I wouldn't say biased, but being involved mostly with the art community here and elsewhere it means that this particular case was more likely to draw my attention and interest. But I've spent a bit of time today reviewing Hivewatchers last monthly report and I have a difficult time finding any "spam" reports that I would classify as such or see any reason for Hivewatchers to get involved. Yes there's people there recycling 4 year old posts and getting "caught." And the last one I looked at the post had earned .51 four years ago from 4 voters and the earnings on the repeat post were from completely different people which speaks to the fact that recycling previous content often puts it in front of a new audience. There are even Actifit users getting warned because they don't use a brand new photo when they pretty up each of their daily step counts.
The "social consensus" that's being placed on HIVE is quite opposite to how 99% of users interact with all other social media (fast, casual, low effort, high frequency, unoriginal content, etc.) and I think that shows in our stagnant userbase. It's also not a one size fits all approach that can and should be enforced across multiple websites and applications that may be designed with very different expectations in mind.
My position is simply that there are infractions that can be agreed upon much more readily. Identity theft, phishing attacks, vote buying schemes, and true spam in the form of automated mass commenting, etc. Those can be considered "laws", and I feel comfortable with a powerful entity like Hivewatchers enforcing them. Social norms should be left to individual communities, apps, and people to influence. In the real world I wouldn't want the police to get involved because I wore the same shirt to work three days in a row.
Lastly, if that no-repost rule is truly a consensus that was reached by the community, then it needs to be revisited at regular intervals because the community is changing and newcomers should be helping to shape the platform rather than be dictated to and told what HIVE is and how it's to be used. What was consensus a year and a half ago might not be now. So discussions (often arising out of complaints of course!) like these should inherently be a part of the platform, however whiny and irritating they may seem!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
As a curator I don't really agree that that's a rule that should be revisted and eventually allowed to happen because some people think so, not to mention because it happens on other platforms. It's hard enough to curate posts and giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're not attempting to abuse or all the other things you listed that are plain @hivewatcher material, because even those are hard to track often and there's many times some that get away for some time with it before they're found out. If manual curators would need to check each time for reposts and how much a post earned way back, etc, it would be a nightmare if such practices would be allowed. Not to mention how quickly it would become overwhelmed by many others and suddenly you'd have a repost fest ongoing with those who do often get a lot of autovotes or votes making the most of it - that's just how it is, many who do get autovotes tend to often degrade in quality and effort behind the posts too and make sure to consistently post daily to get those votes. Either way, I'm not against putting it up for a vote and seeing how many would actually think reposts should be considered okay to be curated again but I wouldn't just think it's many or judge the amount based off of comments in this post as it seems to have attracted many who either have had altercations with hivewatchers in the past and a grudge about it or have reposted themselves.