaver enough to have multiple account. Also, this will drive more follow-for-follow vote groups that are emerging, train votes but not curated votes, but just everybody in the group votes for all post of members of the group. So all easy piece to get other forms of 'self-votes' in. Dont you think all the paid vote services are also not selfvoters? Hardly any paid vote goes to another accounts. Check the wallets of the paid voters to see what is requested. But I am very ok with the entrepreneurship of those who bring these service to life, but it'll not support voting for quality content, but drives selfish behaviour within the community.
Yes, the multiple account is a problem but has always been so.
I have written about the paid votes before. I do not think they help the system in many ways.
I like the entrepreneurship by those who come up with these services, but in fact it gives the whales a large income. They lost some revenue on their posts, those who posted, but they gained so much more by selling their votes while they dont have to upvote themselves to get revenue. Some whales (one as far as I know) runs the service himself, or at least have somebody handling the technical tasks and he pays for it) but all the others are just renting out their SP to mini minnows (or get into some other type of deal with them) who than run such services making the shales a goo chunk of money. Most of these services do not even give net monetary benefits, not even when pre-voters are coming to you like with booster for instance. But it can give your post a spot in HOT somewhere in the first page or two, but done some test with that, and it brought me almost no additional votes. So all waste of money, but most Steemians do see value in it since they dont want their post to have cents, but then they also miss out on Curie when the are kinda newbies. But yeh, try to convince the newbies, they are desperate and dont want to hear too sensible and rational.
Entrepreneurs can do many things of course and some can benefit a community as a whole without harm. That would be healthy entrepreneurship.
I think that selling the pool is not good behaviour in the long run but will bring short-term gain to those who can. It is likely all they care about. I hear people talk about people 'finally' getting their returns after waiting for 'so long'. Um, the platform is a year and a half old, any real entrepreneur would scoff at the impatience considering what may be possible. this is a massive marshmallow experiment and we are mostly failing and going for the instant gratification.
The argument can be made that the service in itself is not bad, since it was initially promoted as a gift and tip service. Bu tthe users started to use it for their own post and comments. That is not entirely the responsibility of the service owner. The service owner could try to change its service to only allow to vote for another account, and that did not happen so far. That is where the service owner is becoming partly responsible for what is happening not. But it cannot be prevented though. I also think selling the pool is not good behaviour and it'll make those who sells more rich and the rest more 'poor' or actually more money is flowing to a few Steemians.
Yes, the shape is the same as the 'real-world'.
On one hand, suggestions like this do make some sense, but on the other hand, I think we should accept self-voting as a part of the reality of the platform and move on from it a bit. (coming from a person that self-votes every post and none of my comments)
The self-voting of posts doesn't bother me much really, I do it too lately. The issue i the 20 dollar votes on 'cool' that I think are quite silly.
They are but I do not think there is a good way to eradicate them and I think it's time for us to move on from that point. But sure, the fact that I've accepted that as the current state of affairs doesn't mean you have to agree. I'm just not convinced that this is a make or break issue and I see a lot of potential problems with most of the suggested ways to remedy the situation.
Keep in mind that the current state of affairs was brought about by a hardfork that aimed to give more power to the smallest accounts and in my book the net effect of that is actually positive. But there are always caveats.
One thing that can be done is to remove the x4 voting power change which will devalue our smaller votes as well but will cut the $20 self-votes to $5 ones.
I don't think any of the fixes you suggested are reasonable or difficult to get around if you want to make sure that your votes go back to your own pockets. All one would have to do to circumvent that and vote themselves some steem is to create a second account, comment "cool" from their second account and start voting on those comments. The current situation just makes things more honest and easier to spot. If you try to make it more difficult, you are just going to make the people that want to take advantage of their steem power do sneakier things. But abusers have very easy ways around it if they feel like it.
I understand but I am an idealist in this and would rather build a platform that isn't built upon the same foundation as the current real world where the something for very little culture dominates. I don't understand the lengths people are willing to go to for small amounts when there are easier ways to get larger.
This platform is already built on a foundation of its own. When I say reality or the current state of affairs, I do mean this platform, not something external. Idealist or not, you probably realize that a platform that cannot be abused in any way is practically impossible and there is always give and take between things like freedom, usability, censorship, earning potential, stability and openness to abuse. There are things that are impossible to fully eradicate.
Still, by all means, don't stop fighting and advocating for what you see as important!
It has a foundation but the structure is continually shifting. It is not set in stone yet. Perhaps. I don't know :)
I always do what I think is important, don't you?
You are indeed right, it's constantly changing and it is not set in stone indeed. I feel I kind of steered this in a pointless direction from the get go as there is nothing that productive about at least half my points here...
I try to do what I think is important as much as I can... I tend to do what feels pleasant or rewarding with a higher priority than I would like to admit instead quite often... :/
I do not mind the push-back as you know and I like it that I do not have to answer a chapter for you to understand. I find all of this interesting and I am an amateur at many things. Questioning is the way I learn about the world. Sometimes it pisses people off, but generally I think it is mutually beneficial in many ways.
Don't impose a premium to self vote. What Steemit could do instead is to spend more voting power if you vote yourself. So if at 100% you can upvote 10 people, if you upvote yourself 5 times, it will have spent the same.
That is the same thing. A premium. In your case it has a 2x factor over the 25% I gave.
I like the loss of reputation idea. I'm not a fan of self-voting; i was always taught that self-praise is no praise.
What about self-love? :)
I like the reputation thing to try also as it is a softer sell and visible.
To quote the divine Oscar, “To love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance"
That sounds nothing like Oscar the Grouch so I will second guess as Wilde. :)
Ha ha ha, good one!
"To love oneself" I stopped reading there ;)