Curation needs to be more competitive with self-voting if we wish to game-theoretically incentivize socially-beneficial behavior. That may be difficult, but perhaps we can at least economically disincentivize the "bandwagon-curator" effect.
One of the core problems cited again and again by Steemit users is that many posts make high rewards based mostly on the assumption of high curation value, rather than on quality. Often, the "curators" haven't even read them, or aren't even physically capable of doing so, as they are bots (automated). Their point is well taken and nigh impossible to contest. This currently seems to be the optimal way to maximize one's curation rewards per unit of voting power, short of direct self-voting.
What we need to devise is a way to counteract the bandwagon effect that the current curation formula creates without punishing those users who legitimately post very high value posts. In other words, the maximal curation incentive should be supplied to the objectively highest quality content (of whatever niche), not by up-voting a digital Jersey Shore.
Further, if we are careful to stick to the scope of the curation issue, the problem is not how much the author is receiving in rewards, but the fact that curation is currently rewarded primarily by how much the author receives in rewards.
Ending the situation where rewards total is the sole factor in curation reward would allow attacking the curation problem without attacking the author, and hopefully quality would rise to the top.
In fact, an excellent system would make it highly profitable to unearth hidden gems on Steemit via curation.
I have a few suggestions for ways to start, and hopefully the community's programmers can take them and do much better. Note that when I use the term "target", I refer to the author of the post or comment being upvoted to curate.
This is the simplest to implement. You simply cap the amount a user can earn from curating a target, either by a flat amount or a formula relative to any number of factors. You could restrict curators to a "1% or .1% of total target author's lifetime rewards", or simply "X Steem Power per account". Any amount decided upon could be modified by curator Steem Power.
The logic here is that once an author has generated a certain amount of curation rewards for a user, they have probably already received the bulk of any other views/followers the curator will generate. Further resteems by this curator will go to the same subset of that curator's followers, leading to a decreased likelihood of exposing the post to new users since they may already be following the target from past resteems (or organically.)
Since the bandwagon effect will be reduced, the amount of curation rewards rewarded to legitimate curators should be increased. If necessary, a greater share of rewards for curation could be considered once the system is less game-able. Even going from 75/25 to 70/30 is quite material.
Being an arbitrary rule, this is going to occasionally work very poorly, unless a favorable formula can be found for a moving cap. Is the cure worse than the disease? However, one advantage this approach has is the requirement to be powered up to curate; this option can only be minimally gamed by sock-puppeting or delegation.
Alternatively, curation rewards could be capped by target account instead of by curator. In other words, once a certain number of curation rewards are paid out for a particular author's work (either total or time-gated), no more can be received.
Implement a second reputation score for curation. This could remain hidden to the user by default, like NSFW posts, or until a certain threshold score is reached, to avoid further bloating the interface for new users. Modify curation reward based on this score to encourage long-term thinking for curating quality.
The logic here is to allow far higher rewards from curation than would be feasible (due to abuse), but gate it with a higher curation reputation level. If implemented, curation reputation could be started at 25 for each account, or derived from other account factors such as reputation and age.
This would only work with some tweak to the curation formula currently in use to avoid simply furthering the bandwagon affect. If combined with option 1, a curation reward cap per target author, it could encourage far ranging curation to maximize curation reward. That reward could be increased at high curation reputation levels to justify the effort relative to self-voting game theory, which remains the baseline in terms of lowest effort.
Again, with this additional control on the curation system, material changes small enough for authors to support could be made to the author/curator split. 70/30 may be enough, 66/34 is the next step.
Slapshod alternative: Modify curation rewards by standard reputation (higher/lower reputation are both possible.) Reputation modification (adjustment/reset) will be controversial if deemed necessary.
In part two, I'll discuss my next several suggestions: modifying curation rewards inversely to author statistics, stake-weighted silent black-lists, and voting power refunds.
Thanks for reading, and please let us know your thoughts in the comments. In particular, if you have an idea for rewarding curation more without detracting from author rewards, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it!
Sources (part 1 + 2): KeepCalmAndPosters.com, Google, @dan, @teamsteem, @jerrybanfield, @dantheman, wethepeopletshirts.us, harvardlunchclub.com, Youtube
Copyright (part 1 + 2): Seinfeld, Reader's Digest, Jersey Shore
Nice! Agreed:)
Honestly, I think this goes back to what I was talking about in regards to the platform being catered to blogging mostly. Because of this, finding good content becomes a task, redundant, and can be quite boring. It's like doing taxes after awhile because everyone's post is set up the same and it's hard to make a distinction between posts. Kind of a roll of the dice until you get to learn to recognize perhaps certain users among the list that you know will give you something interesting to read or watch. So STEEMit needs a bit more diversity to allow for different types of content to have different types of lenses if that makes sense. Watchin how many people sway away from simply blogging then. It's the task Lex, in my opinion of how we ingest the content. By the way...tune in for the #rapchallenge. You said you would come check it out if I enter. Well it's about to be a slaughter, ya don't want to miss this Saturday.
I'll make a point of it. Where and what time is it being held?
I agree, content organization is a big problem. I think much of the platform is dormant now. I'm noticing little activity in my blog, overall. Votes seem to be down. I have a few regular patrons and aside from them I don't seem to take in any new audience, at least not any that are voting with stake.
I've been averaging about 3 new followers for post. I'm not sure that's a good thing, since I bet I am losing that many to dormancy (dead followers) each day.
The unique page views continue to go up while the alexa rank continues to go down. I see more links to Steemit on Reddit as time goes by. The technology is very sound. Here's hoping it's just a slow period.
Very good read brother as you brought up many valid points of on going issues with the curation rewarding system. The fact that you not only have got grievances against what you see an issue, you also provided a solution as well. This speaks volumes on your character as a whole. Thanks for sharing this great read and I will gladly resteem this one @lexiconical. I agree that the bots are sucking he reward pool dry as they are the first to comment and upvote post when they are posted.
#circleoffriends
Thanks slick, I appreciate your vote of confidence!
As geechi has pointed out in my comments as well, finding content on this platform is a huge chore. I wish they would just organize it more like Reddit, but they must not want to do so.
Failing that, we've got to figure out some way for people to locate and disseminate quality content. At the moment, the platform feels very quiet. There are not a lot of votes and comments happening, relative to a few months ago.
I think it's too much of a chore to use the platform to find good content at the moment.
Really good to see some thought being put into this. I think the curation reward should perhaps be inversely proportional to the authors reputation and/or followers. I am sure many minnows with lower rep and followers would be happy to share larger piece of the pie with someone unearthing their talent and increasing exposure with helpful curation (investment). While those with high rep and mass of followers don't really need curation.
Ah, I see you've seized upon an idea I've already written into part 2:
"In part two, I'll discuss my next several suggestions: modifying curation rewards inversely to author statistics,"
Reputation was the first author statistic that came to mind.
Sorry, I did not intend to steal your thunder :)
Not at all! I didn't mean it as a bad thing.
Let me know what you think of it, I posted it earlier.
I dont know if this would have much effect, but if I'm doing it others might also.
I'm on steemit on my phone weekdays as much as I can sneak in. (Sneak meaning between machine loading intervals not hiding from my boss lol)
Anyway, I have resteemed articles that I've wanted to come back to later at home to actually read them. Most times I've upvoted them after I read them, but I resteemed because it's the easiest way to bookmark so to speak.
I try to minimize doing this for my followers sake, but if I do it I'm probably not alone.
"hiding from my boss"
You'll find no judgment for that here, friend.
I wouldn't recommend resteeming anything you don't think is high quality. The #1 reason I unfollow people (until I just mostly gave up on keeping up with my feed) is too many resteems of bad articles.
I agree with you @lexiconical. Minnows are learning from the whales that Resteeming has value. I've seen some Steemians with zero creation and loads of padded curation. By padded I mean a range of posts with the potential high-dollar payouts.
While I understand your frustration, I do believe the regulation of such will fall under the designer's original plan to let Steemians steer the ship. It becomes clear when people gamishly resteem posts. I could live with putting a cap on the number of curation rewards offered. And, I certainly could live with blocking bots from the curation pool.
As it stands, Resteeming is a perk, and for me, added fun to see if a new post gains momentum. Of course, some are already steeming, and well, IF it is a good post, then resteeming is icing on the cake.
I think for now, those who operate from an unethical place eventually reap their reward/penalty. If they aren't really creators, and SUDDENLY the rules of the platform change, making it an algorithm-based reward based on meritorious they will find the well of the game drying up. Just a thought. It will all work out. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I'm resteeming this post...Hope it's okay.
Peace.
Of course, you are always free to resteem.
As sherlock continues to point out, everything does not "work out", unfortunately. "Crime" still pays:
https://steemit.com/spaminator/@sherlockholmes/case-9-the-ecoworld-conspiracy-identifying-4-766-1-accounts
"Dart's wallet currently holds 11,850.794 STEEM, and looking through their transfer ledger, a whopping 67,608.546 STEEM have already been extracted, mostly through poloniex."
"total damage so far: 79,459.340 STEEM !!"
"and some 5.748 SBD just to be precise."
@lexiconical I have a nervous tendency to inwardly lol when something seems this...smh...no word for it...maneuvering?
As I read this, while smh...I realize it's that rare occasion where sadly, 'ignorance' is bliss, and knowing the value of keeping your eyes on the road, managing your own lane, is a cure for frustration...I know it's not funny; but, well, I explained at the start the reason for this literal, outward...LOL!!!!
Peace!
Ignorance is often bliss, much more than we'd expect!
Oh dear goodness, that thought could cause a panic attack (lol)... Smh...I really would prefer to know...The opportunity for wise choices comes from knowledge. I've seen, perhaps even been apart of the ignorance model...and I assure you...NOT REALLY...Give me the truth. I will learn to deal with it, eventually :+)!
Quit showing me bot's,you created a monster!!@originalworks,tipu!
That is a great tip!
Thanks bud!
Hahaha great clip. I hear you. Thanks
Hi @lexiconical! You have just received 0.1 SBD tip from @tbnfl4sun!
send tips with @tipU | earn interest in @tipU profit
I agree, I think there needs to be a cap, rep factor, sliding scale... something along those lines. I just thought this morning that all red fish and/or minnows should be polled about what changes are recommended. Look, I'm not jealous of whales and dolphins, I know they've put in their time. Yet when you look at the number of inactive users, something is not connecting, noobs feel it's too difficult to find their way. There needs to be more of a middle ground and thank goodness for curation projects reaching out. Peace / Upvote / Resteem !!
I think one of the main reasons for minnow disengagement is their perception that they can write a post (whether it be low or high) quality and have it be under-rewarded. In fact, it's almost a certainty.
"Perfect" curation would mean posts received rewards perfectly in-line with their quality. This itself would be "repressive" to those who adjust their votes based on personal relationships and preference (ie. almost all of us).
There's a middle ground between here and there that we really need to locate.
Great article ,provokes intuitive thinking.Nice work.
Thank you, Tinashe.
Definitely worth an upvote and a resteem :)
I appreciate your faith in putting my article in your blog. Thank you.
reSTEEMed
Thank you very much!
thank you!!! very useful @lexiconical !!! upvoted and followed you!!! :D
You can also follow me for daily motivation, inspiration, and tips on life and business!
Thank you for your support!
Good content. Whale done! Whalereward is going to be a curator of good content only.
Thank you, whalereward.
Nigh impossible to contest. Makes no sense, type error?!
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nigh
"Nigh is an old-fashioned word that can be used as an adjective or adverb to mean near or nearly. Something that is nigh impossible — like knitting a sweater in one night — will be very difficult to accomplish."
I see. Thank you dear. Very interesting post... I will take the time later to post my thought about it.
I look forward to it.
@originalworks
@OriginalWorks Mention Bot activated by @lexiconical. The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @lexiconical to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
For more information, Click Here!
great