Spreading voting and rewards out
There seems to be a common goal of spreading out votes and rewards and a misunderstanding how to go about it.
Thank you to everyone for their efforts whatever they may be with steem(it). Seems many may have a common goal of spreading out votes and rewards. Would like to attempt to not look at good or bad of matters as many are seemingly doing but rather to ask what consequences are there and how may they be lessened.
Spreading out Votes
Spreading out votes is being done manually and automatically by individual and groups of people and bots. Manual voting by individual people may be most appreciated for the human effort by humans. However some humans have made bots with their human and bot abilities with different human reactions to the resulting votes and effects. All these means are however spreading out more votes.
Spreading out Rewards
By voting we are all taking part in spreading out rewards. There seems too much disparity between the WHALE & minnow votes though. Smaller users have been grouping together and some bigger users have been spreading out their votes / voting power in some ways. Now recently there seems to be some experiment that may or may not be fully explained with controlled and uncontrolled variables to study some variable to come to calculated conclusions that may help understand how to improve voting and reward pool distribution.
Mixed Feelings
There seems to be mixed feelings from many of these learning changes. Some thinking there are rights or not rights to do certain things. Well everyone has equal right to do as they think. May these things right or wrong? I have no right to judge such. People are obviously seeing these many different approaches and results in different lights. Wonder if we may instead look at overall consequences to those involved more as a whole to better understand.
Voting as a means of sharing (STEEM) rewards
The voting function on its basic level is a means of distributing steem in relation to influence. We all have some impact with up and down voting. We all also have the right to up or down vote anything. We may not agree. But it appears many are working towards better voting practices as we learn together. The Reward Pool is still rewarded across the whole community as a result of everyone's content and votes. So let's all vote and produce content as we see fit.
Great to see people voicing their thoughts and listening to thoughts of others. Not so much with calling things right or wrong. Think most agree that the current curve using n^2 is too much and really hope to see this changed soon. This has allowed for too much power. Whales have absolute power and power absolutely corrupts. However many whales have been changing habits and improving the overall results in some ways.
Will think more on an idea I would like to mention that may help smaller STEEM power holders have a more recognizable influence. Of which I feel is important to growth and retention. While I understand a smaller influence. But an influence of seemingly ZERO (0) is very discerning and discouraging.
In closing I appreciate part of the effects of the current whale experiment and not others. Think whales and minnows are both learning from the experiment which is helpful in our growth of understanding in the beta phase of steem(it).
I have seen several posts regarding the same topic, so-called Whale Experiment. Personally, I have divided opinion about it. One thinking it might work. The other one haveing some more or less logical concerns. However, time will show.
But, what concerns me more than this on this platform is misusage of voting power. As first, we have only two options here: to vote (or not to vote) and to flag.
True downvote or dislike, in fact, doesn't exist!
From my understanding, to vote for something should be giving some kind of a reward to the author for something he/she published and we liked it for some reason.
As we don't have an actual option for downvote or dislike the only thing we can do in that case is not to vote and/or eventually post our comment explaining why we don't like it or disagree (what comments, on the other hand, may be counter-productive by giving that same thing we don't like more exposure through higher and longer activity on the same post).
Last, but certainly not the least, we have flagging.
From my understandings, this one should be used for the content that is violent, abusive or infringing.
But, it seems to me, some users (accounts) are misusing this option or simply don't understand it, using it as downvote or dislike "button".
Having that in mind, running an experiment in which accounts in whales category (meaning, with huge power and impact) would be put on hold for (up)voting, while at the same time those whales accounts would flag around, left and right - this experiment, from my point of view doesn't have the slightest chance!
I think most of your comment makes totally sense but you are relating all that to content - however this platform is driven by investors which have a natural interested in increasing their invest - hence content is a great to have but good content is not necessarily the one that gets the highest rewards.
I'm divided on the matter as well to some degrees. The "flagging" option is more than just flagging and also serves as a down vote function.
On one hand people may use these options however they so choose. On the other hand there does appear to be some consequences of certain use cases. Hopefully we may find solutions that will help to minimize such consequences and better learn to make the best of things together.
As it seems, and according to the post I just came across it wasn't just a "certain use cases" - it was another "experiment" or even almost the whole flagging movement!
Is something being lost in all the discussion about all rewards and votes?
I understood that the reason for voting on the platform was to use it as a mechanism to promote good content, not necessarily to spread out rewards. Isn't spreading out rewards just a second order affect, a reward for creating good content? Spreading out rewards does not necessarily increase the quality of the content or promote good content. At one extreme it will let users spam steemit to get a share of the rewards devaluing the system in the long run.
The reward value may be skewing the overall mechanism of things due to voting with more of the reward in mind than just the vote. We shall see where we go on our journey.
thanks for the addressing latest issue in the community.
what is your take on the 17th hardfork?
Leave the overall take to those with more knowledge to make such a take. But made a reply with part of my take here.
thank god jobb
This post has been ranked within the top 25 most undervalued posts in the first half of Mar 14. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $2.00 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.
See the full rankings and details in The Daily Tribune: Mar 14 - Part I. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in our initial post.
If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.
Excellent post! It was very eye opening. Where I am familiar with a great deal when it comes to Steemit, I appreciate the knowledge you shared. Learning is my insatiable desire that is both gift and curse, but today, reading your post has satiated that desire momentarily. I just need a pen for my notes.
Thanks and praise for the greatest gift life as to offer.
Greatest gift of life is life itself. Born two months premature and surviving through Meningitis and now Hydrocephalus with an insatiable appetite of learning I whole heartedly agree. :)