Self-voting is a hot topic lately. As a follow up of my last article, here is the list of all self-voters that rewarded themselves with at least $100 SBD total from June 20th - July 18th 2017. All SBD values are from posts + comments and are excluding curation rewards. The total amount of visible self-votes in that period was $175,181.088 SBD (8.47% of total author rewards).
DISCLAIMER: The information in this article shouldn't be perceived as 100% accurate. When you spot significant errors, please leave a comment. Also keep in mind that the full list below is a raw data dump. In no way is it implied that all cases are considered problematic. It's for you to decide what you think about it and what to do with the information. The reason for names being included is that this is public information and others will release (and some already have released) the information independently.
Top 10 by SBD amount
| Name | Total SBD | SBD on self | % of SBD on self |
|---|---|---|---|
| tamim | $16,923.26 | $11,974.54 | 70.76% |
| craig-grant | $9,307.19 | $5,171.56 | 55.57% |
| eeks | $5,593.42 | $4,639.92 | 82.95% |
| sigizzang | $7,705.30 | $4,333.82 | 56.24% |
| ramta | $9,030.16 | $3,234.69 | 35.82% |
| surfyogi | $3,666.10 | $2,290.26 | 62.47% |
| sandrino | $2,480.41 | $2,200.11 | 88.70% |
| acidyo | $25,851.55 | $2,189.28 | 8.47% |
| onceuponatime | $10,964.62 | $2,016.45 | 18.39% |
| slowwalker | $13,630.01 | $1,738.40 | 12.75% |
Top 10 by selfishness
| Name | Total SBD | SBD on self | % of SBD on self |
|---|---|---|---|
| greatpath | $1,580.24 | $1,573.13 | 99.55% |
| predictor2100 | $138.80 | $138.05 | 99.46% |
| tard | $203.50 | $201.82 | 99.17% |
| evanrvoss | $625.84 | $613.88 | 98.09% |
| carlperna | $120.54 | $118.15 | 98.02% |
| crypto-p | $1,434.53 | $1,401.99 | 97.73% |
| storcogato | $320.45 | $312.82 | 97.62% |
| jimjam1210 | $750.74 | $731.35 | 97.42% |
| daniel82 | $530.94 | $508.47 | 95.77% |
| dantethegreat | $219.05 | $206.67 | 94.35% |
Top 10 on comments
| Name | SBD on self |
|---|---|
| eeks | $4,244.817 |
| sigizzang | $4,172.934 |
| ramta | $3,094.772 |
| surfyogi | $2,177.492 |
| onceuponatime | $1,886.286 |
| pal | $1,579.472 |
| inventor16 | $1,571.245 |
| greatpath | $1,404.470 |
| oldtimer | $1,284.029 |
| crypto-p | $1,003.981 |
Full list
| Name | Total SBD | SBD on self | % of SBD on self |
|---|---|---|---|
| abdullar | $4,870.38 | $403.81 | 8.29% |
| acceptkim | $857.55 | $101.83 | 11.87% |
| ace108 | $3,426.24 | $144.62 | 4.22% |
| achim86 | $219.96 | $111.83 | 50.84% |
| acidyo | $25,851.55 | $2,189.28 | 8.47% |
| adamhole | $274.88 | $172.61 | 62.80% |
| aiqabrago | $3,917.12 | $142.69 | 3.64% |
| albensilverberg | $977.20 | $277.17 | 28.36% |
| alexbeyman | $1,560.14 | $130.12 | 8.34% |
| alienbutt | $505.87 | $177.51 | 35.09% |
| allasyummyfood | $738.48 | $153.49 | 20.78% |
| anarchyhasnogods | $605.92 | $453.09 | 74.78% |
| angel76 | $348.67 | $131.02 | 37.58% |
| anwenbaumeister | $3,518.42 | $175.02 | 4.97% |
| arcange | $616.41 | $160.32 | 26.01% |
| ash | $292.52 | $193.41 | 66.12% |
| ats-david | $9,126.23 | $452.72 | 4.96% |
| ausbitbank | $22,586.99 | $151.21 | 0.67% |
| avarice | $278.33 | $205.70 | 73.91% |
| avilsd | $371.51 | $345.49 | 93.00% |
| b0y2k | $540.59 | $175.65 | 32.49% |
| baharoba | $1,269.59 | $238.63 | 18.80% |
| barbro | $1,063.71 | $165.19 | 15.53% |
| barrydutton | $1,156.32 | $482.45 | 41.72% |
| bayrene | $941.44 | $526.83 | 55.96% |
| billbutler | $1,052.43 | $207.19 | 19.69% |
| bleujay | $2,474.36 | $385.87 | 15.59% |
| blocktrades | $44,630.76 | $330.37 | 0.74% |
| blueorgy | $1,073.85 | $518.54 | 48.29% |
| broncnutz | $1,005.50 | $491.28 | 48.86% |
| btcmillionaire | $383.13 | $241.82 | 63.12% |
| bullionstackers | $707.78 | $111.15 | 15.70% |
| camilla | $594.46 | $100.19 | 16.85% |
| capper2016 | $306.99 | $144.93 | 47.21% |
| carface | $975.44 | $842.80 | 86.40% |
| carlperna | $120.54 | $118.15 | 98.02% |
| cervantes | $3,859.38 | $122.16 | 3.17% |
| chessmonster | $584.57 | $105.07 | 17.97% |
| chhaylin | $964.12 | $294.94 | 30.59% |
| chrissysworld | $278.98 | $115.13 | 41.27% |
| clains | $948.05 | $117.93 | 12.44% |
| cnstlf60 | $1,498.82 | $153.50 | 10.24% |
| cognoscere | $596.81 | $180.60 | 30.26% |
| coinlend | $171.42 | $159.87 | 93.26% |
| corn113 | $2,726.07 | $528.77 | 19.40% |
| craig-grant | $9,307.19 | $5,171.56 | 55.57% |
| craigemslie | $401.84 | $378.47 | 94.19% |
| crypto-p | $1,434.53 | $1,401.99 | 97.73% |
| cryptoctopus | $7,224.65 | $139.97 | 1.94% |
| cryptokraze | $119.19 | $103.04 | 86.45% |
| ctrl-alt-nwo | $360.71 | $202.10 | 56.03% |
| czechglobalhosts | $272.68 | $236.12 | 86.59% |
| damarth | $3,787.14 | $756.10 | 19.96% |
| dana-edwards | $712.94 | $305.63 | 42.87% |
| dang007 | $884.21 | $665.83 | 75.30% |
| daniel82 | $530.94 | $508.47 | 95.77% |
| danlupi | $600.20 | $136.39 | 22.72% |
| dantethegreat | $219.05 | $206.67 | 94.35% |
| daveks | $1,306.44 | $376.41 | 28.81% |
| davidding | $989.65 | $549.93 | 55.57% |
| davidp | $725.25 | $268.40 | 37.01% |
| deanliu | $3,657.37 | $249.46 | 6.82% |
| dennisschroeder | $377.87 | $116.65 | 30.87% |
| digdaga | $144.09 | $105.54 | 73.24% |
| digital-gypsy | $315.43 | $233.10 | 73.90% |
| dirkzett | $1,663.12 | $147.70 | 8.88% |
| djohan | $245.15 | $132.71 | 54.13% |
| dolphinstudios | $154.53 | $105.24 | 68.10% |
| domino | $1,038.34 | $518.18 | 49.90% |
| donkeypong | $16,668.53 | $160.14 | 0.96% |
| dowha | $214.06 | $178.68 | 83.47% |
| dragonslayer109 | $2,479.33 | $195.72 | 7.89% |
| dragosroua | $406.20 | $138.84 | 34.18% |
| dwinblood | $960.72 | $216.31 | 22.51% |
| dyuryul | $1,210.45 | $139.02 | 11.48% |
| eeks | $5,593.42 | $4,639.92 | 82.95% |
| elgeko | $411.13 | $108.74 | 26.45% |
| elyaque | $1,903.48 | $247.92 | 13.02% |
| eric-boucher | $583.53 | $291.16 | 49.90% |
| ericwoelk | $189.31 | $115.68 | 61.10% |
| ervin-lemark | $255.54 | $191.90 | 75.09% |
| etcmike | $1,318.88 | $309.53 | 23.47% |
| evanrvoss | $625.84 | $613.88 | 98.09% |
| everittdmickey | $665.30 | $440.61 | 66.23% |
| extrospect | $1,582.02 | $946.87 | 59.85% |
| exyle | $4,332.41 | $844.43 | 19.49% |
| financialcritic | $270.46 | $160.51 | 59.35% |
| firepower | $988.97 | $154.04 | 15.58% |
| fisch | $134.47 | $112.09 | 83.36% |
| flipstar | $456.92 | $185.86 | 40.68% |
| fminerten1 | $653.39 | $377.27 | 57.74% |
| fredinjapan64 | $171.37 | $156.30 | 91.20% |
| freeyourmind | $12,928.52 | $392.84 | 3.04% |
| fubar-bdhr | $785.32 | $191.09 | 24.33% |
| full-measure | $454.74 | $115.31 | 25.36% |
| funnyman | $389.29 | $203.63 | 52.31% |
| fxminer | $600.98 | $538.41 | 89.59% |
| fyrstikken | $18,797.81 | $264.59 | 1.41% |
| g-no | $541.33 | $379.85 | 70.17% |
| gardenofeden | $873.32 | $136.87 | 15.67% |
| gavvet | $22,720.95 | $1,549.61 | 6.82% |
| germanlifestyle | $197.42 | $103.33 | 52.34% |
| gigafart | $3,715.06 | $328.42 | 8.84% |
| glitterfart | $18,844.28 | $536.35 | 2.85% |
| gogumacat | $4,622.86 | $201.44 | 4.36% |
| goldmatters | $1,472.43 | $418.15 | 28.40% |
| good-karma | $23,555.41 | $395.99 | 1.68% |
| gotoperson | $6,424.40 | $888.02 | 13.82% |
| greatpath | $1,580.24 | $1,573.13 | 99.55% |
| greenman | $3,347.51 | $228.10 | 6.81% |
| greensmile | $288.33 | $244.21 | 84.70% |
| gregm | $814.98 | $136.06 | 16.69% |
| gringalicious | $2,016.90 | $370.41 | 18.37% |
| grognak | $1,199.59 | $458.73 | 38.24% |
| halo | $728.98 | $472.77 | 64.85% |
| hanshotfirst | $3,997.95 | $247.79 | 6.20% |
| hjk96 | $267.27 | $101.11 | 37.83% |
| homeartpictures | $719.40 | $327.06 | 45.46% |
| honna | $928.00 | $223.98 | 24.14% |
| hossary | $405.33 | $172.64 | 42.59% |
| htooms | $4,337.70 | $163.43 | 3.77% |
| hunhani | $391.53 | $126.66 | 32.35% |
| immarojas | $139.71 | $100.26 | 71.76% |
| inber | $254.59 | $102.03 | 40.08% |
| innuendo | $2,093.35 | $105.72 | 5.05% |
| inuk | $946.66 | $352.55 | 37.24% |
| inventor16 | $3,695.98 | $1,727.06 | 46.73% |
| itchykitten | $1,293.85 | $147.16 | 11.37% |
| its4thekids | $138.09 | $100.83 | 73.02% |
| itsmein3d | $703.76 | $300.77 | 42.74% |
| jacobcards | $937.70 | $618.62 | 65.97% |
| jaki01 | $1,283.83 | $214.91 | 16.74% |
| janusface | $233.76 | $134.69 | 57.62% |
| jejujinfarm | $4,320.92 | $741.11 | 17.15% |
| jerrybanfield | $2,090.10 | $280.67 | 13.43% |
| jiahn | $1,136.88 | $134.80 | 11.86% |
| jimjam1210 | $750.74 | $731.35 | 97.42% |
| jkkim | $562.02 | $340.28 | 60.55% |
| joele | $1,607.58 | $263.25 | 16.38% |
| johnsmith | $1,513.63 | $778.47 | 51.43% |
| jordanmchale | $120.46 | $105.00 | 87.16% |
| jrcornel | $4,786.54 | $1,437.04 | 30.02% |
| jrlo | $180.34 | $133.19 | 73.85% |
| julianita | $4,343.21 | $655.08 | 15.08% |
| juliank | $655.42 | $199.15 | 30.39% |
| kaarel | $248.89 | $153.46 | 61.66% |
| kafkanarchy84 | $1,019.45 | $232.01 | 22.76% |
| katythompson | $215.21 | $128.64 | 59.77% |
| kaylinart | $3,768.03 | $727.33 | 19.30% |
| kb720k | $3,313.78 | $443.86 | 13.39% |
| kevinwong | $8,123.50 | $270.96 | 3.34% |
| kingscrown | $19,199.09 | $1,383.92 | 7.21% |
| kiporen212 | $579.29 | $166.37 | 28.72% |
| klye | $903.26 | $107.20 | 11.87% |
| knircky | $2,400.38 | $141.04 | 5.88% |
| knozaki2015 | $2,298.85 | $560.21 | 24.37% |
| konelectric | $202.63 | $117.81 | 58.14% |
| koreaculture | $161.33 | $143.05 | 88.67% |
| kurtbeil | $1,042.53 | $179.64 | 17.23% |
| kus-knee | $2,403.98 | $839.13 | 34.91% |
| lasseehlers | $347.91 | $229.17 | 65.87% |
| lastminuteman | $873.40 | $111.06 | 12.72% |
| lawrenceho84 | $237.08 | $119.23 | 50.29% |
| leesol | $1,457.70 | $100.96 | 6.93% |
| leesunmoo | $5,921.92 | $446.03 | 7.53% |
| levycore | $1,661.40 | $128.64 | 7.74% |
| lexiconical | $1,072.70 | $896.97 | 83.62% |
| lichtblick | $1,064.50 | $148.56 | 13.96% |
| lifewordmission | $6,706.88 | $410.00 | 6.11% |
| lighthil | $2,097.17 | $355.24 | 16.94% |
| litcoinkid | $408.27 | $188.96 | 46.28% |
| ludorum | $2,293.99 | $242.22 | 10.56% |
| lukestokes | $3,176.52 | $227.05 | 7.15% |
| majes | $550.87 | $144.60 | 26.25% |
| mallorcaman | $415.13 | $165.80 | 39.94% |
| marco-delsalto | $1,373.35 | $1,093.06 | 79.59% |
| margaretwise | $276.79 | $156.25 | 56.45% |
| marketingmonk | $232.98 | $104.59 | 44.89% |
| markrmorrisjr | $152.89 | $128.48 | 84.04% |
| maryfavour | $266.39 | $182.93 | 68.67% |
| master-set | $353.50 | $140.73 | 39.81% |
| matt-a | $4,561.67 | $783.13 | 17.17% |
| me-tarzan | $1,422.08 | $759.29 | 53.39% |
| mexbit | $682.22 | $371.62 | 54.47% |
| michaellamden68 | $174.33 | $102.13 | 58.58% |
| mindhunter | $494.57 | $389.41 | 78.74% |
| minnowsupport | $5,391.20 | $141.33 | 2.62% |
| modprobe | $2,406.18 | $110.79 | 4.60% |
| movievertigo | $1,058.83 | $815.36 | 77.01% |
| mrwalt | $924.74 | $794.36 | 85.90% |
| mynewsteemit | $1,571.00 | $642.92 | 40.92% |
| nanzo-scoop | $11,890.91 | $688.43 | 5.79% |
| nepd | $454.86 | $178.61 | 39.27% |
| netuoso | $239.24 | $160.27 | 66.99% |
| nextgen622 | $2,083.89 | $102.11 | 4.90% |
| noaommerrr | $1,806.95 | $313.22 | 17.33% |
| novina | $2,250.16 | $805.07 | 35.78% |
| oceancoinz | $1,385.33 | $672.05 | 48.51% |
| officialfuzzy | $19,601.45 | $579.85 | 2.96% |
| oflyhigh | $2,634.17 | $433.59 | 16.46% |
| oldtimer | $7,323.90 | $1,386.87 | 18.94% |
| omido98 | $189.11 | $150.81 | 79.75% |
| omninova | $236.03 | $192.33 | 81.49% |
| onceuponatime | $10,964.62 | $2,016.45 | 18.39% |
| onealfa | $1,386.83 | $552.04 | 39.81% |
| opheliafu | $1,134.61 | $165.88 | 14.62% |
| originate | $235.30 | $162.78 | 69.18% |
| otisbrown | $4,532.38 | $723.46 | 15.96% |
| paco | $272.78 | $166.76 | 61.13% |
| pagandance | $404.79 | $116.64 | 28.82% |
| pairmike | $806.95 | $403.37 | 49.99% |
| pal | $2,238.40 | $1,653.40 | 73.87% |
| papa-pepper | $2,244.31 | $384.11 | 17.11% |
| penguinpablo | $1,682.02 | $715.06 | 42.51% |
| pharesim | $19,739.10 | $203.30 | 1.03% |
| prameshtyagi | $464.25 | $244.32 | 52.63% |
| predictor2100 | $138.80 | $138.05 | 99.46% |
| queeneleanor | $112.54 | $103.13 | 91.64% |
| r2cornell | $860.84 | $169.30 | 19.67% |
| ramengirl | $1,562.98 | $242.43 | 15.51% |
| ramta | $9,030.16 | $3,234.69 | 35.82% |
| realcodysimon | $343.59 | $111.26 | 32.38% |
| redpalestino | $2,168.42 | $167.29 | 7.71% |
| riosparada | $624.23 | $512.21 | 82.05% |
| rl90 | $550.21 | $435.71 | 79.19% |
| robert-call | $1,947.02 | $259.11 | 13.31% |
| rok-sivante | $6,047.03 | $391.17 | 6.47% |
| romangt87 | $740.09 | $106.29 | 14.36% |
| roomservice | $354.29 | $101.75 | 28.72% |
| rossenpavlov | $426.38 | $135.36 | 31.75% |
| royalmacro | $434.74 | $156.84 | 36.08% |
| runridefly | $827.92 | $143.32 | 17.31% |
| salva82 | $547.42 | $363.44 | 66.39% |
| sandrino | $2,480.41 | $2,200.11 | 88.70% |
| sanghkaang | $5,906.89 | $119.25 | 2.02% |
| saramiller | $1,156.07 | $153.63 | 13.29% |
| sean-king | $7,032.31 | $1,129.27 | 16.06% |
| sebastianjago | $899.06 | $311.78 | 34.68% |
| sesangsokuro | $1,012.63 | $113.95 | 11.25% |
| sigizzang | $7,705.30 | $4,333.82 | 56.24% |
| sinnanda2627 | $1,178.32 | $193.58 | 16.43% |
| skt | $2,369.83 | $194.39 | 8.20% |
| slowwalker | $13,630.01 | $1,738.40 | 12.75% |
| sneakgeekz | $559.35 | $240.78 | 43.05% |
| sochul | $3,595.48 | $526.35 | 14.64% |
| soundlegion | $614.87 | $190.21 | 30.93% |
| stackin | $398.57 | $144.19 | 36.18% |
| steemdoge | $329.95 | $281.75 | 85.39% |
| steempower | $4,555.86 | $217.41 | 4.77% |
| stefanarud | $180.54 | $159.48 | 88.33% |
| stellabelle | $6,485.92 | $295.80 | 4.56% |
| stephenkendal | $1,742.42 | $541.48 | 31.08% |
| steppingout23 | $298.95 | $114.30 | 38.24% |
| storcogato | $320.45 | $312.82 | 97.62% |
| streetstyle | $1,486.41 | $193.94 | 13.05% |
| successtrainer | $1,037.19 | $121.27 | 11.69% |
| surfyogi | $3,666.10 | $2,290.26 | 62.47% |
| susanne | $1,555.24 | $409.90 | 26.36% |
| sweetsssj | $3,977.05 | $837.30 | 21.05% |
| swisswatcher | $365.80 | $198.46 | 54.25% |
| sykochica | $554.41 | $132.21 | 23.85% |
| tamim | $16,923.26 | $11,974.54 | 70.76% |
| tard | $203.50 | $201.82 | 99.17% |
| tarekadam | $1,261.23 | $321.86 | 25.52% |
| teamsteem | $25,809.87 | $216.68 | 0.84% |
| thecryptofiend | $2,844.71 | $217.98 | 7.66% |
| theprophet0 | $19,653.02 | $429.63 | 2.19% |
| timsaid | $13,155.27 | $706.92 | 5.37% |
| tradeqwik | $5,882.63 | $104.21 | 1.77% |
| trafalgar | $28,932.77 | $1,341.97 | 4.64% |
| transisto | $11,227.45 | $996.97 | 8.88% |
| trevonjb | $2,604.85 | $576.02 | 22.11% |
| triplej | $754.56 | $154.18 | 20.43% |
| tristanacra | $236.75 | $186.73 | 78.87% |
| troglodactyl | $694.65 | $229.68 | 33.06% |
| twinner | $7,252.20 | $105.40 | 1.45% |
| usammiismi | $446.81 | $181.62 | 40.65% |
| v4vapid | $3,331.57 | $379.04 | 11.38% |
| vcelier | $6,754.67 | $196.10 | 2.90% |
| venti | $2,235.12 | $326.35 | 14.60% |
| very | $775.98 | $197.16 | 25.41% |
| vimva | $2,692.29 | $156.23 | 5.80% |
| virus707 | $1,232.84 | $654.44 | 53.08% |
| webdeals | $2,619.52 | $881.48 | 33.65% |
| whatageek | $588.78 | $199.03 | 33.80% |
| wjdtka915 | $626.61 | $117.99 | 18.83% |
| worldclassplayer | $1,203.53 | $330.72 | 27.48% |
| xaero1 | $8,656.09 | $102.90 | 1.19% |
| xpilar | $808.33 | $123.68 | 15.30% |
| ydauti | $284.27 | $184.37 | 64.86% |
| yetaras | $389.06 | $119.25 | 30.65% |
| yoonjang0707 | $2,522.39 | $276.36 | 10.96% |
| zeartul | $228.87 | $157.74 | 68.92% |
Don't forget to follow, resteem and browse my channel for more information!
If you don't think your own post is worthy of an upvote, you probably need to put more time and effort into producing a post you would be proud to upvote. I don't have an issue with anyone upvoting their own content, it they believe it is worth an upvote.
Same for comments to posts. If you believe your comments are worth an upvote, then that is your belief and you can vote as you believe is best.
It looks bad in my opinion if more than 99% of your upvotes are for yourself, and you spend less than 1% on the community. That looks like greediness.
Best solution is probably the path you are already taking.
Publish a list of the greedy every week or month. Those folks are then free to change their behavior or not change their behavior as they desire.
With knowledge of who is behaving greedily, the community will have the information it needs to decide if it wants to ostracize or celebrate the greedy.
And that is all we need for a solution.
A decentralized solution based on information. Simple.
We won't need long extended debates or discussion, on different opinions of right and wrong in this case.
Just make the information visible on measured results for "greediness behavior", and the community can decide what it wants to do collectively, by each person using their own best judgement on how to handle.
STEEM On!!
DaveB
100% this, and also if you think someone else's content is trash and doesn't deserve rewarded the rewards it is getting, that's why we have downvotes.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with self-upvoting, if the content is good. One of the reason to buy SP is so you can boost your own content by voting for it. If others agree, great. If they don't then they should downvote it and your votes (and money spent buying SP to support those votes) will have been wasted.
It doesn't even matter if someone only upvotes themself, if their content is good. Maybe some people are mostly content creators and don't spend a lot of time reviewing/reading/curating other content. There's nothing at all wrong with that.
There is absolutely nothing that can be done against true abusive "self" upvoting (other than downvoting it to take away the profit), because malicious abusers will just move their SP into other accounts and hide what is going on.
The idea of creating 'lists of shame' and demonizing people is divisive, creates a hostile and toxic environment attractive to no one, and serves no useful purpose. There is no way to tell from these lists whether the content is deserving of the rewards or not. The only way to tell is by actually looking at the content, and if you think it is undeserving, downvote it.
On the one hand, I agree that lists like these are taking things a bit too far. I still found myself browsing through it though and checking a few accounts to see if I was following them and whether I even still liked their stuff. Why? Because if they upvote themselves for such amounts of money, I don't feel like giving them my support when I don't actually care about their topics. It's just one more way to clean up my list to follow less people, so I can actually keep up with the ones I feel deserve more support.
You're saying we could downvote content we find undeserving. I would love to, seriously, but how should I go about doing that? We've all seen the grief people get when they downvote a crap post that's earning way too much money. I feel like I would certainly ruin my own earnings and reputation if I start downvoting undeserving posts. Any author that holds a grudge and a lot of SP would downvote me into oblivion... I don't feel like I am truly, fairly able to curate bad posts, other than ignoring them. Not if I still want to have a shot here myself.
The only content I can (and do) safely downvote is that of newbies who post plagiarized content or copy/past comments...
Just a little comment to agree with you about the fear I feel using downvotes. I see so much about the grief it causes people. I'm grateful that there are accounts that go about downvoting plagiarized content so that I don't have to. And I'm also grateful that cheetah just comments, because sometimes it's accused me of plagiarizing my own content, when it was just an introduction or what-have-you for a contest.
The point is, there's too much stress around downvoting for me to engage in it. I think I've used it twice, and felt icky each time. There's an odd push-pull to the financials in this system. On the one hand, I think people are more conscientiously friendly when it comes to content that is original, even if it's controversial, on the other hand, people trying to game the system for profit are creating an ecosystem that doesn't inherently reward quality content (at least IMHO)
I agree with everything you said except that this is raw data with almost 0 analysis. It does more harm than good. My name is up there...why? Because I bought 12k Steem. Transisto's name is up there, he is one of the biggest proponents of anti self voting....but because his account is worth so much, he shows up.
We need to solve the self-upvoting issue...but analysis is needed that takes into account the Steem power of an account and probably many other variables. Otherwise all we do is push people into selling their Steem and/or creating multiple accounts. Why power up if I'm going to be put on a list...while the author keeps pumping his Steem out of the platform. Which is better...powering up or selling Steem?
I know that some people are up there, simply because their accounts are really big. It's why I did not unfollow anyone I actually appreciate, because in their cases, I really don't mind that they show up in this list. I know they do a lot for the community and don't abuse their VP by only upvoting themselves.
The only real way to solve most of this is by getting rid of self-voting. However, the biggest abusers will just continue doing so by using an alt account...
... and that is precisely where the discussion must go over time; To how we can introduce better solutions against sybil/sockpuppets/alternate accounts.
@playfulfoodie a great point. To donwvote something you don't like is going to get you retaliation much worse unless its a noob account.
So maybe only down vote plagiarism, copy pasta and ligament "wrong" posts and just hopefully not to many people will up vote something that has a tendency to not be very valuable to the community.
Yes, definitely! I don't think downvoting something, just because you don't like it, is good practice anyway. Though I definitely do not agree with plenty of high payouts on crap posts...
Well the solution to that is not voting on them and maybe making comments on that post or talking to others who constantly vote on it. Lots of votes are auto votes anyways so might need to contact and discuss with people who are autoupvoting crap and maybe they will change their vote.
That's a good point. I wonder how active the autovoters are, or if they are even still around. Maybe their bot's the only one who's still active even!
I think those with more power should be subject to more transparency. The only problem i see is that there might be far worse than this list shows using multiple accounts. As long as people don't go lynching everyone who self upvotes, I don't see any problem with this kind of post, and if they do, don't hoot the messenger, thanks @calamus056
You're definitely right here.
Doesn't it work the same in real life? People with more power are more visible and looked up against (the rich and famous), so they are held accountable for their actions more often than regular folk.
It seems like that but I think a lot of times we focus on he things they do that don't matter like who they are dating and what they tweet rather than how they make their money and who their true motives for doing things.
That's true. All about the juicy gossip. It's a world of extremes, where the fact that someone worked hard for what they got, or donates to a charity, is just not as interesting as what they did when they were drunk.
"so they are held accountable for their actions" - Are they really? Feels like the other way around at times. One example on how not to end up on this list -
Voting exchange: I see you have 100k SP as do I, we agree to vote one post from the other a day. You won't end up on this list, yet the end result is the same. This list will do very little in weeding out abusive voting. And this is something that came up my mind in 5 seconds - something far more sophisticated can be implemented with a bit of time. But yes, I do agree that this information should still be available and posted regularly.
I have the full list and all data. But it's wayyyyy too much data for 1 post so i have to filter it. In this case i just filtered everything under $100. Because, do we really care about people self-voting a few cents? Most people probably care way less about that than people self-voting thousands or even tens of thousands of Dollars each month, right?
Fair point. The only people really able to battle a whale are other whales, so we can only call them out through lists like these.
You're right, there are a lot of ways to avoid getting on this list. Having multiple accounts is another one. I don't think there are any ways to catch every bad apple here, sadly. We'll just have to do what we can.
It shouldn't matter who voted for the post, what matters is if the post is over-valued.
Unless you're an owl. It's your only way to communicate, and I'd hate to shut you down. If you're an owl, there's really nothing else to do except hoot the messenger.
This.
People need to stinking start flagging. "Negative-voting" (as refered in the whitepaper). If a self-voted post or comment is making more that you feel appropriate - flag. Don't complain. The entire steem system is founded on the principle that everyone is able to use their vests however they choose to make payouts align with their perception of value.
You can not just "make self-votes not payout" or "self-votes only count for page rank". The social contract behind steem is that VESTS are fungible. Vests are always vests. My vote is worth the same no mater if I vote on content that is good, bad, racist, sexist, pro-steem, or even critical of steem. Changing how vests effect post payouts in a discriminatory way fundamentally changes steem by by altering the fungibility of the underlying asset. This is not like just a 'block size increase' or a simple parameter change, this is a major game theoretical and economic change to the system that has effects much deeper than just self-votes.
Vests should be fungible.
When one down-votes, does that use VP? And does that mean that the value of their vote is then subtracted from the post? And does that mean that the value is therefore spread proportionately amongst all the posts according to upvote (so some tiny fraction will actually return to this post)?
From what I've read, it affects your VP % the same way an upvote does?
Makes sense. Down voting also hurts rep, doesn't it? Sometimes there might be a post I think doesn't deserve so much money, but isn't so bad that I'd want to hurt someone's rep.
The reputation system was introduced with the promise of being developed over time. Unfortunately it was left low on the priority list as long as it solved the main issue of spam. Personally, I would like to see upvote/downvote no longer impacting reputation and having it instead based on your followers and how much SP they are collectively backed up by.
With that, I would also like to see this number used to incentivise giving a boost to users with lower reputation.
That's a good point, and I wish there were a way to separate the two. I usually only flag chronic plagiarism if people insist on spamming my feed with copy pasta...and then, it still has to be pretty obvious to even catch my attention.
I agree with your comments. It does bother me when someone repeatedly upvotes their own comments while adding nothing to the conversation. I'm getting a lot of those lately from the dame actors.
When I check out their blogs the post no content of their own and appear to just comment on other's blogs with a generic comment like, "Good info. Thanks" and then they upvote their comment.
I have also been getting a lot of comments saying, "Upvoted and resteemed" but when I check they have done neither and only upvoted their own comment.
Bothers the hell our if me and cheapens the experience on Steemit. I think users like that should be called out
Better than calling them out, they should be flagged, primarily by the post's author.
Yes @luzcypher I agree and that is WAY different than what MANY on this list do. MANY of the people on this list are actually huge contributors and major factors in the success of this community. Also because they crate a lot of content and also invested a lot of SP they are paying them self for it.
There is a huge difference between what you just said which I think almost EVERYONE agrees is not pleasant and what many on this list are doing.
That's a good distinction to make and not clear by looking at this list.
Exactly. Thanks for your contributions to the betterment of this community as usual.
Thank you for sharing this enlightening input.
Or the ones who commit Upvoted and Followed, then they follow you 2 hours later they unfollow you, then you check their data and they do it all day long.
Bots. The place is riddled in bots.
I absolutely agree, nothing wrong with self-voting per se. The only helpful figure I can take away from this analysis is the total of the reward pool that apparently was allocated by self-voting. If the 8.47% is correct this is not something that should worry us too much - not worth all the drama. In particular if one considers that only a fraction of this accounts for self-voting that is outright abusive.
I haven't been here very long but I have to agree with you @smooth. This type of thing does create a hostile environment. Especially if there is nothing showing if the upvotes are somehow abusive.
I see a lot of names in that list that are people actually helping the steemit community also.
For some reason I've seen at least some controversy over self upvotes. I can see how only upvoting your own content does not help to grow the community. It seems to me though that people who are not abusing it far outweigh people that don't.
I personally upvote all my posts(it's the default setting in creating your post) and some of my own comments. I do however also support the community with many as well.
There are certain authors and contests that I really enjoy reading and upvoting.
I'm also very open to suggestions on how I could use steemit better both for the community and for myself.
If what I'm doing by upvoting some of my own things is somehow wrong I would want to know it so I did not continue.
I couldn't understand the reason why you flagged this post until the very last paragraph on your comment. I now understand your concern when it come's to 'lists of shame', however I found this information to be very useful.
My curiosity gets the better of me sometimes, it's one of the reasons I really enjoyed this post.
Do you think that steemcleaners report is another example of a 'wall of shame'?
If so, do you think it should be flagged as well?
Would obfuscating the name with a generic link like steemcleaners does make it worth removing your flag?
I think the information is very useful to the community.
Maybe the name "shame" is inappropriate.
Steem blockchain explorers are not fully featured and data like this is helpful.
Steemcleaners focuses on actual abuse such as well-documented plagarism. It has clear guidelines as to what constitutes plagiarism, identity theft, etc. I know this because I helped write those guidelines.
This post is nothing like that. There is nothing in this post to indicate whether any of those authors have engaged in any form of abuse, or are actually contributing a lot of value to Steem/it (both are possible).
Yes, I understand now and can see the potential flaws, thank you.
"It doesn't even matter if someone only upvotes themself, if their content is good. Maybe some people are mostly content creators and don't spend a lot of time reviewing/reading/curating other content. There's nothing at all wrong with that."
If everybody acted in this manner, do you think it would damage the success, potential and reputation of steem/it?
I don't find that hypothetical to be plausible, though if it were to happen (lots of lots of high-value content being posted and no one other than the poster bothering to vote on it), I'm honestly not sure whether that would be good or bad. It's actually quite complex to work through how such a situation would arise or persist (considering incentives, investment flows, web traffic, etc.)
Good debate guys!
Cg
Exactly...Steemcleaners is on a different level of reporting. The report in this post, in my opinion, is raw data with no analysis.
The list reflects two types of actions. One is the self-upvote. The other is how much vote power is expended on other people. People that are voting a lot, at high power, for other people will not reach a high percentage on this list. Folks with a high percentage on this list are keeping their vote power high in order to keep their own rewards high, or to feel powerful when they are able to give someone else an occasional high reward. Neither are community-focused actions.
This list is helping me adjust my strategy. Before the HF19, my vote was worth 6 cents. Now, even if I take my vote power down low, down to 20% low, I can still give a lot more, roughly 4 or 5 times more than prior to HF19. Rather than trying to keep our voting power high, we should be trying to have a low voting power all the time. The problem on Steemit isn't lack of quality content. It's that not enough of the quality content out there is being found and rewarded - not enough to keep people enthused about creating quality content over the long run.
In the limit, someone could still make 100 posts per day and only upvote themselves, but the overhead for that takes all the satisfaction out of the effort. If the community comes to appreciate people who keep their voting power low, not high, the self-upvote problem will take care of itself.
I agree with you on this. You can tell a lot about how one feels about the community of steemit by their voting power. Check mine out. I haven't had above 30% for I don't know how long. I have tried to watch my voting, but I follow a lot of good content creators and I am an information junkie so my given rewards are lower, but more frequent.
Using steemnow.com, I was able to watch someone upvote all the time at 100%, but with a low voting power in the 20% range, and still give 15 cents for a comment, every time, and they had less SP than me. And here I was, using a 10% voting percentage to save my voting power, but I was only giving rewards of 4 cents -- how very big of me, lol -- not! That's when I began to question the goal of keeping a high voting power. There are a lot of good content creators!
It took me being sick for several days for my voting power to recover because I, too, tend to be generous with my upvotes. I guess I'd rather spread out the live than concentrate it on a few folks. It probably has a lot to do with only "knowing" one person on here who posts infrequently, too. I'm sure people with large social groups on the platform do it differently to reward their friends (and that's perfectly fine), but I have really enjoyed just shotgun blasting my VP at any quality content I enjoy.
This report does not show how much vote power is extended to other people. It shows how much vote power was used on your own posts vs your own comments.
A report that did show how much a user upvoted others vs themselves in terms of SBD would actually be a really nice report.
@smooth If hypothetically i would remove the user names, would you undo your flag (or at least be fine with the content)? (I don't care about the money, it's about the principal and i don't like to see people unhappy)
I just want the data to be published so people can come to any conclusion they want or do further research and expand on it. In the end we should all work together to make this platform come as close to it's full potential as possible. No need to further divide indeed, let's just objectively look at the data and determine what elements of the platform can be improved upon.
The data is published, nothing anyone can do about that (even if deleted from the site it is still on the blockchain). I don't even think there is anything wrong with the 'data dump' as you call it. I just dont think this line of inquiry deserves to be rewarded. That is my opinion, we're all entitled to one.
The irony is that your post is really about a form of disagreement about whether some subset of rewards are deserved, which is something I believe should be addressed through voting. I'm acting on that here.
There's no reason to take the downvote personally, nor a need to remove it on account of principle.
Well you're right that people could solve it with flags (to some extent at least), but currently less than 0.1% of all actions are flags. It must be because of greed (it loses them rewards). It's one of the many problems of the platform :(
Good to see that people like you at least aren't completely about the money, but more about justice.
I updated the disclaimer because of all your feedback, thanks for making me realize people can easily misinterpret things.
I see why you flagged but maybe it is the name that should be changed?
I think someone sharding this type of data is very important for the community. Not everyone is doing the math here.
the problem i that our steem power is given to participate with the community. I am part of the community, but if I'm not upvoting other peoples posts, and primarily upvoting my own content, it just becomes a mining activity. I hope that anyone who is concerned with the issue will check out @rycharde's blog Proposal for New Rules regarding self votes
It's not a mining activity if the author (and self-voter) is contributing valuable content that is appreciated by others and helps grow the platform. Contributing valuable content and using the SP that one purchased to support and promote (and even reward) one's own content is not abuse in any way shape or form.
Someone else suggested that a good test is whether the self-voted content is also voted by others (in which case the self-vote is legitimate) or is only self-voted (in which case it is more likely abuse). I somewhat agree, although that is trivially gamed by splitting stake into multiple accounts to make it look like 'others' are supporting it.
That's the elephant in the room.
You just drive it underground.
Could we focus on the positives and look at those who upvote themselves the most sparingly?
I'd like to brag about being high on that list.
Great point. Let's reward what we feel is positive behavior. Publishing a list that makes no sense does nothing but make people like myself (who is on the list above) think why the hell did I buy $20k of Steem? All it does it get me on a list while others who are actually abusing the self upvote don't get flagged because they didn't buy much Steem.
This! I think if we have a list of most generous whale upvoters, this would create a positive feedback, perhaps encouraging that type of behavior.
He didn't create a list of shame, he created a list. Clearly self voters don't feel any shame ;) Also, just how fabulous does your comment need to be for a self-upvote of $10 or more? There is evidence of gross abuse of the reward pool in this list.....in my opinion. It goes against the spirit of the intention behind the system. Showing this information has the potential to change people's behaviour and approach whilst informing the discussion with solid data. It is an issue worth discussing and wrestling with.
I just test flagging you and removed it. The only effect of me flagging your comment was a payout deduction of $0.13. if you flagged me, you'd wipe out any payout, destroy my rep, and cause my comment to be hidden. How on earth is that fair?
I completely and utterly disagree that being wealthy should allow you make shit loads of money from upvoting your own comments and give you the power to censor those poorer than yourself.
Likewise, I dont find any problem with self-voting, like what you said, its their rights. I think the issue here is that people are jealous of what others are getting.
How are you sir @smooth? Its been a while.
I am doing well Mr. juvyjabian. Hope you are too.
Im fine too. I just lost a job a month ago and still looking for a new one.
By the way, if its not too much can you resteem this post of my wife. Her father died and we have not yet provided a coffin for his remains.
https://steemit.com/need-assistance/@dianargenti/i-need-assistance-for-the-burial-of-my-father
Sorry if I have to ask you this. Its just that we have no choice. Thanks in advance.
Seems like you enjoyed the message in my post on self-votes. (Subjective Proof of Work: some rational comments on the self-voting trend)
Putting your money where your mouth is.
The best thing is information and thanks to @calamus056 for sharding the data. This is what allows people to make the decisions they need.
You can't stop self voting. Vests should be fungible.
Correct, and I have said this many time, one cannot stop self-voting (or if self-voting is not allowed then sock-puppet-voting) but the rules can be changed so that it has less effect on the whole ecosystem - and still allowing the investor-self-voter to earn a very good income over a year.
I think @jrcornel had good ideas, did you read his article? :
https://steemit.com/steemit/@jrcornel/my-ideas-on-how-to-create-a-thriving-steemit-com
Yeah interesting- definitely following you for more.
The thing is anything that changes fungibility is really hard and usually does not solve the problem at hand.
I can understand for the newbies who churn out articles to be paid less than $1. I've pumped over 1k steem into powering up, I'm far from breaking even.
But the amounts on that list.. some were crazy.. I wonder what they get from other users as well
You can use https://steemwhales.com to see what authors earned.
an interesting list to add would be a list of the most generous whales......
I like your thought process.
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc.
Keep steemit positive by focusing on positive reinforcements
STEEM On !!
DaveB
recently, I encountered @originalworks bot who upvotes posts that are original content. He's brand new so I sent it a donation.
Thanks for this post Dave..should clear a lot of questions about self-voting...You've got my vote and resteeming.
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
150 quality blogs, I don't have any concerns if you upvote the best, or choose to upvote them all if they are all good in your opinion.
Yes, I have been spending a lot of time replying to comments and engaging as much as possible..Thanks for all the good advice and tips.
Agreed...or some people have much more Steem power than others. These factors should be considered
Just upvoted my comment..lol
So did I so it was at least twice as good of a comment as you initially thought, LOL
I think that I agree with you on this. I do not have the system figured out so I am not able to be positive. Thank you all for the input. Take care.
Good stuff my man, I replied in this thread in a LOT more detail before I saw this reply of yours LOL
--
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
Nice comment Dave, give yourself a pat on the back... And an upvote.
Thanks for comment. Back has been patted.
STEEM On!!
But Dave you still didn't upvote yourself.. Don't you like your comment??
Ahh crap, missed that upvote chance. I'll go back and fill it in later, LOL
How?
Very good comment. I think you nailed it!
Full power upvote for you, in support of this great community.
Cheers! from @thedamus
Upvote, first of all for starting the conversation. But I don't only vote because I think my post is worth it. The only thing that matters is that I can make more money. There are expectations of course but the general is not like that, and this is allright. You have to take care of it by financial incentives or obstacles. Voting for yourself, this is ridiculous. But as long as it is possible, I will do that, exactely like most of the others.
looks like this guy has found a way to make coin on the site. Let's declare a hot issue and then publish lists of people who match the issue instead of writing useful content. As new as I am, I get that hypocrisy of that.
..i m still new, but...sounds to me as the right answer!..even if at last it isn't clear to me how to think about upvoting one self...but to make info visible and let decide the community (or the base?) seems right..thank you..follow you..
Love steem on comment, upvote and bring suggestion all best friend anybody please follow me and help anything problem a posting comment it...
STEEM on @zufrizal
We have a saying in our country, it says if you dont like the meat above your teeth then that is where you always teste. If you dont like what you create who is going to like it for you, though if your creativity worth voting definitely you will get people voting for you. And if voting for yourself is a bad thing in steemit then it should be allow. Everyone is entitle to his or her opinion anyway. Voting for only yourself is not a good thing for the steemit community buh voting for what you have create is not bad at all.
Your list is flawed Pot stirrer. I should be on the list. I hate it when people make lists of something I do and don't include me. Just to prove it to you I am going to Upvote this comment 100%! Put me on the dam list!!!
LOL, me too. I'm on the list above and think this is really stupid. I'm going to upvote this comment 100% and your comment 100% in revolt. I'm all for reducing self upvoting abusers, but this list is raw data with 0 analysis.
ahahahhhaa @hilarski you are a bad ass!
Love you bro.
You show up as only $76.661 (8.5263110%) in self-votes of $899.111 total from June 20th till July 18th. Is that info relatively accurate?
The reason you're not on the list is because everything under $100 self-votes was filtered, there were 10's of thousands of rows in the list so i had to filter on something.
Downvoted because I don't agree this form of analysis and divisive rhetoric is useful content that adds value to Steem or is deserving of rewards.
It's just a list with stats people were curious about. There's no analysis, it's just a data dump. People can do whatever they want with the data.
Why are you trying to fight me? Are you not against abuse? Look at the people self-voting close to 100%, do you think that behavior is beneficial to you, themselves, me and others?
I don't know. It depends on the content. A content creator who produces useful content and upvotes it, but does not spend time reading others' content or generally curating is still a valuable contributor despite 100% self-voting. A spammer who self-upvotes and also votes on others (or perhaps a pair of spammers who vote on each others' spam but not their own) is still an abusive spammer. The statistics in your post by themselves are useless, as is the implication that 'self-voting' or a high self-voting percentage is inherently harmful or evidence of abuse. Neither is correct.
If they were useless there wouldn't be dozens of people upvoting, commenting, resteeming and so on.
I know what you're saying that not 100% of the cases would be abuse unconditionally, but you know as well as i do that your example is extremely unlikely. And again, it's just a datadump. People can do whatever they want with it.
Heat does not imply light.
Right, but people also say there's no bad publicity, right? ;)
It depends on the content is somewhat of a cop out argument. Don't you think? From a reasonable standpoint, given the present volume of comments and any other factor you would like to include, how much do you think a really fantastic, i mean really fantastic comment should get?
The information is certainly deserving of some reward.
Maybe the rhetoric requires your comment as a reply.
@smooth I have to tell you that you're a good guy, i just noticed you only flagged at 20% power. You could have destroyed the rewards, but instead chose to make a statement and not make it personal. I don't know if i would have done the same in your shoes. Thanks a lot! BTW, this is probably the first time you've ever been thanked after flagging someone, right? :)
You are welcome ;)
This isn't analysis....this is a report. No form of analysis was done from what I can see.
Well what about these guys not self upvoting but upvoting their 2nd and 3rd account? I dont know what that whole discussion is all about. I believe anyone can do what they want with their share. Some will contribute others wont. If selfupvote would be taken off steemit , people think twice about holding or selling. And steem would be back at 0,10$
You can also kill people, is it smart though?
Yeah self voting is just like murder??????
In a way, sure :p
well i didnt expect people to get personally offended by a self upvote. But think about this: An upvote is worth something due to the fact that steem is worth something. And that is not because someone writes a blog post. It is because people invest and pay real money to buy steem/SP and that is a risk. As an investor i could therefore argue, why would anyone deserve a $ if they are not willing to take that risk and invest their own money? I believe the network need both parts, people investing and people contributing and building the network and community.
Its not a solution to blame anyone here. A solution to a more satisfying situation would be a flat upvoting system. 50upvotes instead of 10 and it has to be based on the algorythm
It's not about being offended or whatever, this list is just a datadump. The discussion about self-voting is a whole different topic.
Good post man. It's important that this stuff gets brought to light. People hopefully adapts their behaviour to something that's more beneficial over the long term.
Self-voting is just destructive for the platform, at least over a certain threshold. I think anything under 10-20% is okay, as it's a way to promote yourself.
You think 10-20% is OK. Other are going to say anything over 0% is a crime. Some will say 50% is OK, others will believe higher.
The solution is appeal to some higher power of central authority to dictate a best and final answer. Kinda not in the spirit of a decentralized platform.
Or publish behavior and let the community decide what is acceptable, by ostracizing those that each individual wants to ostracize
Well obviously it's subjective, I'm just stating my opinion. I personally believe that content should be able to speak for it self, but one of the main hurdles so far is how hard it is to find content.
I do not want any central authority to dictate anything. I think the market will adjust with its own incentives and disincentives. It's a social platform after all, and social norms and 'rules' traditionally has more influence over people's decisions than actual laws and regulations.
So I read your response as - people can upvote themselves if they want, and the market will adjust incentives if they believe that person is being greedy and abusing the system. Sounds right to me
Yepp, basically. Thus post is a good example of the market reacting
mmm Something to ponder about...my feelings is either you do or you don't..if the developers didn't want people upvoting themselves or only wanted a certain percentage of self votes, they should incorporate it into to the program. Just saying..
You're the third person to mention approximately 10%.
I upvote myself and I have no problem with it.
Why should we kowtow to a warped sense of fictional internet morality? I don't follow made-up moral codes of people who do not even have a concept of moral.
Now that I saw this post, and you guys shaming people who upvote themselves, I am going to double-down my upvoting myself. I will be upvoting my comments, I will be upvoting my posts. I really wasn't too concerned about it lately, but I will start again. I want to be on your shaming lists, where you try to ruin the STEEM community with your divisiveness.
Who says it was about moral? It is obvious that people will do what the system allows, so the system is to blame and not the people. Why to 'blame'? Because in my opinion the platform (and the value of Steem) won't benefit from excessive self-voting in the long run. HF 19 makes self-voting more beneficial which in my eyes doesn't contribute to a positive development of Steemit. People simply can write ten low quality articles every day now and upvote them themselves. There will be less motivation to write high quality articles and animate other members to upvote them and to communicate with each other. It will be kind of a dead platform which is less attractive for new users and potential investors.
It's already divided. You are in the pro self-vote group and can't even join the discussion without going all defensive and irrational. That way it will stay divided.
Self-voting contributes nothing to the platform, in fact it only takes away from the platform. That's irrefutable. If you're not satisfied with 1.4% interest on your SP and curation rewards of 10-20% ROI per year and you also have to take some more from the reward pool, then you're just greedy. Simple as that. I don't blame you, but at least admit it. I have been greedy many times before, but it leads to nothing but problems.
People need to understand that self-voting is only hurting themselves in the long run. 10-20% ROI per year is already hard to overcome and get the STEEM price steady or even rising, let alone when people take away 100%+ ROI per year with self-votes.
P.S.: This rant isn't necessarily addressed to you personally, because you only self-voted ~17% which is reasonable.
Thx @calamus056. I do not know how you did get this extensive amount of data, but this is impressive! I. Think people with so much power should not be as selfish as some of them are. (Just like in our non-digital world) - Nonetheless, thx for your work!
I just checked out your profile and saw, that you are interested in science! As I will continue to give exclusive insight into special scientific topics i would be happy if you have a look and enjoy them too. :-) My last one was written a week ago (dealing with nanocars) and my next one will come on saturday. :-)
Best,
mountain.phil28
Voting for yourself occasionally is not the problem, however abusing this is a problem for the healthy growth of the system. It makes it like a pyramid scheme. It is easier to identify the most selfish writers by simply using: sbd to self/total sbd×100.
Guess what the last column is lol.
Yeah my bad, checked on my phone and couldn't see it there.
Experiment
Did it succeed? :)
I don't understand what is wrong with voting for yourself. That does not prevent you from voting for others at all..!
But some on this list don't upvote other at all. They only upvote their comments. Please check the numbers and do your research.
With a soft limit of 10 full powered votes per day, yes it does prevent you from voting for others. I could write 10 comments and upvote them at 100% taking about $100 per day from the pool. Any votes that I use on anything else will have lower rewards and it would take days to recover my voting power, making it more beneficial to the self voter to hog their vote for themselves and nobody else.
Hmm didn't know that. Well that's a flaw in the system. Maybe you should be limited to a certain amount of votes for yourself. But on the contrary, never vote for yourself (or more precisely forbidding yourself to vote for yourself) feels like almost denying yourself to me. You can give to yourself it is not selfish. It is not exclusive. That is what I actually meant.
Yeah it seems a necessary flaw. They system would work perfectly if people didn't naturally take offense to the downvote and refuse to use it because of that potential backlash.
Its one of those things that needs to just be removed I believe you should be able to upvote your own post if you wish to but not comments you make. Its gotten to the point where you feel like you have to upvote yourself non stop otherwise your falling further and further behind and a few top earners are hording all the money.
If too many people are starting to think like this, then it's going to be really problematic indeed. Let's hope you're the exception.
Luckily a lot of people have been discussing it for weeks and are working on solutions.
I think like that and I know a large majority of people on here do new and old timers. But still I keep my self voting to a minimum and always upvote things I enjoy and comments I like as well.
I really don't see what shame lists will achieve. I feel that anyone has a right to vote for whatever they want too. I have seen new members as well as whales posting really good as well as really bad copy and paste posts. But if that specific user feel like upvoting his own stuff, then what will a shame list do to persuade them to change?
Not much I guess. I vote on other people's comments and posts during the week and also vote my own comments close to expiry date.
The little bits extra will help my account grow, in turn this will help other members as well.
Even if changes are made to the voting system self voting people will make groups and just vote between themselves. I say stress less about other and so what feels right for yourself.
Well right now it's at least causing some discussion and increase of awareness. It's not really intended as a shame list at all, the statistics just happened to have names in it, which i could have censored, but then people constantly would be asking for the names so i might as well include them. Others would release the names eventually anyway since it's all public information.
First you need to understand that curation and content creation is very different. Secondly, In general self-voting is only problematic if you do it too much (50%+ is probably way too much). What's also important is how much you are actively contributing to the platform (buying STEEM excluded).
The problem is much more complex, so i i'm not going to answer any single comment and will probably publish a massive article in the coming week(s) to hopefully take away a lot of the confusion.
Really interesting! It is good to have transparency on steemit, so that people can mange informed decisions 🙏🏽
It's 100% transparent, no censorship possible either ;)
I'm personally surprised to see witnesses and very respected users there
I would agree to see percentage 10-20, that means other 80% have been shared with community...
but then I saw 40-50-60% for a witness , than means only one thing - this person works for himself here, not for the community. Witness who works here for his own pocket and don't believe in Steemit as a platform should be fired from a witness position.
Interesting vision. I'm not sure if most people think the same way though. But you're probably right. In fact, witnesses already make money by being a witness, right?
yes, indeed.
and if they also have eaten our reward pool that means they should cut their.... appetite .... somehow :)
It's disgusting! I NEVER upvote my own comments.......
Best comment here. I would have been more upset if you didn't upvote yourself on this.
😂
Why when I post is my vote always on my posts ? I never do it manually but it's automatic. I'm new here just noticed this and Linda confused
When you publish a post there is a box you can tick or untick. Tell Linda not to be so confused.
Go to "Submit a Story" and there's a checkbox "Upvote post" under the rewards combo box.
@clintjunior I like your trolling, but it's a serious problem when too many people (especially big players) do it.
I know, and I completely agree. One day I saw a guy upvote his own comments in a discussion and every upvote was worth $95, and for the original poster who he was talking to - he was only upvoting him $5. I found it obscene! I actually think something must be done.
I guess we can conclude that those people are pretty huge dickheads :p
it is now your place to shut down these dickheads? what about the fact these dickheads are the ones that put enough money into steem to make it a trade-able currency with high net value? Bite the hand that feeds. I am done with this thread.
Go away then. SteemIt works regardless of the STEEM price. But the funniest part of all is that high percentage self-voters are shitting in their own food and making their investment worth less. We lose so many potential new investors every day when they're unsatisfied.
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
I'm not convinced that this is the terrible thing that so many here seem to assume that it is. Look at the full list, there are a lot of widely respected names there. People who've done a lot to build this community.
There's also a lot of abusers that vote close to 100% on themselves ;)
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
I'm not on the wall of shame !
Damn , I'm such a dumbo.
Gonna change it immediatly , thank you. Great post !
Hahaha , lol.
Even re-steemed this post and follow.
Don't forget to follow and upvote my kindness.
Pssst : It's free. :-)
Honestly, this is amazing statistical information I actually was trying to get. I've been observing habits here and have been wondering about self-voting for a good while...especially with whales and the way they protect their voting power.
I probably don't mind upvoting oneself for new stories...but for comments...especially when it's a one-liner...it's pretty awful.
I can totally see why a whale would want to do it considering how much money they invested...but I do have an issue with not sharing the wealth via decent voting power upvotes in some way.
At the end of the day, however...I can't really fault one for having a set plan for their money...even at the cost of the steemit community.
You are insane man, how did you calculate this? Hahaha.
4 hours of programming, 3 hours of downloading and saving data (2 gigs+), 10 minutes importing and then 2 days of making queries and calculations.
I upvoted, but I doubt that will pay back the investment you made in time and effort.
I'll link to a different thread that has some conversation you may want to review.
Summary of the other thread - you can't take away self upvoting without radically changing the heart of steemit. It isn't a perfect system, but it isn't as flawed as you might think if all you think and focus on is the worst case scenario. There are dickheads in every system. Make the data visible on who is acting in greedy fashion and the system will move on as is, nothing is really broken.
https://steemit.com/steem/@kyle.anderson/subjective-proof-of-work-some-rational-comments-on-the-self-voting-trend
Thanks for the financial contribution. Every bit helps!
I just read Kyle's article, it wasn't anything spectacular (the article was great though!). I've heard all the arguments for and against self-voting already it seems. I certainly agree that flagging is the answer, people aren't using that at all right now!
Thank you but what is the menaing of the list. are you againstt it? I don't see a problem in self voting?
Honey if I looked like you, I'd upvote myself all. day. long...
What is that supposed to mean? Jackass.
Well, with the creative use of language that is commonly used within our Steemit culture I've created a double entendre. One can take this literally or one can derive a sexual innuendo from it (possibly referring to masturbation in this case). I'm very glad you asked, it's important to get to the bottom of these matters. And it shows you have curiosity and a willingness to know more, which is not usually present in people who resort to insults when they don't understand something.
Did I answer all your queries?
Looks to me like you have a tiny
flag.
@whatsup I guess he's horny, you know what Testosterone does to us ;)
Of course i'm against it. The more people self-vote, the less rewards authors get and the less value the platform has. If everyone self-votes, there wouldn't be any value at all.
But it's a hard topic and will probably do a separate article about it soon.
Voting for my own post is something I always do, but I rarely vote for my own comments (I did today to bring it visibility, but as a rule, I tend to avoid it). I feel this is fair, as I only have a 4% self-vote percentage. I think going over 10% is probably a bad move. Hmmmm....there's a lot to think about.
I agree with you 100% here, thanks for resteeming me here.
Yeah i had the exact same number in mind of 10% as a maximum. That would be acceptable, especially in beta / early adopters phase.
I made similar comments in more detail in the main reply I made here......... but as a base reply here in a few places:
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
Is there somewhere you can easily view your self-vote percentage?
Nope, you need to make an app for that. I had to do days of work to gather this information.
Yours is 7.5% ($0.664 out of $8.857) since June 20th 2017.
Thanks, that's more than I'd expected actually... I'm on it! ;)
I guess more people would be shocked at their percentage. Small things add up, right? :)
your percentage is very acceptable though, especially as a starting content creator.
i don't know. Ask the OP for information because I have no idea....
I was just checking it wasn't common knowledge. Thanks.
it's true. That is why the algorithm was set up the way it was in the beginning by Dan. He was trying to avoid this very thing.
Not sure about that... it is precisely the current rules that allow for this behaviour - and people will do whatever a system allows them to, especially when profitable - I think the current rules are overly simple and need to evolve to create the kind of ecosystem Dan talks about.
Nice work.. 👍
STEEM On!!
Those stats for me ignore that with the stories I self-voted on it was usually only 25% power and I donate the proceeds elsewhere anyway. I'm mostly rejecting payments these days, and haven't self voted those posts at all..
Dude, it's only 0.67% :)
You're an example for everyone. Keep it up!
fuck off nog
So essentially, HF19 made people switch from voting for other people to gain a curation award, to voting just for themselves?
No, not everyone. But since you can put 4 times as much $ on content now it's become way easier to abuse it.
such an interesting post! thanks so much for taking the time to put this together.... I am really enjoying reading the debate in the comment!
the figures are just crazy!
It's not about the money, it's about the percentage.
yeah I get that... I like Craig-grants style.... half for himself half for the community... anything more than that I think is a little selfish
Craig's style is ok I suppose...
I do happen to know that he has voting deals with a few of his friends as well as his girls page as well so it's really hard to tell if his 50% is even as good as it sounds.
I mean, I guess that's better than 99% but his votes to the community is probably only around 10-15%.
...but that's just my observation.
At least 50% is better than 100% :p
I personally prefer 10% max. I'm currently trying to do 0% myself (been successful for almost 2 weeks now).
yeah same, I don't self up vote at all since the HF19 :) rather vote on other peoples stuff...in the same way I would hope they would rather up vote other people than just themselves haha
Don't count on it haha. Society is still money driven and lots of people still have a mindset that is wrong. If only more people were like u ;)
I suggest reading this page in full, including the linked resources to learn something about craig grant that he REALLY needs to explain to the community here. https://steemit.com/craigrant/@matrixdweller/craig-grant-caused-someone-to-comiit-suicide
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
Some of those numbers are out of control. I believe that a restriction on the top amount to be self rewarded is need it.
That's the problem, that's not technically possible because people have multiple accounts.
You got it. You could focus on solving the "single account abusers"; and all that would do is get the people who are intent on abuse to create multiple accounts.
that is true but them they would have to divide the amount of their steem powers as well.
I think the main problem with self-voting issue is whale which are clearing thousands a week for their votes
Lets talk about a whale that has brought $2M fiat to the platform. What is the "right" amount that that person should be ALLOWED to making from posting per week, compared to the person who brings $0 fiat to the platform and wants to grow just by blogging.
Who is going to decide what is ALLOWED?
Is that decision made by one person (a dictator), or made by a committee (communism)?
You start down a slippery slope when you let ENVY of the whales start to dictate what you think are the best policy options.
Don't be envious. Don't be greedy.
Do your own thing and be proud of what you can do. The community will reward you. If you don't trust the community to make that decision, you should leave.
STEEM On!!
I think you have misunderstood what I'm trying to said or might be I did not explained myself properly.
What I'm saying don't come from a place of jealousy for whales. They are whale for a reason! they have invested their money into this platform in order to I guess get more money! Which is their right.
Still Steemit is a platform in which the goal is generate money from content. However, a lot of great original content slips through the cracks because it cannot get enough traction when the top spots are filled with irrelevant post selfvoted by Whoever.
I realize that I don't have a strong voice in the community, because I fairly new to it. When I write sometime is because I'm interested in knowing the future of the platform and if there will be a chance for new player to reach dolphin or whale status from zero. because if the only way to make moeny on steemit is being a big player whats even the point of writting good content!
Ideally all people should make whatever the crowd thinks the content is worth, regardless of factors like author name, rewards, popularity, reputation, investment or any other irrelevant factors people could potentially base their actions on.
Certainly nobody should be treated differently because they invested heavily in STEEM. People invest in STEEM for selfish reasons (to potentially make a profit or to gain more power on the network), so there's no reason to reward them more than the revolutionary platform is already offering.
Most ridiculous post I have come across, some of the folks are actively upvoting other accounts... they made the investment, they deserve to earn the reward... folks need to stop looking at what others are earning...
Buying SP and then self-voting isn't investing, it's just draining funds from the reward pool that could (should?) be used to reward authors, otherwise STEEM isn't worth anything. Voting on others earns you curation rewards without any negative effects to the platform. The less you vote on others, the more you're hurting your own investment.
This isn't about what people are earning, it's about the way they're "earning" it.
extreme selfish behaviour will indeed ruin this platform. Those that have like 98% of the rewards going to themselves is exactly the kind of thing that could make this place irrelevant. Looking at this info actually helps me understand human behavior better. I think @teamsteem is a great example of how one does not need to self-vote, even though he could. I guess I still have a ways to go.
To be fair, he only self-voted 0.84% of the total rewards he assigned. That's almost negligible.
As you said we need to focus on the massive abusers for now, starting at people that self-vote more than 50% of the rewards they assign.
yes, it's quite amazing how he does not abuse his delegated SP. An example for us all...
The situation is actually much more complicated than the current analysis gets into. Not to disrespect the current analysis, it is fine for what it is.
BUT, have you thought about and looked into voting behavior in cases where single individuals own multiple accounts and do cross upvoting.
Or what about cases where we have groups of people that have allied to upvote within their own "team", to pull the entire team up independent of the quality of any individual post.
You aren't going to be able to make "rules and laws" to handle all the special cases that people will be able to invent to try to game the system in their favor.
You will provide a valuable service just by posting data on "greediness" measurements. Leave it to the community to sort out how each individual wants to behave after that.
It is a decentralized social media platform. If you don't like decentralized and prefer someone at HQ to make the rules an enforce them secretly and top down; and always in a way that helps HQ, that is a different place.
You want to go to FB, or Reddit, or .....
Yes, i'm part of #project-smackdown and #steem-coop and there's much more to come on voting behavior.
This all sounds good but misses a crucial point: Steemit already has encoded rules that encourage certain behaviors. It is not a rule-free-zone. The algorithms that calculate rewards are a rule set. The only freedoms are those within the current rule-set.
In my opinion the current rule-set is just far too simple - just look at economic modelling to see the other extreme. Changing or adding to the rule-set is an evolution of the platform to steer it towards its original aims. Those aims were just not encoded properly. We are heading towards an extreme of the system - as systems will do - so we can either let the system drift further towards this extreme or change course.
The stats are skewed. I usually upvote myself with 99% of my votes.
More seriously this post was really interesting to me and the tone of it, at least the version I read, was presenting the stats in a pretty neutral manner.
Abusive selfish-voting and its perception are an interesting issue. We'll see out Steem evolve from here and where we take it.
Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone of abusive selfish voting and bigger % of self-voting isn't necessarily equal with abuse...
but maybe you do vote for others much more than yourself. I always upvote my own post, but I don't vote for my own comments (rarely). I do spend a lot of time voting for others, that is why I"m at 4%.......which I think is reasonable. I think when someone has the 99% of votes going to themselves, well then that is really problematic. It's interesting data to look at for sure.
No it isn't. The reward pool is fixed in terms of STEEM but not in terms of value (dollars, etc.). STEEM only gets its value from people buying it or holding it. Without people buying it, you can earn all the STEEM you want from the reward pool, but they will be worthless.
Someone who buys SP and then selfvotes is not 'draining' anything and at best can get back a portion of what was put in. It causes no harm at all.
Investors are the ones who underwrite all of the rewards on this platform. If you are not an investor, or are only a smaller investor, you need to focus your efforts on creating inspiring content that makes investors want to give their money to you. Whatever else they do or don't do with their money (including self-voting) is not your concern and does not harm you in any way. Nevertheless, you do have a downvote that you can use to disagree with what you think are underserved rewards. I suggest using it.
How can you not see the harm in self-voting? I just don't get it, it's so unbelievably obvious why it's bad. All you have to do is think about what value this platform has if nobody voted on others.
Of course people can do with their money whatever they want, but self-voting just isn't smart (except for content promotion obviously). Your alt account only self-votes 4% and i'll assume your main is similar, so you're a good boy :p
I do have a downvote of a few cents yeah, but i can't do anything against your upvote for example ;)
That's not what is happening. If it were, and you posted about it, you would have a useful contribution (though of course everyone would have already recognized the issue most likely)
Someone who votes for good content whether produced by self or by others is not doing any harm whatsoever. Likewise someoen who votes for good self-produced content that is also supported by others is doing no harm.
Your own statistics show that self-voting is awarding about 8.5% of the reward pool. I don't find that suggestive of any problem whatsoever. It is probably a very reasonable number given that the current parameters give people 10 full power votes to make per day. Thus one is being applied to the voters' own content and nine to others' (on average, of course). Seems fine.
I have no 'alt' accounts (in the sense of accounts run by me to interact on the site and which hide my identity; there are several accounts for things like internal market trading but they all have my name in them). I don't know who runs randomwhale which likes to vote for me. It is not me.
Again, this may be viewed as a reminder to please avoid witch hunts and demonizing people without a full understanding of what is going on.
I agree, 8.5% is not that problematic at all. It's just the principle that's important. The few problematic abusers and the incentive problems in the protocol are the problem.
I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on. I don't want to demonize or shame anyone. I don't even care about the names. I impulsively released the list this way, i guess i could have done it differently, but in general we should just face the truth, no matter how harsh it is sometimes.
By the way, there are enough rumors about who's running Randowhale ;)
EDIT: oh oops you said randomwhale, yeah no idea.
I haven't cared to pay attention.
What's wrong with rewarding yourself, I would certainly love to upvote myself 10 if I had the steem power but I don't, so it's 1 or 2 cents, if they value their post at 20 dollars and upvote it, then what's wrong with that. I can tell you I have certainly benefited from the upvotes of quite a few folks on the list, and many others. It's not a spread across the ground wealth thing here, part of your earning depends on your investment. You don't know what folks sacrifice to reach at their SP level, don't trump the "reward pool" card.
Anyone can be a top rewarded author without buying any SP. It's all about loyal followers.
Read the white paper. People can invest in Steemit with dollars or time. Both add value. You are obsessing on the folks that bring more dollars and invest less time than you. I believe the point daudimitch is trying to make is same idea as the white paper - both time and dollars add value. And when people bring dollars, who is to say how they must use those dollars for upvotes?
If you over-rotate to the point that only time has value on steemit, and dollars are not valued, that could be argued as another path that will devalue the total platform.
I spent a week very upset about the voting behavior of the whale hendrikdegrote. He was upvoting stuff that was shit in my opinion. Vacation rentals from bookingteam.com Get real !!
But then I realized that if he wants to bring $2.5M to the platform, it is his money and how he upvotes is his business. Not my business.
It will take a lot of time and sweat to grow to the point that you or I have $2.5M of SP based on our blogging skills and the upvotes we get. True dat.
But it took hendrikdegrote time off platform to get the $2.5M fiat, and then he chose to bring it here and upvote as he chooses.
Do you want to chase all the whales away? Will that increase platform value?
Or you want to change the rules so that the only path to becoming a whale is lots of posts and being a top rewarded author, which is the path you are on?
Diversity is good. Everyone takes their own path.
Not surprisingly I got a small upvote from a whale worth $1.6M. Who woulda thunk it? LOL
And I don't mind giving myself a very small additional upvote - that comment took some time to craft and adds value to the platform by providing more opinions to the full community - who can choose to agree or disagree with my position, and then vote as they choose based on their own opinion
This site has a mgmt team. Presumably they have long-term goals and a plan to achieve the long-term goals.
If they see current issues on self-voting as problematic, they can and should step in and address it.
Else we end up with community standards.
Which may or may not a positive outcome, depending on the community that chooses to join and stay
STEEM On!!
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
Post like these create bad blood, the data is tilted in a negative light, some of these folks also bring a lot of quality content on a daily basis, I am pretty sure you upvote your post as well, they made their investment in SP, don't make post in bad blood like that
Dude exactly.
No i stopped voting on my content, it's not going to change much. If the content is good it will get rewarded eventually anyway.
You concisely said what I have been preaching. Word up.
Some of these folks, hate what they are not getting... for me, I am happy to see folks earning and expressing themselves, we finally have something that shares the pie... I am more focus on trying to get followers that would actively vote on my content and get the level of making a decent earning... I hope he see's both side, the platform code always finds a balance
let the developers decide on this , or whom it may concern , or let there be public vote .
I don't see anything wrong with a self upvote, even when it's worth so much....but it should account for a small percentage of total upvote percentage given....how much is obviously open ended but I think 20% to reward to yourself is pretty excessive already. I would try to keep it below 15%, that seems like a fair number to me. 50% or above is pretty ridiculous.
Thank you so much for this, it allows us to get a much clearer understanding of the situation, though I imagine not the whole picture as many people have multiple accounts.
EDIT: really surprised at how many people are giving you a hard time for this....those with more power should also be held more accountable and subject to more transparency, no?
I absolutely agree with you. It's also understandable to get so much hate when you call people out on their selfish behavior. We all get defensive when others say you're fat or you need to stop smoking or drinking or whatever.
This doesn't belong in #steemdev unless you write on how you extracted the data.
K, fair enough :)
Solved
I didn't know self-voting could generate so much SBD!! It looks legit if you upvote your post when you did a good write up which you think is worth that upvote.
However, Steemians who only vote for themselves without giving anything to the community should really think about it.
Steemit is a community effort and the stronger the community, the stronger the platform will be. We all need to work together to make Steemit the next gen platform which everyone want to use.
We should all think about our actions on Steemit and ensure that we are helping the community.
Nice article. Thanks for sharing. Resteemed :)
This whole effort is the biggest indication of actual communism that exists. A bunch of minnows telling people that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars into the platform how to spend the money. Not only how to spend it, but that they are entitled to this money. Guess what, a bunch of minnows attacking a whale for doing what he wants with his investment. Tards, and greedy. It is you fools that are greedy and trying to have a power that you are not entitled to without steem power. Grow up. Get more money and dump it where you want it.
Oh i should just get more money, i would have never thought of that myself. Thanks for the fantastic solution!
The point is, you cannot commender the capacity of someone who has successfully put money into the platform, the only thing you could do, is to gain power and not do it, instead of trying to prevent the actions of others. Be a model, not a dictator.
We are at the heart of the matter here calamus056. You can get SP on steemit with either time or fiat. If you don't have fiat, then you have to spend time.
No reason to get upset at the folks who bring more fiat than you are able to at this moment. That is called envy. The partner to greed. Envy is not better than greed, and vica-versa.
The large whales that bring $2.5M fiat and invest in the platform, are the ones that help keep price of steem at high enough level to make payouts interesting, even for us minnows
10,000 users that already left the platform because it's not good enough could have brought $250 each over the next years to get the same result. Besides, many of them would bring even more potential investors.
I'm getting tired of the investor argument (not from you personally, I've just seen it 30 times already now). Investing large sums into STEEM gives them no special privilege whatsoever. Large SP holders specifically can currently unintentionally also do a lot of harm, because it's a huge responsibility for 1 person to control 100's of times the average stake and is unlikely to do "as good a job" as 100's of others (for statistical and time constraint reasons).
Actually investing large sums into STEEM does give them special privileges now. I get that that is what you are arguing should change.
You have at least a couple of valid points. The end game value for the platform depends on attracting and keeping minnows, and providing a growth path that many find acceptable. Not sure if 10K losses to date is unacceptable or not - no data on how many users did other social media sites lose in early days? 100% retention is not a realistic goal of course. Some losses are expected under any scenario.
And I agree that large SP holders can unintentionally do a lot of harm, as they wander through the china shop with giant hoofs kicking in all directions. Statistically 100 smaller users will provide better curation than one large bull, even if the bull is well intentioned.
Continuing series of small adjustments in the rules with very HF is probably the best way to keep tweaking so the platform can stay on a growth course.
If too large of a change is attempted at once, could end up chasing too many away, either whales or minnows, and causing site to go through a user reset - back down to 20K and then start growth cycle again.
I'm surprised that a social media site like steemit doesn't have an active tab where we see all the discussions on HF20 focused. As it is, various improvement concepts and discussions seem to be scattered all over in various categories.
Personally I would be interested in knowing - what are the changes that steemit mgmt are actively considering as candidates for HF20? When will decisions be finalized on what is changing with HF20? What is the target date for HF20 to go live?
STEEM On!!
#HF20 (you can see the related posts there) is going to be a disaster, they're focusing on account creation fees to get the platform ready for millions of users. They're not planning to fix anything in HF20, so we will have to wait another few months for HF21.
It's very frustrating for a lot of people. I can't even imagine how it feels to work on content for hours and consistently getting $0.03.
Millions of users. Whoo hooo!! Should be so much easier to find and curate the exceptionally great content.
Sarcasm. Not always 100% obvious in written form
Still a better story than FB
I have some great advice to help you out with that, don't be poor - just be rich, easy peasy :)
Yup, very easy ;)
Let's just all decide to be rich from now on! Problem solved!
Upvoting is a personal choice. The default is to self-upvote. If you've got a good post, and it's not getting attention, then do something to get it attention, upvote it, edit it to "polish it up", there's no harm in it.
You hit the nail on the head. And also, these people put money into the platform, who are we to say what they can and cannot vote for? This was a tenant of communism.
We know, but there's a problem when people (almost) never vote on others and/or not contribute to the platform.
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
I have to admit, this is fascinating. I am confused by the first number......what is it? In my case the total SBD is $6,400, so is that the amount that I have given overall by voting? And the $256 is the amount of that $6,400 that I gave to myself through upvoting my own post?
You got it :)
In your case it was $6,485.92 SBD worth of upvotes, of which $295.80 (4.56%) was on yourself. That's entirely acceptable since you're a fantastic content creator, but in my opinion ideally people would stop voting on themselves entirely.
P.S.: may i ask how you found this post? Did you get a notification that you were mentioned in a post (even though i didn't include @ on purpose)?
no i don't get notifications anymore.....
I am a surfer here on steemit, and I followed a bunch of random things.....I have no idea actually.
There's a ton of informative stuff, that is hiding in steemit...
There's also a lotttttt of spam btw ;)
People think they will make money right away without realizing how "bad" their content is.
no, I found your other post in the "HoT" section, which led me to this.
Ah ok, so unless a lot of money comes in in a short period, content remains undiscovered on SteemIt, that's lovely haha
I think there is one thing that is missing here from the conversation....people are free to buy their way in, and then upvote their own posts for visibility. I think the creators of the platform would not oppose that. What I see in your info though, is the prevalance of users who are not spreading out their upvotes! That is a bit disconcerting.
Yup as long as it isn't abusive, it OK. Even though we're all guilty of selfishness from time to time, it can always be improved :)
Greed is a human foible that will never be eradicated. A "war on greed" would be as effective as a "war on drugs".
You can't fix 100% of the people, if by fix the definition is make them fit into the mold you deem is OK.
Nothing we can do about human greed, except point it out when we see it.
Behavior may or may not change if people know they will be outed.
Yes, it is changing that balance that, I feel, is urgently required.
Sense of pride ?
..first of all thank you for posting this info and getting in in this theme..at last it isn't clear to me how to think about upvoting one self..i agree with the comment of @davebrewer..seems right to me that the community has the freedom to decide collectively..
A really useful post @calamus056. There are clearly many differing reasons and justifications given for self voting but in my opinion I would rather receive the rewards from others for having produced good content or even making a good comment than reward myself. I am not here to judge anyone and some of the justifications may be valid to some degree but I fail to see the reason that the function exists other than to purposely allow those who invest to milk the reward pool as a reward for investment or in order to fuck with everyones sense of morality and decency. If anyone can provide me with a better explanation I'd be very pleased to hear it! :)
Have a great day my friend!
..and by the way..what do you or all of you steemians think about people begging (sometimes almost barefaced, if you ask me...) for following, upvoting and resteeming them??..sure that everybody wants to have followers and so on, the whole thing it s about..
It's horrible. Some people are following 50,000 people. I'm probably going to datamine following stats next.
Wow! Such a big amounts!
My received $0.5 is a drop in the ocean compared to this🙂
..yes, there playing in a different league than we..
Keep in mind some of us write 150 blogs a month on here for content and those are all upvoted, I went into that on here too.
Perspective is important along with the engagement we try and create in the community.
I would Strongly suggest that, avoid self voting. It will help your post gain in value. After HF19, self voting on posts will result reducing the post's earning every day. Posts earned $600 on first day will end up with $300.
Is this carved in stone for the next HF?
maybe using the word 'will' made it future tense. HF 19 was happened already and because of which self voting were/are resulting huge drop in payouts. That is what I have observed.
What are talking about? HF19 already happened June 20th.
hahaha.. I know..you must have got confused because i have used 'WILL' which turned the total sentence in to future tense. I beg your pardon for my bad english.
Yes indeed, HF19 was happened last month. What I meant to say was, if some one self vote their posts, that post's payout will get reduced.
No it won't.
yes it does..because they keep voting other posts during 7 days.. which will make their rewards go down a bit. i have just used an example above..maybe they dont get reduce much, but earning will surely go down..
Rewards for everyone always go do when you vote, even if you don't vote on yourself. That has nothing to do with HF19 though.
Holy sh*t 11k SBD only from self-voting..
Yup and what about the total of $175,181.088 SBD self-votes this month? Read about it in my previous post.
So is upvoting yourself selfish?
No not at all, the word "self" isn't at all in the word "yourself" :p
How is this even allowed? Lol
Because you can get your own content higher on the "hot" list. But people that don't make good content can also do it so that's the problem.
I think this option should be removed from steemit, or it could be allowed as long as the self upvotes in comments and posts wouldn't be monetized.
It's more complicated than that because of multiple accounts.
Add some AI, it should solve the problem.
The underlying technology of SteemIt already is AI :p
Its amazing how the platform could produce such a good income stream for its members. I dont find a problem with this. Yes, I felt jealous because like anybody else in the platform, I also wanted to earn but unfortunately I could not.
I am not against self-voting because I believe its their rights. They had been spending their time in the platform and gained support from whales and turned themselves into a whale too. Some of them had invested money in the platform and its just right to use it for themselves. There's nothing wrong with it, its called reality.
The reason why there are those who mumble is because we are jealous of their earnings and dont worry, its also normal. Its a human instinct.
What we need to do is to invest money too or find ourselves a whale supporters and enjoy the benefits of being a user in the platform.
Wrong, there is something wrong with it because it harms the platform. Also there's no jealousy, self-voting is just bad for the platform, that has nothing to do with how much certain people are "earning".
The admin should remove this feature since its bad and is not good for the platform. Or could it be that steemit was created for it?
Indeed they should remove the feature! No, it's not created to vote on yourself exclusively.
BTW, there is no admin, just open-source developers.
Hopefully self-voting will be disabled soon.
It won't, because people want to be able to buy SP to upvote their content for better visibility.
Somehow self-voting were created for that :)
Thanks for the info! I don't see anything wrong with t a little upvoting,but I do think that the community would do better with MORE of a balance in the way some that make huge amounts of money upvote themselves. I'm proud of the witnesses I voted for that are doing a great job of helping the community! Greed it not my thing. Thanks again.
Alot of these people have invested alot of money into steem and only want to use it as an investment. I am not saying its right or wrong but you have failed to realize that if you ban this they all exit their postion and thats alot hitting the market and will cause a serious drop. These guys are actually stabilizing steem for the long term. Just think how much risk they have if this goes belly up. There is always other sides to everything that should be discussed. Im not saying i agree with it just wanted to state something i havent seen in the sudden influx of these type of post.
If they don't want this to go belly up they should stop self-voting. The more money goes to content creators, the more new potential investors there will be. It's literally that simple.
People can earn a shitload with curation rewards. I bet it's at least 50 times more than the bank pays.
That ▲ right there. The more thriving and quality based the the community looks, the more attractive it looks to investors.
Thats what i am saying they are not here for the community thats obvious, what i am curious about if they all left what would that do to the price if steem? I wonder how much steem all from the first group hold. Just gotta think about this like stocks they all liquidate what dies that look like? Just to be clear i am not supporting what they do but it makes me wonder what happens if all the big guys leave.
It could go bad either way. If there were nothing but self voters here then STEEM would be the most destitute attention economy in the world of social media. Social media gets its value from those who need attention and if people arent paying attention, but simply reaping rewards and leaving, then steem is losing its value. I can't say if that's what's happening or not, but the community would grow faster if there was more opportunity to get paid for your attention, engagement and interaction, and less for an arbitrary comment or vote that can be made by a bot.
If all the big guys leave there's at least 13 weeks mega down pressure on the price and we have to start from under $0.10 again but that's ok ;)
This is excellent information. Good to know. Thank you so much!
I am finding this all very interesting and also disheartening at times for the long term benefit of the platform and the masses.
I was messaging people today on an account draining $200 / day some days, on ~ 15 posts/day simply posting everyone else's content and YT videos, not even adding any wording hardly to the post..... and never replying to comments.
10 -15 posts every single day for weeks and weeks, at over $10 and $15/post and the person has about 50k Steem Power also.
So for most people wanting to challenge them, they risk getting flagged by big accounts like this and they have nearly 3k followers also.
I decided to post twice on their page today about it.... you can check my comments tab from a few hours ago.
I'm not scared of them. All i want is justice and won't refrain from making my opinion public. I've already got another unfollow (obviously from a user that self-voted almost 100% of the time) ;)
If you have put in the time and effort to come out with the comments, then self voting should not be a problem. I must admit that I have done that a couple of times. But if more than half of the total SBD is used on yourself, then there is a problem somewhere. I usually up-vote comments for my post. I suppose the solution is to set a percentage limit say 30% for self voting.
I'd say closer to 10%, but it's technically very complicated because of multiple accounts.
Thanks for the very informative post. Do check out my work too, I write poetry and positive posts.
I still don't understand whats wrong and what's right. I stopped upvoting my own posts because of all the hype and I don't want to be blackballed. I'm still just a nobody so I don't think it really matters. Although, I have promoted my own post as soon as I post it, if I think it will be popular lol. I wonder if that is frowned upon also?
If you mean upvoting your own posts, that's generally accepted when it's not too much spam. On comments people are starting to be against it more and more (unless it's once in a while, then it's fine).
Cool, I don't think I have ever upvoted my own comment but I have upvoted my blogs, well some of them. Thanks for commenting!