If we want to encourage engagement, which I know we all want to do, then perhaps we should look at proposals such as requiring an active account with active curation, publication etc as a minimum, which then enables a POB member to utilise such things as auto upvote functionality. So, if a member of the community is not active for a certain period, any set auto upvote activity lapses until they satisfy the requirements of being active again eg: x number of articles/comments per month, x number of manual curations. Surely even the recipients of this auto upvote "goodwill", will agree that authentic community engagement is fundamental to the success of the platform and those holding influence in the community should lead by example. Is there also perhaps not a way in which the number of members that can be added to an auto upvote scheme by a single account holder, is limited in number and timeframe? eg: You can have at any one time 10 authors on auto upvote from yourself for a fixed period of up to 3 months (much like delegation). Thereafter, you have to renew the upvote list (and make a minimum of X changes to the people on your list), and renew the time periods. It is neither right nor wrong what is being done, as those being auto upvoted may well deserve the votes, and would probably have got them anyway from the curator if they had the time to curate manually. I do, however, think that it does make a bit of a mockery of the platform if posts can be curated automatically regardless of the quality. Even the best authors do not always produce their best work and there should be a requirement to act responsibly and authentically as a curator.
Sort: Trending