You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why is it possible to upvote your own post and comments?
I upvote my own votes and comments. I absolutely disagree that it is a fatal flaw. It is a way for me to decide to hold my steem power instead of sell it.
I respect your opinion and your right to say it, but I completely disagree. I do it all of the time, I also read and engage on the site, upvote others, promote others, etc.
I've been thinking about this a lot. And since I'm new, I'm still trying to figure out the best strategy for me. Seems like there are two conflicting schools of thought on this matter that essentially go as follows: yes, do it because it is allowed and ethical; and no, don't do it because it is unethical and selfish. The "don't do it" crowd always seems to be comprised of newbies.
But I think you're right, @whatsup - it seems like if you're also engaging with the rest of the platform, then there's nothing wrong with voting for yourself as well. It's your steem power and you can use it as you like, since there's no rule against self-votes. What matters is creating value, and that happens through several ways on this platform.
I just spent a sbd to promote a post, thinking it would land me a spot in the promoted section, which I then saw it translated into an upvote from the 'promoted' bot - so it looks like it was almost essentially the same thing as an upvote, except I spent sbd instead of steem power. I'm choosing to thank myself for the learning experience instead of kicking myself for spending money.
My school of thought is simply, why is it even possible?
Why is it possible to like your or reshare your own posts on other social networks? All that is different about Steemit is that actions on the network cost energy for the user, so there's an in-built rate-limiting mechanism. How that energy is used is up to the users? If you want to turn that money into energy, you can, but you don't have to. I think you're getting distracted by the dollar sign next to the upvote total. My recommendation is to focus on creating great content that people will want to upvote and share. Then you don't have to worry about how people are spending their Steem power because some of it is going to you.
I do not see how comparing other sites is relevant when other sites do not use a business model remotely close.
I am new to the platform, I have dove in head first adding content I feel would be valuable. I bought some steem to understand how this blockchain works. To see if this project is something I want to be a part of and something I believe has true opportunity to succeed. The reason I bring this up is not because I don't think it is fair, my point is meant to be ultimately the kind of content that will be created and the collaboration possibilities could be so much better if people did not even have the option for voting for themselves. Bringing more value longer term then could be imagined.
Steemit is a response to the business models of legacy social networks, so I think the comparison is entirely appropriate.
Your question is good one, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be asking it. And it's really great you're so enthusiastic about the platform. It's a really positive community to be a part of, and I think that's why we're all here - it's something different with a lot of potential. I think everyone's message though is that you've only been on a couple of weeks. Give it time, feel it out, figure out what works for you. How you vote is entirely up to you.
And with that, I just upvoted your sunset photography because it's really good. It's the kind of content I think builds value on this platform, and I hope to see more of it on here. Not seeing a resteem option, though, otherwise I'd share them to my feed as well. I'm also upvoting your post since I appreciate the discussion it's generated, so thank you. :)
Thank you. Imagine how much more powerful this platform could be if you could only give your votes. The focus would be much more on quality content creation. And for those with lots of Steem who do not want to create content, there are other ways they can invest their Steem in the platform, and those options would become equally as profitable as it is now for upvoting oneself. But with such a better focus on quality of content and the core value of positivity.
While I do think we have a major issue with quality content, I actually think it is for different reasons.
There are many accounts that do not log in, do not read, do not post, they just bot vote. (it is their stake, so I am okay with that)
I think the lack of meaningful interaction like what is taking place on this post is the reason the quality is dropping. Neither of us can prove it so thanks for an interesting conversation and for contributing to meaningful engagement.
I don't abuse it and I also get annoyed at people who do, but in the end it is up to each stake holder how to use their stake.
Part of the reason to invest and hold investments is the ability to create some ROI. It is an interesting discussion so thanks for your thoughtful answer.
Are there not ways to invest in content creators on Steemit? And those avenues would increase in profitability if votes could only be given, correct?