15 minute Curation Games Coming Soon?
https://steemit.com/steem/@penguinpablo/psa-changes-to-the-curation-rewards-in-hardfork-20
@penguinpablo recently made a post regarding a potential change to Curation Rewards coming in Hardfork 20. (The post was flagged out of visibility, but I thought it could create an interesting conversation.) While I support Bernie's right to use his stake how he wants to I think it is an interesting topic. Please check out his excellent post.
My thoughts on this potential change is that it is a good start. If it were up to me it would be reduced to an even shorter time period. What we have done has not discouraged bot voting and this will not change it much either. (in my opinion)
A business mentor I once had said, "Never inconvenience your customer for Internal Processes." It was a guideline I lived by when I managed a large customer service team.
If it were up to me voting would be based on "Natural Use" which would relate to how we expected an end-user would use the site. My guess is an end-user would go to their "Feed" or "New" or which ever filter they like and they would begin to read posts and vote accordingly. It doesn't make sense to inconvenience the "End User" for the sake of trying to stop bots and self-voting. The bots will adapt to whatever changes are made.
What are your thoughts on curation rewards?
@whatsup
I feel like things are happening that we have no clue about and all the people that do are taking advantage of the system . And anyone who is to find out , is spammed and tried to put down . It’s unfair but that’s how this paltform has been working . We need a better curation program
Well I am not a software engineer, but I assume it would be possible to make a bot that is set to vote on given posts after X amount of time. Therefore, I don't see why there's the 30 minute mark. Also, I have asked people on steemspeak why it is so, because it makes it less attractive to go in the new section and find quality posts. Now I can search the "new" section, find a post, then wait 30 minutes and then vote for it to get the most out of it. Maybe the curation reward curve shouldn't be based on when you vote in terms of time, but in terms of when compared to other users? Haven't thought it through, but just an idea.
To be honest I don't have a lot of thoughts about curation rewards even though I see everyone else around me talking about them.
I like the idea of manual curating but it's very time consuming considering I have two jobs and I love to write and post also.
I'm not sure how I feel about the auto voters either though and I'm definitely not sure how I feel about the bots.
I think it's one of those rare times when I'm really not sure how I feel about it.
I think it is perfectly fine to not have an opinion on everything. Too be honest, although I think it is pretty interesting topic, I will not be losing any sleep over it either.
The financial values of those who own the most Steem Power are already built into the blockchain, and I don't think "tinkering" will make much of a difference.
Since they are "tinkering" anyway, we might as well discuss it before it is set in stone.
Excellent article and this topic is always discussed. Of course, I only support real voting, that is, when a living person looks and reads a message, thinks over it and then votes or not. Bots are certainly convenient for someone, but in general it's a cheat and it must be eradicated. Thank you @whatsup
They can not and will not be eradicated, for one we do not have the technology, two we do not want to lose our large stakeholders. (my opinion)
nice post, well if that's true then it's fantastic change indeed and i think to judge a post whether it's good or bad 5 to 10 minutes are enough but they are reducing it to 15 minutes not bad and the good thing is that after the induction of this rule the curator's able to save lots of time too and then they have the option to curate more posts in a day, thanks for sharing this update with us, Stay blessed
I am really curious to see all changes. And you are right, bots will always be here, whatever changes will be made.
My opinion here is quite unpopular, as it would mean less profits for many people, not all of the, guilty of anything. I think a much smaller curation reward or possibly no curation reward would really curb a lot of bot abuse. I don't think it would effect the quality of material in any big way either because most people who see curation as their main role at steemit curate for their own gains rather than to help good material get seen. Curators would still have a place and the community would respect and upvote them more according to the quality of their curation. @ocd and @curie would still make money through curation through their posts.
I know this opinion is pretty unpopular as I saw in the replies when @meesterboom made a post on it, but I might as well put it out there. Hope no one throws a rock at me :-)
I made a negative post about bots once. lol... Unpopular views are important and I went through that phase also. During that phase I think I still thought we were trying to build a big social media site here. I no longer see that as the goal. No rocks here. :)
I am not saying your opinion is a phase, I am saying I can relate to the points you are making.
well what it is and what we want it to be may not be exactly the same, I just hope we can all have an influence on what direction it moves in.
and thanks for no rocks ;-P
change is good, but I do not think this is will do anything to stop voting bots. All have different opinion, for me Self voting is good since it will allow us to highlight our post's and helps get more attention from others. nevertheless one can argue my point against posting good content.
Cheers!
I am not opposed to either bots or self-voting.
Its like secureitysoftware, their is always a way around it haha :). however when we go down to 15 minutes inbstead of 30 our posts might get noticed quicker and by more not? Because it is stupid to wait 30 minutes or to have to scroll down to the post that are older then 30 minutes..
Automated votes will always find a window which is favourable to them. No matter how short or long we make it.
If we fully invert the cycle and give higher weight to the last votes, then autovotes will strike at 43,201 seconds before rewards are finalised (12 hours and 1 second).
There’s no way round acknowledging that, and to be honest it would be absolutely poor implementation if a bot operator wouldn’t find those sweet spots. If they couldn’t discover that with all (open source) tools available to anyone nowadays, they shouldn’t try to play game either.
As such, we may as just implement a 5 minutes 100% for author window and after that the default 75/25 matrix. Just so people who are sympathetic and want to give authors they love reading an extra boost can set a notification and actually check out the post first.
Oh that’s right... nobody does that anymore these days. It’s all about maximising the curation rewards.
I agree with you on the 5 minutes, on the bots adjusting and looking for sweet spots, so to hinder "Real Users" to try to play with the bots makes no sense to me.
I have no issues with bots. This whole system slash conundrum slash problem wouldn’t exist if we proceeded like grown ups, rather than always hide behind censorship, freedom, liberty of rules.
If it’s a bot, they should identify as such. If it’s a paid upvote service, let’s call a spade a spade say that it’s advertising. We can even design dedicated slots in the feed and the advertising networks/bots have their own bidding market.
Commercial bots shouldn’t get anything from the rewards pool (no creation, no curation involved if they’re merely promotion on demand). Pro bono/free services and/or bots could still benefit a share of the pool, but that would be capped daily and shared dynamically against what’s available at that exact moment. And obviously, it would be much smaller a share.
Wat many forget to understand is that bots do not look good when doing due diligence in the platform with a mid- to long-term focus. Those are the investors we want tho.
Steem has enough knowledge to come up with a both smart and sound solution and distribution allowing profitable cohabitation without possibly harming the ecosystem.
But bots aren’t seen as a threat.
Interesting and thought-provoking point about the paid bots should be a part of the reward pool. I am going to give this some thought as it was a slightly different perspective then I am used to considering.