It does clarify things but my point still stands even with your clarification I will stand by my opinion on how I foresee this change affecting things.
there are quite a few new individuals that I will go to their account and vote their content.
Having that window opened up enough so that they can get some serious rewards for dedicated effort?
Personally I believe that the 7-Day open window and the current method has been the most balanced and time-tested way.
Or do you propose to completely eliminate all auto voting and force all rewards to be manual curation?
Personally that's what I'm seeing since the war on bidbots.
People can still auto vote. These changes are intended to remove the advantage auto votes have over manually voting. Why should I be penalized for actually viewing and voting on my own schedule?
If we dont remove the early voting penalty you will still be penalized with longer voting window. In this case if you vote to early.... you will need to wait to the last hour of the voting window to vote
I was under the impression early voting penalties were to be removed. That part seemed like common sense. Removing the early penalty and increasing the window length go hand in hand.
Then we go flat curation, no voting window
Whatever happens it better not just be some new experiment slopped together then exploited for a year or more. I think I'll just leave it at that. LOL!
Self serving profiteers abused flat curation into the ground but we didn't have free downvotes to counter exploits. Now we do.
Yes with flat curation its only to downvotes to stop abuse.... or dunno some hybrid, flat then curve ...
Downvotes are sensitive right now vs auto votes because autovotes are needed if you want to get any type of curation rewards. I sacrifice up to 100% of my curation rewards, meaning if I auto voted popular authors at 5mins, instead of voting 100% manual the way I do, I could earn up to 2-3x more rewards. So for a person with even less stake than me, let's say they own .01% of the supply. Are we really going to rely on this type of stakeholder to sacrifice tremendous short term gains to hold out in hopes the token price appreciates due to their good-natured curation? Are these bad people for not wanting to get screwed over? We are downvoting our friends, fellow Hivers, for doing the obvious and what the system encourages.
We flip the script, widen or even remove the window altogether, whatever we need to do to give manual curators as much of an edge as possible in earning rewards vs Autobots. Right now, that would be the suggestion being thrown around.
In the new rule system, a longer/removed window with flat curation rewards inside (no early penalty) - manual curators for the first time ever will have an edge. Why? Because autobots vote post titled "Please don't vote this post, deleted" and they get downvoted to earn nothing, actually happens quite a bit, enough to tac a % next to it that matters. Also, autobots have no way to tell if they are under rewarding a post that would not get them downvoted.
With the invention of microblogging, small vote gamification setups, I make DBuzz all the time just to throw a wrench at my autobot voters (I don't dislike you, much love to you for doing what the system encourages you to do, we'll fix that for all) and the max payout is only 1$. Well, manual voters are like NEO here, dodging bullets (downvotes) with their votes, reading content, getting fairly rewarded and life is nice.
Every angle must be covered before moving forward. If the common goal is to give manual curation a fair shake, then it shouldn't be hard to get there. We just need to agree on where we're going first.
Randomizing vote order at payout. In my mind that solves our current 'problem' without reinventing the wheel.
As I understood it - it is flat in the window and then past the window, votes stack as they have done earlier. This means the window voters earn more, but all relative to each other in the window (and stake of course).
So late voters, by today's standards, wouldn't really be voting late anymore, they would be on time. We'd see less votes after say 12, or 24 hours, depending on the window, but those kind of late votes are rare now anyway and always have been. Then if something is so hot and awesome that people want to vote after a day, many more consumers would benefit off the creators pure awesomeness.
This window has to mix well with how trending works. That added visibility would finally amount to more support, rather than posts shooting straight up instantly then fizzling out. Makes sense.
I think so, but can't know til it is tried.
Trial and error is getting old.
Well how is it that you're going to remove the advantage auto voters have?
And for that matter why is it that you think shortening window is going to help you not be penalized for actually viewing and voting on your own schedule... If we took it all the way down due to ours that would prevent you from ever being able to vote on things unless it was immediately posted.
Honestly enough sounds great on paper going to end up really bad in the execution
If I spend five minutes talking to you, auto voters have already positioned themselves to earn more on the post I'm about to go look at once I'm done here. My late vote ensures they earn more, and they didn't even have to consume that content. My goal is to support content, not those who voted early without even looking at what they voted for.
If that window is increased, then I could spend all day here talking to you, then go visit that post whenever, and give/get a fair share.
Ok I like where you are going with this.
This has to be combined with the removal of early voting penalties. It's such a delicate balancing act. If there is a point where automated maximizers vote, I'm thinking those who got in early and voted manually should be the ones being rewarded along with the creator. Basically flipping what we do now. I don't even know if that's possible. I just know what we do now is backwards.
Ok I can see this. Change it so people that vote later make rewards.
Well wow.
Sounds great at the total cost of all of your communities.
And you are really showing more totalitarianism control exclusion behavior than you are showing inclusiveness.
But hey. Who am I? Just some idiot you are explaining this to.
If you and others would listen maybe we could retain more users. Instead of the low onboarding and low retention we have always experienced.
But hey I'm just an idiot. Too broke to change anything.
And honestly sorry I even spoke up.
Never mind. Do what ever you wish.
There's no need to sit here and call yourself names.
I didn't reply as well - I think nonames explained it better :)
Writing a bit of code isn't content curation. Catering to autovoters is anathema to the idea of a creative community where people interact.