Transparency Bot will be offline for a couple of days while its processing is modified to allow opting out.
As most people know, transparencybot creates a comment on every post that has received upvotes from paid vote sellers in excess of $50.00. These comments are generally seen as both welcome and very informative by many authors and followers alike.
There are however, those that have found these comments to be intrusive and just plain spam. Many have said that if you disagree with the rewards, simply downvote the post.
So, to solve this problem, transparencybot will be offline for a few days while the programming logic is expanded to allow opting out of the comments left by @tranparencybot.
How does it work?
- Only the author of the post may opt out.
- Simply reply via the comment left by transparencybot with the words "opt out" or "optout"
- If you elect to opt out of the comment, then transparencybot reserves the right to downvote your post for disagreement of rewards.
I believe this solves the problem of "spam" and also uses the flag as it was intended.
Constructive feedback is welcome as always.
Craig
Craig, you are a relentless bully. Yes, you reserve the right with transparency bot to flag people who opt out of your bot. And the community reserves the right to continue flagging you for being unwilling to come to the table for weeks and discuss the opt out option. Pretty sure you remember my comments regarding that specifically over and over again.
Personally, I hope @booster and @fyrstikken follows through and flags you down to -50. Go start a new project is my advice. Something with actual community value. If you wanted to point out the absolute obvious then you should fire up @obviousbot or @repetitiveinfoachildcouldfindbot
Good luck getting your rep above 0 Maybe you buy some booster votes.
This is interesting. Do think think anyone will not opt out? I think the more proper solution is that you require everyone who uses voting bots to put at the end of their posts, "This is a paid advertisement. This post is not endorsed by the community." If they don't do that, you continue to offer your information/warning.
Thanks for the reply.
I cannot make an assumption that a particular post is not endorsed by the community, but I can of course disagree with their rewards, as is the case for all of us. That is one of the primary purposes of the flag.
Most people found the comments left by transparrency bot to be informative. Only a few found it to be spam.
yeah, it's a hard line to walk, but vote buying is clearly advertising which should put the post in the promotion tab. The trending tab is for posts found valuable by the community, which posts that make it there by being voted by voting bots clearly are not. Posts may be both advertising and found to be valuable, but there is probably a metric that can be analyzed to determine if it is one and not the other. I guess at the dollar mark that causes the post to be on the trending page maybe determine the percentage of author reward that can be attributed to voting bots and consider it as not community supported if the majority is voting bots. Remove your post if the tide swings the other way. This type of thing needs some tweaking, but aside from a major upheaval like SMT proof of brain authentication being the only way for a post to get on the trending page, I'm not sure what else there is. Just an idea...
I really like the fact that you are going to use an opt out for your bot! I just have one question.
You stated, even in the comments you leave on posts that its by no means an attack to the post nor quality for said post. Now I read this from you...
If you elect to opt out of the comment, then transparencybot reserves the right to downvote you post for disagreement with rewards.
Is that you saying that you do disagree with the payouts on posts you leave the reply? Because to me that sounds like, Hey if you opt out on my comments I am going to flag you!
Just wondering while slithering in happiness.
Reserving the right to downvote is just that and nothing more.
We all have that right. In the past, transparencybot did not downvote author posts, just left a comment.
Due to feedback received by many, they have asked that they would be allowed to opt out of the comments. These same people, have stated that if there is a disagreement with rewards, then use the flag.
This then, will be how transparencybot operates. No different than anyone else on the platform. Certainly not all posts using bots will be downvoted and manual curation will be a input factor.
I am glad you are going to do the flag after manual curation. And by all means I am not saying that you are not free to use a flag how you see it fit.
What I am after is your reasoning for doing this project. Mostly because of the way you word things like in this post.
After reading it twice it made me feel like you are now giving people the choice to either accept your comments or to get flagged instead of the option opt out/never hear from again or accept my comments on your posts!
I believe that a good discussion is never wrong as long as both parties are willing to see the other persons sight.
Thanks for the reply.
As you know, I believe ALL post that use bidbots are abusing the rewards pool. Some authors using bots create quality posts, some do not. But if you have elected to use a paid voter, then you have bypassed the manual curation process entirely.
I have a fundamental disagreement with any rewards when they are purchased in this manner, irrespective of a quality post or trash. But I certainly will not be downvoting every post, it would serve no purpose.
Here is the introduction to this project if you want to know my viewpoints.
https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@transparencybot/transparency-bot-is-going-on-line-to-help-fight-the-rampant-rise-in-bitbots-and-their-long-term-devastating-effect-on-our
Thanks for the reply.
As you know, I believe ALL post that use bidbots are abusing the rewards pool. Some authors using bots create quality posts, some do not. But if you have elected to use a paid voter, then you have bypassed the manual curation process entirely.
I have a fundamental disagreement with any rewards when they are purchased in this manner, irrespective of a quality post or trash. But I certainly will not be downvoting every post, it would serve no purpose.
Here is the introduction to this project if you want to know my viewpoints.
https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@transparencybot/transparency-bot-is-going-on-line-to-help-fight-the-rampant-rise-in-bitbots-and-their-long-term-devastating-effect-on-our
dear @poeticsnake
very useful article
You could maybe kill the transparency bot and do a new bot where people could request info. A lot of bidders are losing money on bots and might like to know how they did and some users might like info on a post.
Personally if I use a lot of bots on a post I can lose track of how well I did.
Yes, I have something in the works already called @getmyroi.
It is possible I will use a different bot with it, just depends on external factors.
.
It seems to me a very interesting good idea to avoid that the accounts are worked alone by bot at the end of each post place that would be good excellent work friend greetings congratulations
If you elect to opt out of the comment, then transparencybot reserves the right to downvote your post for disagreement of rewards.
Your 30 cent downvote is really going to hurt. Oh wait you have sockpuppet accounts I forgot. For someone named Transparency, you are anything but.
hi dear friend
how are you?
nice looking article