Interesting, it's something we've covered before. I didn't think there was such a mainstream narrative interest here. We don't even mind legitimate downvotes, especially if there is well-reasoned comment attached to it. We'll keep posting here, for information's sake, but there has to be a more equitable way to measure what the community values, and maybe a different way to calculate the weight of a given vote. I just hate to see people leave who have been here for a long time and who are trying to contribute to something (we thought) was better than Facebook, Twitter, et al. Thank you for taking the time to respond! Please keep us posted on any other improvements or - I hate to say it - somewhere else that isn't quite as manipulated.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The problem here is that we haven't reached consensus about how to decentralize downvoting. Obviously this is a problem that fixes itself given a better token distribution (no more one person canceling out 100 other votes), but I think there are more democratic ways to regulate the situation and make sure it doesn't get out of control... I have a few ideas but... I can't build it unless I have employees/devs. Maybe one day.
Have you seen any dev discussions here about addressing the issue? Otherwise, we'll have to hope you get your own resources :-)
I am responsible for many of the DV on your post. I am personally telling you directly, it is NOT about the content. It is about the same reason Edicted is downvoted. The net rewards gotten high.
On top the account tdvtv is bindly posting 18-20 posts a day and xeldal and resonator blindly upvoting them. If that continues. Not just me, many others will DV you.
Also, I know @edicted for a long time. He likes to speculate. I appreciate that. However, most of us here knows, the amount of speculation that he does, at least some of that bound to fall flat. It is a statistical certainty :)
@resonator does not blindly upvote any posts - all posts are manually reviewed before upvoting.
In that case, the relative % of vote matters. Perhaps that can be adjusted...
Community can view the voting pattern, it is public
https://hivetasks.com/@resonator
and Xeldal's voting pattern
https://hivetasks.com/@xeldal
Compared to that, Curangel's upvote pattern..
https://hivetasks.com/@curangel
Community can check and decide.
The voting pattern for @resonator is in response to the content on the network. The main thing we are looking for when curating is posts that are aimed at identifying and solving real world problems. There are many problems we face that are avoided or heavily mis-represented by mainstream narrators. Anyone wanting to receive substantial upvotes from resonator can start by focusing on the real world problems that are not receiving enough attention and/or by providing information that is hard to come by on the controlled web 2.0 platforms.
We think that by far the most powerful utility that Hive currently has to offer is it's immutability and so this naturally leads to promoting content that makes use of the free speech vehicle that Hive was born to be.
If there were substantially more content creators on Hive producing content that aligned to meeting the needs of humanity and our own goals, then our vote spread would be greater. As it is we spend several hours every day reading many posts in order to place the votes that we do. The issue of any perceived limited vote spread is not a lack of effort from our part, but a lack of content that fits our criteria. This is partially because of previous downvoting rampages on this network which caused numerous content creators who are oriented towards topics that revolve around 'improving life' to leave Hive.
Voting on Hive is based on subjective preferences and it is healthy that people have different interests and support a broad spectrum of types of content. However, in order to achieve the noble goal of voting for a wider spectrum of content creators, we will look at ways to inspire more content creators to produce content that meets our voting criteria.
n.b. You can see from our vote spread that we, in fact, do not blindly vote tdvtv as they don't even appear in the data.
If that is all that you care for just decline rewards.
It is already immutable. I will totally support you then.
Resonator rarely posts, so declining rewards would not achieve anything significant.
To clarify for you, the comment about immutability is in reference to the marketing of Hive - there is a large potential market for uncensored social media and immutability is a key selling point for Hive. Immutability does not negate the post reward mechanism that all Hive users can benefit from. On the contrary, these features were designed from the beginning to compliment each other and to both serve as selling points for Steem/Hive that help the network effect to amplify.
I am not clear what form your support would take if all of the accounts we voted on were declining rewards, but since we have no way of controlling them it is an irrelevant point. If you can more clearly articulate your goals in this conversation we will be happy to take on board constructive suggestions that serve the growth of Hive and the user experience of the community.
Thank you also for taking the time to discuss this. We're still digesting this entire thread, but we do appreciate the interaction and support!
I am sorry for not being more elaborate.
It is not about you, it is about the people or accounts you vote. The problem from my, and our hive community members, point of view is dual.
Sometimes, due to auto-vote, some account can get substantial amount of rewards consistently. This is not content creators fault per say. As they didn't set up auto-vote or stike a deal (although in the past that has happened) But if they want they CAN do something about it. They can post less frequently (as many veteran hivers do). Or they CAN decline rewards (just like edicted did on his latest post, Kudos to @edicted !)
Second, the curator, you, can address the problem as well. You can potentially skip certain content creator manually even if their content seem to fit your criteria, or vote them less than you thought you might, just to adjust for normalization.
That is good curation. Spreading the rewards far and wide, even if it doesn't match your criteria 100%. Again this is not about my world or political view or yours. I am a very practical and factual person. I view it flatly from the reward or 'money' point of view. My goal is to normalize the rewards as much as practical.
20 posts a day... What the fuck is that an AI? I sometimes have 3... that hardly earn $30 altogether and I feel like a spammer doing that...