Are Upvote Bots Necessarily the Enemy of Quality Content?
The debate rages. Upvote bot services. Are they necessarily the enemy of quality content; a sign that Steemit will become flooded with low quality garbage posts? Harmless, or do they signal "the end" of original content? What do YOU think?
What do you think?
@personz, I think they harm the overall credibility of Steemit as a social content venue... and they discourage both sincere quality content AND authentic engagement.
It may be a non-causal correlation, but I have been watching the metric of "average number of comments per top level post" decline, as the number of upvote and resteem services have increased.
That's a double whammy. If you consider the fact that upvote bots leave thousands of automated comments and number of comments per post is STILL down? Then the number of HUMAN comments per post must really be taking it in the shorts.
I find that really problematic because it takes HUMANS to build communities, not bots. Is it "harmful?" I suppose that depends on whether the Steemit social front end is "valuable" in the greater context of the growth and stability of the Steem token. If Steemit is just a "sideshow" in the greater ambition to rule the world through SMTs, maybe this whole argument doesn't matter. On the other hand, if we still harbor hopes that Steemit could be a viable decentralized "facebook alternative" then some changes will need to happen or we'll end up dead in the water.
I just didn't want to let you away with only asking questions 😉
I think the correlation (if it's there) is not to be presumed to be causal either. I do consider auto-comments to be spam if they don't provide some useful information, but that's for each to decide, if you can post a comment at all it means you're entitled to by your bandwidth allotment, bot or not.
It does take humans to build communities but I think a fact that's often neglected is that humans are the creators of and user of bots. They just do something we can do but automated. This is especially true for Steemit where the blockchain makes no distinction between human and bot users.
Still, I think that vote buying is harmful to the project as a whole because it looks really bad from an outside perspective. I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard fresh claims that Steemit is a scam because of it. But unfortunately we have to roll with that, and in a way that's just outsiders not understanding that everyone here is free to do such stuff, ill-advised as it may be.
For me the real issue is that curation is not valued well enough on it's own so people turn to these services. I agree with @blocktrades in this post: Change the 30 minute Rule to 5 minutes and restore 50/50 rewards
On SMTs, I really hope Steemit does not become the sideshow to them, but if it happens so be it, we all roll with the changes. Bots will factor into those too.
One of the very first issues I raised here after joining Steemit in January was this:
"What are you guys going to do about the inevitable horde of 'squatters' who will move in by the 1000s and set up camp here for NO OTHER REASON than to use the platform as a giant coin dispenser through whatever forms of spam and automation they can bring to bear, completely burying legitimate content in the process?"
Not a popular thing to say, alas. HAD SOMEONE said "Oh, we have countermeasures in place" or even "the community will self-regulate that" I would have been OK with it, but it was the utterly naive "Oh that will never happen (here)" feedback that made me worried. Before I even got significantly started.
My question was back by twenty years for watching content-for-rewards sites go down in flames for little more reason than the founders of each venue pathetically underestimating the sheer of greed in human nature that will drive thousands and thousands of people to go to almost any lengths to extract half-cents from web sites in lieu of actually going out and getting a job. To wit: sites like Amazon's "Mechanical Turk" have over half a million users registered for the opportunity to make two cents per supermarket receipt they transcribe... operating fully in the belief that their activity (which earns 20 cents a day) constitutes making money online. NATURALLY, they will flock to a venue like Steemit with all guns blazing, seeing this as no more than a huge cash cow.
Jeebus! Wake the frak UP, people! Smell the reality. "Because we're on the blockchain" is not a magic pill that exempts anyone from the roots of human nature, it merely ensures that said "human nature" is perpetually recorded on the blockchain.
/end soapbox
But yeah, I also agree with @blocktrades that 50/50 curation and ending that 30 minute clock might be a positive for manual curation... or at least it would serve to make manual curators feel a little less disadvantaged.
Footnote: perhaps that's the part of using zappl to throw out questions for debate I don't like... there's no room to share our own opinions, except in comments. But thanks for asking!
Yea I'm only joshing you 😉 But I am still waiting on the post or series of posts describing your experience with the sites you have knowledge of doing a similar thing to Steemit and how that blew up. Don't think I forgot 🖐
And I still have that sitting in my drafts folder... I should finish it and put it out there... I never felt "senior" enough around here to throw what amounts to a "you're all fücked, I told you so" post out there.
And then there's the reality that the only "for rewards" sites that survived and thrived did so because there were LOTS of rules and restrictions and "zero tolerance" policies in place. Which is counter to the Steemit ideal of freedom and non-censorship.
It is not any good at all. It destroys the value of the posts because they are meant to be read and shared.
That says it quite simply and accurately... but for many it seems like Steemit is NOT a "social site," but rather a glorified "cash dispenser." Which I find sad...
to be honest....I have never been as confused, also frustrated and demotivated as I am now and I am here for quite some time as you know.
Sometimes, I feel the same in reality about "people" as well.
Anyways, I think the platform would be more interesting without votingbots.
I have been watching them for a while... and what I found a little sad the other day was clicking on a post that seemed like it had a somewhat active discussion (by number of comments) only to discover that the author had "created" 11 comments simply by virtue of ordering a bunch of mechanical upvotes.
So here's this very mediocre piece of content with 11 bot comments and only TWO (both spammy) human comments... and $7.00-ish worth of rewards no human would likely have given it.
As a HUMAN, using this as a content publishing venue AND social platform, that's discouraging.
I agree!! Wish those bots go away, or at least be used only by a third party, like @curie or "steemstem projects.
For me, that would be cool in the sense that it is in keeping with the ideal of Steemit as a "gift economy," if someone ELSE gifts me a bot vote. That's cool. Maybe they don't have enough SP to leave the sort of "tip" they'd like to, so they summon a bot (let's say) to give a brilliant piece of content a $1.00 upvote. I'm good with that.
So sure, that's "open to abuse" because people could create multiple accounts and "cross vote," using bots. But at least it might be SOME deterrent.
You got it !!!
1+1
😉
Despite those abusers, it probably would be much fairer for sure!!
It would be more fair I think.....
Yes. For me, this only applies to those bought upvoting bots. Sometimes I want to create my automatic voting bot to support those constant good content creators because I don't have time to see what everyone is posting everyday...and there's also the voting power question, I don't want to lose much of it. This has been my struggle this past months...
All of OUR struggle indeed!
I actually feel exactly the same way @mammasitta hence my long comment underneath yours...lol
I have 1 whale who put me on his bot and very thankful for this but I still believe if NOBODY would be allowed to use auto voters it would be so much more exciting and fair.
I am reading your comment now.
Since the last hardfork people have stopped voting. It was as if the whole platform just changed suddenly. We put in the same effort as previously but with much less rewards. I have a bot on people that I trust and then I vote 10 other posts per day manually. If more people could do that then they will look at bigger rewards. I have chosen the people very carefully over the last year and none of them are fly-by-nights just trying to make a buck or two. Most of the writers I support is in it for the long run and I honestly wish more people could see it this way. I have also chosen people that posts one post per day that won't drain my voting power instantly. It has been working well for me and I check their content daily so there is no chance of me voting rubbish. I am not always on steemit so if I skip a post by accident I know it is still voted and they still have my support. I might be stupid but I have a sense of responsibility towards people that I've known since I joined the platform, but that is just me. I have removed plenty of people because they just simply do not support me anymore and nothing changed with my content.
changed for the very very very worse......
In life the harder you work the easier it becomes...here it is the opposite. The harder you work to create good original content the more difficult it becomes...ha ha ha...
@giantbear, that's a superb analogy, right there!
Hadn't thought of it quite like that, but it's so very true.
I applaud you for doing that... my voting and curation remains 100% manual, which sadly means there are sometimes some great content creators I don't get around to, all the time. But I just believe that a social content site is about people, not about automation. Now, if everyone used an upvote bot with as much discernment as you, maybe we wouldn't have issues... I'd like to think so.
The other thing I try to make a point of doing is to curate my own content. Since I create a lot of posts around the idea of "engagement and interaction" it would make no sense for me to not come back and respond to interaction. Whether that "earns rewards," or not. Engagement is a two-way street...
I am bothered by the use of bots. People are engaging less and letting the bots upvote and make automated responses in the comments. Some accounts have been churning out sub par posts and I feel it is just for the monetary rewards not for the fun, enjoyment and exchange of ideas that engagement can bring. Just my two cents worth.
And I will gladly reward you with 11 cents for your two cents' worth!
Alas, I think it leaves us looking at the great divide of Steemit... those who are here because "Steemit is a great social content site that happens to pay" and those who are here because "Steemit is a giant cash dispenser and I would still be doing this if it involved making tacos."
I hope we are wrong and that once the dust settles thing will be as they should be.
When I first heard about these buying votes I find it very cool and I used it a couple of times to give an extra votes to some friends who had a lot of work posting and that wasn't being enough rewarded. I used it two or three times for my posts, usually those that make me spend 2-3 hours and doesn't reach 4-5$. Now I stopped, I realized those buying votes are being used to support also shitty posts, and I can no longer contribute to that.
I won't give my SD to those groups anymore. So yes, I agree that upvote bots are the enemy of quality content. In a perfect world those bots would only be used by manual curators, like the @curie project (I don't know how is it working nowadays, but one year ago it helped me a lot).
In its earliest incarnation, I used randowhale (I think?) a couple of times, simply out of curiosity... actually got an $11 upvote once, but that was long before we hit "maxium saturation."
Even though it felt like a nice boost, I decided it felt wrong... like writing a book, and then pretending it was "selling well" by going to the bookstore and buying copies of your own book.
That example reminds me of our ex- prime minister Socrates, he actually did it (send someone else to buy his books). Next time I felt tempted to buy a vote, I'll remember of him...it will be a great stopper for me (he was arrested for a couple of months, not for the books, but for corruption).
I agree!
I started using steemvoters but my VP drained too fast and then I had to wait for 2 days to refill. I curate mostly manually again. Sometimes I use @buildawhale but for the fact that I am on this platform for over 1.5 years its kind of a joke that I am buying such votes.
I used @randowhale, @booster and at last @buildawhale (about 2 weeks ago)...this last time I felt bad. Whish I had brought this subject in SteemFest, I would like to know what witnesses, @ned and Steemit.Inc thinks about this.
Vote bots are an unnecessary evil. For me the bots here should have another function, like protecting accounts against password theft, hackers, scammers and spammers.
Yes @jsantana, there are definitely good uses for bots... cheetah, spaminators, steemcleaners and so on. And bots are also OK as used by manual curators to "fetch" a reading list of new posts from "trusted" content creators.
Best case if it falls under what you’re asking is two positive experiences I have had.
First being, I was brand new. Made my first post, it was dreadful. A very kind women bought me an upvote. A way of saying “welcome to our community.” I did not know the person at the time, and I sometimes still read and try and get caught up on her blogs when I can. I think they can empower people who read a blog and they see its worth next to nothing add value beyond what their own voting power is worth by buying an author a upvote.
Another time I was still rather new, wrote a very long and detailed blog in gaming for a certain game. Someone from a closed community read it and like it enough to share it with others in that community. That community then used their upvote bot to give my blog a massive boost in rewards. Put me on treading and I had an insane amount of comments and votes.
There are certain cases where if something is done in not a so greedy fashion that certain things can have great benefits for the platform.
Upvote services that favor newer and possible “up and coming” authors that write good quality content can help the select few they find gain the needed traction to raise above the weeds and be noticed.
The issue lies when something can be continuously without restraint is used for personal gain. It’s like a corrupted official who spreads his corruption by getting more and more people in on it. Forcing those who want to compete to have to pay the higher price in both ethics and financially just to be on an even playing field.
What is interesting about those experiences is that they are in keeping with the idea of Steemit as a "gift Economy." Someone else bought the vote FOR you. And that's cool!
The problem we seem to be facing here is an increasing tendency to create garbage posts nobody's otherwise read or interact with... and then paying a dozen services to upvote them. Essentially... "paying oneself for empty content." Maybe we can argue that it is "allowed" as the code is written... but I question the validity of that if the result is that the site pretty much sinks into obscurity and real content stops being created.
This is where the discussions of the large stake holders delegating their SP to active manual curators instead of upvote services sounds interesting. I have nothing against the idea of upvote services if they were used like your experiences describe. But when they are just to line one's own pockets as a reward for garbage? Not good.
What I find interesting about it is these services are making a nice profit from it. They don’t have to worry about upvoting “good” content because they are being paid more than they would have earned from upovting anyway.
Is it a good deal for person buying the upvote though? Even more so when there are group of people who will report spam garbage and get it down voted if they can?
I’ve tried some services out before when I was newer here. I was not a fan. Pay now for a possible reward in 7 days. Unless it gets you a bunch of attention in upvotes its was at the time near breakeven.
I once cost a spamming group over hundreds of dollars in upvotes over a months’ time. I found their garbage I contacted people on discord who I know had the voting power to deal with it. Not only did that person lose money they actually spent on buying upvote on their spam comments but they also had purchased a large sum of steem as well that the accounts where upvoting each other’s comments. After several weeks of being inactive the person tried again on same accounts. This time waiting closer to payout. While they did get some payouts most where downvoted in time.
On top of that Steem also decreased a significant amount from when they bought it. Unless they been waiting around not only are they going lose thousands of dollars in their investment decreasing but it’s also now tied up for what 13 weeks? What a loss in opportunity costs. You also have to keep in mind the increase in BTC that they spent on Steem in the first place.
Wish I had saved where I wrote down the names. Would be interesting to see if they ended up cashing out or if they had to keep trying again to recover.
One of the interesting things about the entire field of cryptocurrencies is that they are very "new" and a lot of the players in this industry are also "new" to investing. And when you're not a skilled and seasoned investor, it's very easy to get stars in your eyes and be lured in by the attractiveness of "fast money." And I totally empathize with that...
"Wow, I can make $2000 a week leasing out my SP!"
That looks like an amazing deal to someone whose previous entire experience with money was perhaps working at Circuit City for $14/hr. But it doesn't really work that way... because if you had that easily made $500,000 and you're making $2000 a week, and by the end of the year the principal has declined in value to $250,000 you really lost. Big.
I can't help but think that many of our woes here are directly tied to "short term thinking," both on behalf of posters AND curators.
I don't sit here looking at my rewards "for each post," I just hope some amount will be added to my SP balance and then I focus on what I can do to help the value of Steem increase over the next 5-10 years to where-- hopefully-- we'll all wake up one morning in 2023 and celebrate that Steem passed $100 per coin, overnight. And that my 8300 Steem I slowly accumulated is now worth $830,000. To me, THAT is "investing." But it requires a very long time frame... which is increasingly scarce in our twitter-dominated world.
It is always interesting seeing people chance small gains with large sums of money; instead of, chancing large gains with small amounts of money.
Hardest part for anyone is looking at opportunity cost and risk factor. Even these very short term or long term guys they will never know when to stop. If they cash out since they are new to investing they will kick themselves because OMG bitcoin just went up 20% I could had more money and buy right back in. Same can go for people who want take long term approaches. Far too many people look at the retirement age and go “that when I move over to lower risk investments and start spending.” Sadly that investment strategic failed quite a few many. Even more so when they get to retirement age like some relatives of mine and can’t accept the lower returns and then lose it all.
While long term I do hope Steem does hit $100 a coin that’s not something I need wait around for. Yes, in terms of investing turning 1$ worth of invested into $100 per coin in 10 years is amazing. Even with me down powering and cashing out some Steem at around $1.15 when I did a few days ago I’m fine with it going back up to $1.50 as it was last night. Even if Steem hits $15 each by end of next year I’m still better off doing what I did with the small amount I’m falling short on. Granted that still be great since I will still have a bunch of Steem and hope to earn lots more by then when I have the time.
Granted what my plans are and what actually occurs is all part of investing and taking risk long term. I just fear most people who get into cryptocurrency get money signs in their eyes and pass up on other opportunity as they try and chase down the great gold rush of cryptocurrency. Granted for even an above average person the kind of returns people can get on cryptocurrency far surpasses what they could do elsewhere.
Upvote bots reward crappy posts and often get the curation reward as well. There are a lot of variables but the bots enable this instant reward no matter what you post. This in turn hurts the steemit gift economy. You are paying for something that is free and letting the bot have the curation.
Ah yes, the Steemit gift economy... which was always one of my favorite concepts here. Bot upvotes remind me rather of writing a book, and then going to the bookstore and buying 100s of copies of your OWN book in order to make the best seller list and earn more royalties. It just feels bass ackwards.
I agree!
Tune into my interview with carlgnash tomorrow. We talk about this very thing.
Ep 1... Ep 2 ...Ep 3
Short form content is the web now. If it brings value to people is it garbage?
@zappl, appreciate the comment... coming on a post launched from your platform!
I would submit that this short form post DID create value-- as it generated interaction and had 50+ comments. So that's on the plus side.
But we also have to look at the "signal-to-noise" ratio. Does someone who posts an endless stream of every bite of the taco they are eating "add value?" Or is that just noise/static?
Things don't have value simply because "they exist."
Zappl is somewhat modeled on twitter. I use twitter. But twitter is also home to millions of people who claim to have "100,000 followers" none of whom ever read or interact with a single one of that user's 500 daily tweets. Does that ocean of 256-character word soup have "value?" Translated to Steemit, would that just amount to so much "dust" on the blockchain?
NOT a criticism, by the way... just a question in the discussion!