They are full of shit, they even went after accounts that didn't do any transactions in over 2 years.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
They are full of shit, they even went after accounts that didn't do any transactions in over 2 years.
I'm suggesting that YOU should use Benford's Law to identify fraudulent accounts and fraudulent voting patterns.
This is a fraud fighting tool.
Benford's law has been used to identify fake accounts on twitter by collecting the number of followers of suspicious accounts and then collecting the number of followers each of those followers has and running that as a data-set against Benford's law.
I think something like that would be very useful for HIVE.
And as far as timing votes for profit, I believe all votes should be equally weighted no matter who votes or what time they vote.
The "band-wagon" votes are toxic (gamified for profit only).
AND, when I first joined, there was a view counter. The consensus on why it was taken away was due to complaints POB was dead and posts with hundred(s) of votes only had like 3 or 4 views. From bidbots to autovoters it was obvious most of the highest paid posts received very few actual eyes on them. LINK
That creates a different set of incentives as well. As in, there would be little point to "curate" as you earn exactly what you get regardless if it's crap or not. There needs to be more to it than simply "equal weight".
It's a super useless feature when multiple frontends existing in our ecosystem. It was more useful when Steemit was the sole and major frontend. Now, try to make sense of that "page view" by mixing in PeakD, Ecency, different tribe frontends, etc.
How does incentivizing early votes INCREASE fairness?
Aren't there already armies of downvoters weeding out "low quality content"?
ANY page counter is better than NO page counter.
Imagine youtube with no view counter. I routinely find videos with thousands of views but only 3 or 4 votes.
And speaking of that, there is zero cost and zero incentive for youtube votes. And yet, strangely enough, people still vote.
YouTube doesn't have multiple frontends that dilute the views. Especially when views is a metric for content creators getting paid. Not to mention a useful filter for the audience. But, I don't expect there is enough dev talent here to match YouTube's algorithms.
I don't know the details, but it wouldn't surprise me if the likes also count towards those incentives as well. Just because it poses no financial incentives to the consumers doesn't mean there's nothing on the producer's end. Ever wonder why YouTubers always ask to "like and subscribe"? Yeah, zero incentives.
Never said early voting was a good idea. It's always been the incentive. The only difference is that the window has shrunk.
And I'm not sure where this "army" is. Not many people bother anymore because it's nothing but getting flak. People always talking about armies when only a few entities are actively downvoting anything.
And what is fairness? It doesn't exist even in crypto.
When you can come up with a set of incentives that could cover fairness, abuse, merits, etc., let the whole world know. Until then, it's just complaining for complaining's sake.
There are no financial incentives for the voters on youtube. And yet they still vote.
There is no financial incentives for HIVE users to re-blog posts. And yet they still re-blog.
You "never said early voting was a good idea" you merely suggested that taking it away was "a bad idea".
Isn't that the same thing? Iff you're truly neutral on the concept, it seems hard to imagine you'd even bother commenting on it. I'm simply wondering what you believe are the "benefits" of the current system which results in so much "band-wagon" autovoting.
Downvoting spiked after the free downvote bar was added. If you're main concern is "low quality content", then please explain how the "fix" (free downvotes) would be even slightly changed by removing the early voting incentives? The downvoting incentives would remain totally unaffected. Fully intact.
And what is fairness? Don't you think it's generally considered a "level playing field" that doesn't automatically favor a small group of established players (who also happen to write the rules of the game)?
People do love a lottery!
Have you considered injecting some randomness (like bitcoin) into the "reward pool" distribution instead of automatically shoveling it into the hungry mouths of those who already "won the most rewards"?
When I come up with a set of incentives that could cover fairness, abuse, merits, etc., I'll need to discuss these ideas with intelligent and influential individuals like yourself.
Until then, I haven't offered a single "complaint".
I'm certain, if you look carefully, you'll notice that I'm simply asking questions in order to better understand how the current system operates and what opinions are held by knowledgeable individuals.
I merely suggested that "change it" is not good enough. There are other things to consider.
You don't want to sub one problem for another. Hive isn't build to have easy "hard forks" like some of the other projects are trying.
I would rather this to be something more people think about and come up with ideas. I won't pretend I'm smart enough to come up with incentives.
As for voting on YouTube, I'm sure some peeps think it helps their content creators. Even reblogs here sometimes help with extra votes. I know for a fact that several people look at my reblog list and I do the same to them.
The incentives there are not direct financial gains, but there are incentives.
I do admit, a random factor could be interesting. Imagine the curation payout has the top 3 payouts to curators as "random" and then resume standard calculations.
And that's exactly what I'm looking for. What do you believe are the important things to consider?
I agree. Every member should be involved, but it seems like there's often a rush-to-disqualify non-technical voices.
That would be amazing.