This does sound like a good initiative... although @thatsweeneyguy does make some valid points! (and I'm glad you two sorted it out at the end).... I'm all for greater equality but I wouldn't want people getting even three cents for making crap comments on crap content.
The imitative will work I think for now because you know most of the 'good minnows/ newbies' who are going to use it! In the future it could be open to abuse (albeit just dust abuse)...mind you maybe it just wouldn't be worth people's while at such small levels, also I can't imagine it would have a huge impact on the rewards pool, much less than the abuse at the top end.
Sounds like @danielsaori's worth a witness vote.
I'm half tempted to upvote his comment to the top of the list, above all the (IMO desevered) congratulatory ones), the discussion below is actually quite educational and worth a read.
Although I won't because, as he said, it did start off ranty, ouch, we've all done it.
Good work on the bot,
Karl.
Thank you for the even handed way of looking at this and for taking the time to write up a thoughtful reply! We are very aware that people might try to game the system, so we have some ways of monitoring things that we have already thought of... Your one point that is the most valid though is the utter smallness of the value... it would be hard to believe too many would try to devise a scheme that would yield them at best a $0.01.
And I also like that you read and liked the dialogue we had at the bottom... I do think it is good to have civil disagreements and I think we both will prosper from that exchange in the future!
Finally, I whole heartedly agree that @danielsaori is a great vote for a witness... I have seen him help newbies and minnows from the 2nd week I was on the platform! Have a great weekend Karl!
I just added him, I'm going to have a think also about how to publicize the whole witness thing a bit more effectively.... maybe a little strapline at the bottom of every post in the near future. It pains me to see Jerry above curie every time I look at that list.
Can I just double check one thing... I've just paid SBD1 (had to experiment with it) so does this mean if I get a $0.001 upvote from a newbie on a comment I make on a newbie's post, @dustsweeper will upvote that comment so I actually get the payout.... in which case it won't so much be newbs benefiting but the steemit 'middle class'. (There's also a small rep boost with every little upvote too I guess).
In which case it's a great way of motivating 'downward interaction' - sounds harsh calling it that, but I've got to admit, there is a temptation on here to engage in 'upward interaction commenting' - especially when I've had quite a few upvotes worth several dollars (one nutter upvoted one of my comments at $20SBD)....
Still, all in all it's a good thing, @dustsweeper I mean, not just commenting on the posts of the rich!
Possibly one of the biggest winners will be @dustbuster - assuming someone's got that account, there may be a few mistaken transfers, I keep wanting to call it that.
haha.. on your last point.. yes we thought of using dustbusters (with an s) and realized many might type it wrong... :P...
On the votes, they are ONLY cast on your dust... if you have dust, it will get upvoted... So while you have given me another idea of another project, I must inform you that your dustsweeper subscription will only take care of your dust... (ps... You can tell those that you interact with to set up an dustsweeper account and they will be paid on any small votes that you may cast)
I do like your idea of going downward interaction, I will give that some thought and see what we may be able to do with that brilliant idea! :)
Oddly enough I had my question answered when I saw @dustsweeper in action - works just fine.
Good point on the plural, it does seem kind of unnatural, and so ...sweeper is better.
Thanks for the support, Karl!
You are right about the functionality. Any of your posts/comments with an upvote value of less than $0.025 will be upvoted.
It is a good observation about the groups benefiting most from this programme. The honest answer is that I don't know. I guess it is not that black and white. But our feeling is that minnows are the ones with small votes, and they normally received many small votes from other minnows. That was the logic behind our statement.
I'm not really sure what you mean by 'downward interaction', you mean commenting on posts by smaller accounts?
If that's correct, I never thought of it in that way, but it's an interesting point. Getting big upvotes from a dolphin/whale would still be much more profitable. Also, minnows with less than 500SP cannot vote with less than 100% so it would limit the number of votes if someone would try to make a system out of it.
Hi - by 'downward interaction' I meant encouraging interaction with smaller accounts - basically because the more comments I (for example) make on smaller accounts, the more likely I am to get dust votes, at least with a dustsweeper subscription I guarantee myself some kind of reward!
It is tempting to go hunting after those big whale upvotes on comments, but this encourages much broader interaction I think.
It's a great idea,
Karl.