Well I read it till the end. ;)
Sorry in advance to be pragmatic.
Influencers outside of Hive
Can you name 3 influencers outside of Hive, and if you can, what kind of traffic they bring? People thinking Hive is Santa Klaus? People that think there's no need to find a job because Santa Klaus will employe them?
As you know I'm quite active in Twitter and what I see is Hivers on Twitter interact, when interact, with Hivers on Twitter. Don't know other social networks but I guess are not so different.
About downvotes, I don't remember last time I downvote, if any, but I don't go on drama with downvotes. As we know there are healthy downvotes and people that downvote just because, it is what it is.
About downvoting over rewarded posts
I would like to know your opinion about one particular thing, or two, I will not mention accounts, because, there are several cases, and also because I know you are a guy who is interested and attentive to what is going on at the hive.
- The daily top rewarded posts have a pattern, it is not quite diverse, we see everyday almost the same authors with the top rewards, do you think they are always making 10x better posts then the rest of authors? About this let me tell you that we need urgently more OCD's or we will end in a oligarc reward pool, we need diversity!
- Do you think that is normal a post with 80 hive rewards, 55 of that 80 came from alt accounts/partner accounts/etc accounts? I don't think and I think they are making fun in front of our eyes. Once again we need more diversity!
Sorry again to mess you up with my questions but I not good dealing with hypocrisy... And I see some hypocrites playing the role of good boys.
No need to worry about questioning things.
There are very few influencers on Hive, some of them I've seen are independent journalists/influencers outside that seem to receive a lot of support over time on Hive but barely ever try to actually bring traffic towards their accounts here. This is what I've had a problem with in the past that has caused for some drama, especially from the supporters of such accounts retaliating and wanting their way to continue even though the influencer accounts have received less engagement/consumption here than random newbie intro posts. It's felt as if we're quite literally throwing value down the drain letting that occur over time without any resistance and thus I've been quite vocal about it to give them appropriate rewards or at least have them try a bit harder to grow an audience here if they for some reason don't want to bring their audience from outside here (which I can't come up with a good reason as to why they wouldn't want to do that).
Trending is a bit meh as well, there's a lot of accounts that don't seem to be responsible and check some factors when they cast a vote, with haejin/rancho being the worst of the bunch and often determining trending on his own. There are also a lot of accounts with a lot of stake that are either on auto and don't refresh their lists often if ever which in turn creates an avalanche effect of more people jumping on the upvote train.
I'd be interested in what you deem to be hypocrisy.
As to your point about needing more OCD's, I'd welcome that, especially when it comes to the manual and vetting process we do and especially when it comes to rewarding curators/community leaders in a more transparent way and at the same time hold them accountable for certain votes if abuse/ulterior motives are found. Instead we have big accounts /projects that aren't transparent about it, or the way they reward their curators if there are any which often leads to them using the voting power in shady ways to either upvote themselves or generate alt accounts to do so (which could explain the account and curation behind the example in the post).
That said, there is an issue with some of our votes where others will pile up theirs on top which may get them to trending even though it wasn't our intention, it's difficult to foresee when that is going to happen, especially considering we're voting up a lot of daily posts from unique authors and trying to mitigate that means we'd have to forfeit curation rewards which would just cost delegators in APR, and since we don't see many others doing things as manually and transparently as us it doesn't make a lot of sense to punish our delegators while others get free reign on keeping their APR while the curation accounts continue to remain lazy, suspicious and often times baffling with their upvotes on certain accounts/content.
Thanks for reply!
haejin/rancho are not the answer to every meh in trending and you know that. There are big accounts, well known accounts that have a pattern on their votes. There are accounts spreading the stake in different accounts and then all accounts upvoting every day on the same guys. Why spreading? To make it feel not so biased? Trying to make us stupid? This I call hypocrisy.
Don't gonna explain more about hypocrisy, not because I have any afraid to talk or mention people, I haven't, but because it takes a lot lot of time, now imagine what I see every single day happening... And I'm sure you also see! But I also understand we can't be 24h in Hive or take care of everything... Each one have priorities and you have yours.
Like I said, we need more diversity, much more! Like OCD does. We need less circle voting, and if it's difficult to convince "haejins" and "ranchos" of that, I think it's more easy to convince the rest of big accounts.
One more example of hypocrisy? Lol
I admit I'm kind of romantic on this theme.
"I love Hive"
My ass!!! They love the money that can take from Hive, all is still not enough!
About OCD you don't have to explain anything, I wish there were more OCDs in Hive. Without diversity and plurality, decentralization is just theory because dpos is good but not the cherry on top of the cake.
I'm logged in on @ocd here and zoomed out to see where the posts we've upvoted start coming up.
I'm not sure what accounts you're referring to exactly other than say leo.voter/appreciator but I do wish there was more transparency there and that they had a bit stricter requirements for their votes which often seems to place posts on trending with few if not any comments which may not be a great look to outsiders.
You can also look at Dan, Dan alts, most part of Dan delegations and so on. He is doing good in projects and no one want to mess with him because of that and because his power due the stake and influence in others but I'm free and use to talk if I think something is not ok (of course I not always right and my opinions are my opinions), and in this case I think he could do much better where it concerned to curation. Of course is his stake and he should do what we want with his stake, like I do with mine. But he personally could do better in curation. There are a kind of circle voting over there and it's not necessary, all could benefit with better curation, even him.
In conclusion, we all could do better, it's just a question of taking the eyes for awhile from the mirror. For some the better they get the more benefits to all, for others, small ones, their improvement might not have to much impact to all but at the end everyone's efforts are better to all.
We have certain rules in place for the more consistent votes (such as curation reports or curators who happen to be authors who also are underrewarded) to vote them up first between age 12-18h so that our votes won't cause the aforementioned avalanche effect of placing them onto trending hence getting them overrewarded. This has been quite an effective strategy to avoid getting some posts/accounts overrewarded but for our regular curation we don't see a lot of harm in getting our nominations to trending now and then as long as it's unique and often times newer users getting the attention and extra rewards, it just helps distribution and getting a more diverse trending and doesn't occur often.