Is voting on the same authors time after time again the correct path to take for the platform to succeed in the long run?
No! Therefore I have suggested the idea of diminishing returns again: after each vote on a specific account (including ones own account) each further vote on the same account should lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account. Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before.
I actually like that idea a lot! But as @kenhudoy said, it should build back up to 100% strength with time. I guess kind of like our VP percentage builds back up. Isn't that great? The code's already there to copy!
Yes, sure, voting power should recover while not upvoting a certain account.
Interesting idea, I like it. funny I never thought of that idea
@jaki01
I agree but there should be a timeline to it...say upvoting same author or self more than 2 or 3 times a week...👌
Actually I would allow as many upvotes as one like, but every upvote is getting significantly weaker than the previous one in case it is for an account one has recently upvoted before already (similar like voting power decreases anyway if we upvote often - this decrease of voting power just should be faster for upvotes for accounts one has already upvoted ...).
And concerning a time frame: yes voting power of upvotes for accounts one has already voted for should recover over time, too.
The same would have to be for downvotes as well (because they have to work in equal measure) which means this could also be an anti-bullying method! I hope @ned and @sneak will consider it. I completely agree that it could be a great solution to the current issues of imbalance between self interest and the interest of the wider community.
The only problem that I see with it is that it may encourage people to use sock puppet accounts. The average user probably wouldn't go to the effort of creating 100+ accounts but those who are currently invested with only their self interest in mind would definitely take advantage any way that they can.... The only thing I can think of that would discourage that would be the cost of creating the account, and so it really depends on how much SP is held by the sock puppeteer to make it worth their while. Take the badger accounts for example... There are 70 badger### accounts all belonging to one user with combined power of around 60 million SP... They could take turns forever upvoting each other. Sock puppet account would need to be disincentivised in order for it to work...
good point... nice one...
lets keep steeming hot...
regards
Then what is the point of building up a following if your fanbase can't appreciate you? Some people only read two magazine others read dozens. Do we punish the two magazines because the customer doesn't want to read others? I don't think I follow the logic.
you making a good point... so what do you suggest is best option for such issue?
Perhaps the open voting system and curation model is imperfect to start with (with large numbers of participants for this reason) and with this pressure of it being devalued a new app on top will evolve, and this issue is us seeing the evolution in action. So I don't think tinkering with the base mechanics there will solve it; let it fail, and something better will come out and if it's working for the creators, then maybe that's the best curators out there...the bots.. and human curators were needed just to get steemit the push it needed to get started...are human curators chasing a dying industry?
Options? Ok. I would think that people will always pay for quality and stay away from spammy things. So first, I agree, I like the Patreon style for a high value curator.
An idea: Or maybe there's a way for a human curator to create a 'magazine' (lack of a better word, but you get the idea) or pay-wall hidden application that curates older well-written posts. For example, maybe I write 20 awesome posts over the year, and I made some money on them, but they're effectively disappeared from my feed now, so I can pay your magazine a fee to include them in your upcoming release of your next 'digest' so I get exposure to my personal profile. Or maybe I just buy advertising in it.
The issue I have with steemit, is that it's designed to always be now, now, now and no rewards for a great post later (unlike Youtube that continues to reward for views). So perhaps an older good-quality post can be included in a 'magazine' to bring me attention now.
my two cents.
(sorry for the duplicate post below, that was Steemit, not me.)
Then what is the point of building up a following if your fanbase can't appreciate you? Some people only read two magazine others read dozens. Do we punish the two magazines because the customer doesn't want to read others? I don't think I follow the logic.
Hmmm that is in the pity in the end, because often you still end up reading posts of the same writers, usually because the actually write material that intrigues you.
Self voting should be banned I think, absolutely no point in that
el articulo es interesante pero estoy mas deacuerdo a votos manuales solo hay que tener mas cuidado con quien votas el automatico da mas desventajas que beneficio