Is it not a problem for you if the user commits fraud?
We haven't seen a comment with that information or is it in another post and it's blacklisted?
To read the comments:
Hover the mouse over the username of the abuse.
Click with the right mouse button (or right side of the touchpad) on the name of the abuser.
Find "Replies" tab in the abuser's blog.
Hover the mouse over the name of the "Replies" tab.
Click with the left mouse button (or left side of the touchpad) on the name of the "Replies" tab.
Scroll down using a mouse or touchpad and search for the Hivewatcher's comments.
If you have difficulty finding it, you could use the Search option (buttons Ctrl + F in Windows) and then type the "Hivewtchers".
Click with the left mouse button (or left side of the touchpad) on Hivewatchers comment.
Is it not a problem for you if the user commits fraud?
I guess we didn’t make ourselves understand. It’s not a problem for us to lose the reward if the user is committing fraud. We do care about fraud and it’s good that guys can let us know about it.
About the comment: thanks for the sarcastic respond, it help a lot with for communication although we know it’s not your strong. We were referring to the comment in this post since until now we didn’t know this user was committing fraud.
It might be good to build a better way of communication between HiveWatcher and the different curation projects or simple a better communication with a little more patience.
The account was not blacklisted because we don't blacklist single accounts that were caught abusing for the first time unless it is an obvious part of larger fraud.
Although we may equalise rewards on the posts.
The account was added to automated curation (or manually automated) right away from the first post. It would probably be better to let the account prove that is not going to commit any fraud before adding to curation.
Then it would help if basic due diligence was done before going to the account to check for any abuse in the post.
It seems that when you curate you don't bother to read the post and check for abuse, considering that you do not bother to go up if we left any (our) replies on any posts.
The other thing is, why another user was onboard without educating beforehand about abuse like plagiarism. It is not the first account in this community that went right into plagiarism (and was curated immediately) after it started posting.
Hive Cuba is a small community with a lot of moderators/curators so there is no excuse not to do basic due diligence on posts and educating newcomers.
It is very frustrating.
Allow me to give you some information about Hive Cuba, there is only one person(@manuphotos) doing the curation since months ago. It’s the same person who does all the work replying to any question in the community group on Telegram, helps create a P2P bot where Cubans can buy HBD with Fiat directly witout a KYC (only in Korea until now with KYC), introduces Hive to businesses organizes events, codes the script for delegations, collaborates with other community activities, and a lot more (without getting paid for it). But it's ok, you didn't know that and didn't have to.
It might be good for me to be more organized (I don't have the time to read also the comments sometimes), but it would be great for you to notify the communities or voters from the first post when any user commits fraud. It's as easy as collaborating with any social front-end to add a Warning mark to those posts where HiveWatcher has made a comment with some specific words. You have the budget for it and that's very frustrating.
To add an end to this conversation, let's do our best after listening to criticism and that is to improve based on that opinion. At least that is what I will try to do. Starting with deleting the moderators that arisn't really curating and finishing my own curation tool since there isn't anyone yet who can scale (if all I have to do allows me the time).
Thanks for the feedback.
There used to be a blacklist mark on Hive.blog frontend but adding any such marks would make little sense since each frontend is decentralised (peakd.com, ecency.com, etc) and it is up to each frontend's developer to add such a feature. Most frontends have not been in favour of adding similar features. It is not a matter of budget.
It's not a problem if the user committed fraud. Can you let the user know how he is doing it?
We haven't seen a comment with that information or is it in another post and it's blacklisted?
Is it not a problem for you if the user commits fraud?
To read the comments:
If you have difficulty finding it, you could use the Search option (buttons Ctrl + F in Windows) and then type the "Hivewtchers".
I guess we didn’t make ourselves understand. It’s not a problem for us to lose the reward if the user is committing fraud. We do care about fraud and it’s good that guys can let us know about it.
About the comment: thanks for the sarcastic respond, it help a lot with for communication although we know it’s not your strong. We were referring to the comment in this post since until now we didn’t know this user was committing fraud.
It might be good to build a better way of communication between HiveWatcher and the different curation projects or simple a better communication with a little more patience.
Thanks for the response.
The account was not blacklisted because we don't blacklist single accounts that were caught abusing for the first time unless it is an obvious part of larger fraud.
Although we may equalise rewards on the posts.
The account was added to automated curation (or manually automated) right away from the first post. It would probably be better to let the account prove that is not going to commit any fraud before adding to curation.
Then it would help if basic due diligence was done before going to the account to check for any abuse in the post.
It seems that when you curate you don't bother to read the post and check for abuse, considering that you do not bother to go up if we left any (our) replies on any posts.
The other thing is, why another user was onboard without educating beforehand about abuse like plagiarism. It is not the first account in this community that went right into plagiarism (and was curated immediately) after it started posting.
Hive Cuba is a small community with a lot of moderators/curators so there is no excuse not to do basic due diligence on posts and educating newcomers.
It is very frustrating.
That is information. Better later than ever.
Allow me to give you some information about Hive Cuba, there is only one person(@manuphotos) doing the curation since months ago. It’s the same person who does all the work replying to any question in the community group on Telegram, helps create a P2P bot where Cubans can buy HBD with Fiat directly witout a KYC (only in Korea until now with KYC), introduces Hive to businesses organizes events, codes the script for delegations, collaborates with other community activities, and a lot more (without getting paid for it). But it's ok, you didn't know that and didn't have to.
It might be good for me to be more organized (I don't have the time to read also the comments sometimes), but it would be great for you to notify the communities or voters from the first post when any user commits fraud. It's as easy as collaborating with any social front-end to add a Warning mark to those posts where HiveWatcher has made a comment with some specific words. You have the budget for it and that's very frustrating.
To add an end to this conversation, let's do our best after listening to criticism and that is to improve based on that opinion. At least that is what I will try to do. Starting with deleting the moderators that arisn't really curating and finishing my own curation tool since there isn't anyone yet who can scale (if all I have to do allows me the time).
Thanks for the feedback.
There used to be a blacklist mark on Hive.blog frontend but adding any such marks would make little sense since each frontend is decentralised (peakd.com, ecency.com, etc) and it is up to each frontend's developer to add such a feature. Most frontends have not been in favour of adding similar features. It is not a matter of budget.