The people who do not 'like' do so because it serves no purpose not because they are not paid to do it.. If a like gave author a few cents a lot more people would use it.
You don't see many people with umbrellas on a sunny day right, now bring in some rain and people will use umbrellas because suddently it has a purpose.
Would more people use umbrellas on a sunny day if you paid them to? I am not sure.. and if they did it would look fake as fuck much like the voting system here.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Exactly. That's why I'm saying if people had an incentive to like or upvote something, they'd do it. Most people on youtube simply forget to hit the button. Would you consistently forget your change at the cash register?
Using an umbrella on a sunny day is stupid, because it's not raining nickels, nor dimes.
My point was that you don't need incentives for people to do thing that have a purpose.
I think my analogy was incorrect which created the confusion.
I should have said : People will use umbrellas on a rainy day regardless if you paid them or not to do it, because it serves a purpose.
If the like button served a purpose there would be no need to pay people to use it.
Snowflake. If people who sit on their butts all day in front of the computer were paid to enjoy their form on entertainment, more people could afford umbrellas.(Just having fun!)
Did you read my restaurant analogy? It's around here somewhere. Those incentives are a proven business model. You're trying to tell me that coupon for a free turkey after purchasing $100 worth of groceries doesn't lure people to the store to spend $100 they may have spent elsewhere or not at all. Incentives work. Yes, people will still buy food, even on rainy days without an umbrella and if that's the case, they may choose the store with the closest parking spot as their incentive to shop there.
I mucked up the nesting... there's a response waiting near by.
Ok so what are you trying to achieve with curation rewards, people curating or people earning more reward? Because your analogy works only for the latter. The free turkey only forces them to buy a specific product ( upvoting a specific post) but it doesn't incentivize them to go to the store to buy food( something they would have done regardless)
I'm suggesting people earn reward by curating and removing the problems that encourage simple upvoting for the sake of reward. I'm suggesting an incentive for people to actually come and see this great community and content within and be rewarded, like everyone else, for taking part.
When I first started here, a culture was brewing. As automation took over, the culture slowly started to die. The incentive should be there. Reward the authors, pay them with this simple click that also pays you! Read what @seablue had to say here. I wholeheartedly agree with what was said there.
How do you remove these problems while keeping curation rewards ? In other words how to incentivize people to vote for quality content instead of high paid content when you have curation rewards?
By being an all around fun person who people want to know and be with.
Also, people should learn to vote responsibly. We can't blame the vehicle for hitting the tree when the driver put it there. You seem to want to cut down all of the trees, instead of educating the masses about the dangers they pose.
It doesn't work like that, if there is an incentive to vote in a specific manner people are going to vote this way.
Those trees you speak of bring nothing positive to the platform so why not cut them all down?
Educating the masses? Ok so there is this feature that you can earn money with if you upvote stuff but be careful, only use it to make little money do not abuse it. Yeah right :)
Majority of the people who vote for me, whether it's automated or manually, enjoy my work. I did something right to get their attention. Now they can't wait to see what I'll do next. I appreciate their efforts. They come to my comment section and we all have a blast. It's a nice yard with a lot of shade. Why do you want to come to my yard and make it ugly? I enjoy giving back to these people.
If there is a specific manner that allows people to vote in a fashion that doesn't seem like it's good for business, make adjustments. If I have a leaky roof, I'll fix it. Replacing a leaky roof before testing to see if it can be fixed is counterproductive.
You keep saying there is specific problem, and I can agree. So why not address that issue? You can see it, you know what it is. If you can pinpoint the problem, a solution shouldn't be too far away.
If incentives don't work, why are saying people are voting in a certain way because there is an incentive to do so. Why not change what is so appealing into something else which is also appealing, while learning from the mistakes in the past...
This is my quote
I am not trying to replace the roof, else I wouldn't have asked you how to repair it...
I've thought about improving curation reward but it's very difficult to incentivize people to vote for what they like instead of what the post will earn.
I don't really see how to improve the current curation rewards system because it is already very good at what its doing and every abuse problem has been thought out, but it is still a burden because the incentives are bad.
At this point the best would just be to give a fixed curation rewards to active voters ( say 30+ vote per day) in proportion to their steem power.
EDIT : Actually even a fixed reward is stupid as it would incentivize bots to vote which means a lot of the stake will be used by bots.
What we want like @timcliff said is a system where real active users are rewarded by having a bigger influence. ( since no more bots will be voting)
What are these rewards worth if everything is set up to vote for a handful of successful creators. One thousand auto voters distributing 40000 votes to the chosen ones based on previous success dictated by the previous round of auto votes. Ignoring the newcomers because there's no profit today while slowing but surely watching their investment diminish and not understanding why. If those abusing the reward system found out they are actually doing more harm to their investment than good, do you think they would change?
They got the memo about easy curation rewards. I don't think they saw the one about where it leads.
Find a way to boost curation rewards on lower reputation accounts as an incentive to change things up from time to time. Make them hunt. As reputation rises, so does SP for that user, curation rewards slowly diminish on high reputation accounts, but those users make up for the losses by being able to earn higher curation rewards due to being well established. People will still vote for higher rep accounts even if the curation rewards are slightly lower. Finding a promising noob is a curation reward in itself, for everyone, right?
That would be one problem with it, aside from the coding end, of course (can it even be accomplished -- I don't know).
One solution, from the content creator's end, is to adapt to the system. In the case of sharing photos, the author could write a few paragraphs detailing a bit of the story around how the picture(s) came to be and/or what the picture(s) means to them, etc. As to the comic, well, maybe this isn't the platform for that, if money is the main incentive? But, again, they could add in other things to lengthen viewing time.
Also, and I know this isn't ideal either, viewers (content curators) may decide to wait out the time limit on a post, out of respect to its quality.
Perhaps something like 1 minute, or even 30 seconds, would work better as the time limit. That way people aren't forced to sit idly on a short-post that they think deserves a 100% upvote and bots can't cast 30 100% upvotes in the span of 10 seconds.
EDIT:
Another possible solution is to set different time limits to different lead-tags. The limit could be set at something like 5 ~ 10 seconds for everything with "photography" as the first tag and vary anywhere from 5 seconds to perhaps several minutes, depending on the average length of other posts under those same tags. But talk about going as far north from K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) as possible! Plus, this type of system might lead to a new way to game -- focus on the small time limit tags.
@snowflake
A few months back I suggested considering "time account spends on X post" as part of the voting calculation.
So the voting calculation could be something like:
(SP of account, factoring in current voting power) * (time spent on X post) * (1/0: upvote or not?) * (voting slider value: this is where we would state whether the read was worth the time spent)
...and we can give every X time interval spent on a post some incremental value of 1, until the time limit is reached (we could settle on 5 minutes, or 300 seconds, as a 100% vote by time and split up the measurement in 5 second intervals, such that spending only 5 seconds viewing an article only casts a 5/300 {1/60} time weighted vote in the above calculation)
This way people are somewhat punished for voting on content that they don't like -- they would have to spend at least 5 minutes with their browser stuck on a post that they don't like (or 10 minutes, or whatever value we determine to be the time limit) in order to cast a 100% vote on it.
If we could somehow code accurate account viewing time per post where the first post opened is the ONLY post on which the time measurement happens (UNTIL that post is voted on or the post is closed out of), then I think we would make gaming curation through bot-voting much more difficult to achieve AND better incentivize voting on things that we like vs. on things that we believe will be popular with others.
So this would reward people based on the time they spent reading it? And you would calculate the average of all people who viewed the post to determine its popularity? Is this correct?
How does this work when a photographer or an artist shares a few images? A comic doesn't take long to read.
Pretty much; but SP value and voting power would still be factored into the total voting weight that each account provides with their viewing time and we get the choice to not upvote and/or vote with the voting slider; thus, everyone still has the choice to vote on that which they think deserves it, but they're punished for 100% voting on content that they don't like, since they're forced to stay on the post until the time limit is reached to give a 100% vote (this limit could be anything, from 1 second to an hour, but 5 minutes seems about right to me since this is the average time that it takes to read your average well-thought out, high effort, post, IMO).
I am still confused about some aspect of your idea. What would a curator have to do to earn the highest possible reward?
How will this prevent bot from gaming the system?
What about shorter post that are quality but take 1 min to read?
How do you even code this at the blockchain level?
Sorry for all the question. Im kind of intringued by your idea but don't fully grasp it .