Some of the extremes that you pointed out were pretty clear to see like with your article on Lassecash.
Is there a word count/rewards ratio where you deem something is over-rewarded? Could it be that objective? Is there some consensus behind the scenes before a DV on over-rewarding gets issued?
For instance, self-voting is tolerated, but if I gave this comment a full upvote on my POB account, I "feel" that would be malicious. Would I be correct in writing that observation?
Are there types of malicious upvoting? Just looking for guidance here.
It is very subjective.
In my opinion? Yes. I am personally not a fan of self voting comments. In some rare cases I may do so with a small vote to bring it to the top of the comments if it is something critical. But in almost all cases self voting comments is just farming.
All the conspiracy posts that take half of trending that get massive votes for pseudo science. All the whales that voted 5-20 vote posts that had no rewards to maximize their curation with little effort (pre-hardfork 25). There are a few whales dropping $15-40 votes without regard to quality or even content and they stack on top of each other to take posts near $100 when they normally only take a few cents. Just look at trending, you will see the same 5-6 whales controlling it with no regard to quality.
I could go on, but I will struggle to find many cases of this elusive "malicious downvoting" that we are trying to stop by making laws on how to vote with their stake.
Christ almighty. I keep going back to what you said in discord some time ago about the number of fraud attempts that occur on Hive. This type of upvoting is just as bad.
I appreciate your response, though. Have you written any posts related to this type of upvoting? Or, do you know anyone who has?
I think I have an idea about what people talk about regarding "malicious downvoting", but I don't have a full picture yet so I can't speak to it at this time.
I’ve written many posts about specific cases but not in the idea in general.
It’s unavoidable, people will vote friends, many will vote using as little effort as possible, many will vote things that are ridiculous but it is something they believe in, very few will organically curate to the best of the ability.
But if you think of it, what crypto requires you to spend 2-8 hours a day really mostly shit content to receive 10% at best reward for it? It’s expect that people in general will avoid doing that.
Great points as usual, but what is high quality? How can I adjust my curation to meet that requirement? I vote on posts that meet some requirements. How can I gauge what I grade against what the rest of the community sees as adequate?
I think OCD has a good platform. I remember a post that one of their curators made. I'll check them for specifics unless other options are available.
Quality is subjective but I think we can all agree we don’t need any more pictures of flowers from someone’s backyard for $100+.
That’s probably more than 50-80% of the voters.
Anytime manual curation is used it usually will be better. This isn’t always the case as most of the delegation projects in the past have been abused.
After hard fork 25, there is no need to delegate anymore as you can just follow without penalties now.
There is no perfect solution, my point is simply these “malicious downvotes” are extremely rare and poor upvotes are exponentially more common, yet the focus is to create laws to force users to vote in a centralized fashion or have their rewards stolen. I hope after they do this they put one in telling people how to upvote that is acceptable as well.
Hi @themarkymark,
In general, almost everything that is blogged on the internet could be chalked up as superficial, rather average to low quality, under banality and triviality. Real quality can probably only be found among book authors, reporters (who have time for physical research, interviews, etc.), artists who do not only make virtual art, and among all those who still have a real connection to their online existence (handicrafts, gardening, etc. etc.).
Where only online "values" are created for the sake of online production, we get into consumerism, similar to cheap products that are only made to break quickly so that new ones are bought. So it's not just the vicious downvotes you're talking about that are rare, it's probably any form of special quality.
People have become free riders, they take content from other internet content. Something you get into the habit of doing without realising it. The whole thing started in the television era and has now taken on a life of its own. Almost everything is either of low quality - even extensive and text-heavy blogs are not synonymous with excellence, you can have just as much junk spread over very many, as over very few lines.
The point is this: If everyone can read, write and publish, then everyone will.
This platform also thrives on the trivial and banal, like so many others. It's futile to try to control that, where all the functions and features exist, that as many as possible participate who simply have zero interest in running something of good value, high quality and extensive research, but above all through a sluice where someone well-meaning criticises the material to be published and advises you on what you could do better.
Today, this is picked up "on the go", so to speak, and the comments are the guide for any corrections or changes in the future that a blogger may (or may not) pick up on.
Instead of exchanging opinions about the content, offering constructive criticism to the blogger would be much more valuable, I think. But "opinion" is the sacred cow of the present. I tried that and did particularly badly with it, because the recipients of constructive criticism again mistook it for opinion, without realising that you were trying to give them something that might enhance their content - the one exception was the "finishthestory" community, where this worked pretty well.
I myself miss such criticism on my content as well and so this is not a space where you can develop very much personally, except in exchanging opinions and arguments about those opinions.
This led me to take that whole thing here not too seriously. I guess my own content lacks from then on quality, for I lowered my standard, compared to my beginning times on Steemit. ... I don't know. I'ts difficult sometimes to judge my own stuff.
We’re working on the upvoting part as well.
I hope that you can critique it in the days-months to come. I’ve been looking at a method to incorporate @calumam’s merit guidelines into daily curation.
Maybe it will work. Maybe it won’t. We will see what the future holds. Your analysis is always welcome as usual. I don’t think it’s been applied like this before outside of a contest.