I've reduced the weight on it drastically for now. The real solution would be to either hide those posts from the trending page or to have a separate tab for it.
I am discussing this with @smooth for a while. He says even with a single tag "experimental" it will show up on trending. He says the solution is to vote it as late as possible.
I still like to see no "steem" tag on burnpost and like to see the results.
I didn't say it was "the solution". It is one thing that does reduce trending, which can be used right now.
I mostly agree with @therealwolf that the better solution is for UIs should have better tools for deciding what shows up on the front page other than just votes/payouts. The latter should go on a leaderboard and dedicated curation tools.
The problem with being forced to vote at a later time is that chunks of curation rewards are being forfeited. If it all would be randomized, I'd be okay with it, but if it's simply about people not wanting to see burn posts on trending; then this should have a direct UI solution.
While I was and still am a proponent of the SPS, much of it could have also been realized with the current voting mechanism we have today, just by having the right UI for it. So I think it's crucial that we do the right thing for people who want to burn rewards.
I agree. As we discussed this is meant to be a temporary “solution”. As a change to the UI won’t happen anytime soon.
Point is we don’t want contentless post to litter trending even if the intent of those posts are good for the economy. I don’t think it’s too much to ask. For Curation ROI there are many real posts to vote where you vote should go it.
Burnpost is a philanthropy, we shouldn’t be looking for ROI there.
Point is we don’t want contentless post to litter trending even if the intent of those posts are good for the economy
That seems like exactly the sort of tradeoff that should be left to the voters. It is a clear judgment call whether good for the economy outweighs good for trending or vice versa.
Burnpost is a philanthropy
No it isn't. If you burn your own coins, that is philanthropy. If you vote to burn (i.e. not distribute) funds from the reward pool, that is a vote on how to best use the reward pool.
Voters should be free to be voters (i.e. express an opinion by voting without incurring an added personal cost to vote one way or another). There is no other way to fairly measure the value of burning vs the benefits of content on trending (given current UI) other than letting voters take that balance into account.
Not being able to downvote without a personal cost was the situation prior to EIP and it had catastrophic consequences.
When I suggest that voters consider voting later, that doesn't mean voters should be required to do this, or harassed if they don't.
I've reduced the weight on it drastically for now. The real solution would be to either hide those posts from the trending page or to have a separate tab for it.
I am discussing this with @smooth for a while. He says even with a single tag "experimental" it will show up on trending. He says the solution is to vote it as late as possible.
I still like to see no "steem" tag on burnpost and like to see the results.
I didn't say it was "the solution". It is one thing that does reduce trending, which can be used right now.
I mostly agree with @therealwolf that the better solution is for UIs should have better tools for deciding what shows up on the front page other than just votes/payouts. The latter should go on a leaderboard and dedicated curation tools.
Yeah thanks for the clarification. I think we are making progress :)
Thank you for being patient with me.
The problem with being forced to vote at a later time is that chunks of curation rewards are being forfeited. If it all would be randomized, I'd be okay with it, but if it's simply about people not wanting to see burn posts on trending; then this should have a direct UI solution.
While I was and still am a proponent of the SPS, much of it could have also been realized with the current voting mechanism we have today, just by having the right UI for it. So I think it's crucial that we do the right thing for people who want to burn rewards.
I agree. As we discussed this is meant to be a temporary “solution”. As a change to the UI won’t happen anytime soon.
Point is we don’t want contentless post to litter trending even if the intent of those posts are good for the economy. I don’t think it’s too much to ask. For Curation ROI there are many real posts to vote where you vote should go it.
Burnpost is a philanthropy, we shouldn’t be looking for ROI there.
That seems like exactly the sort of tradeoff that should be left to the voters. It is a clear judgment call whether good for the economy outweighs good for trending or vice versa.
No it isn't. If you burn your own coins, that is philanthropy. If you vote to burn (i.e. not distribute) funds from the reward pool, that is a vote on how to best use the reward pool.
Voters should be free to be voters (i.e. express an opinion by voting without incurring an added personal cost to vote one way or another). There is no other way to fairly measure the value of burning vs the benefits of content on trending (given current UI) other than letting voters take that balance into account.
Not being able to downvote without a personal cost was the situation prior to EIP and it had catastrophic consequences.
When I suggest that voters consider voting later, that doesn't mean voters should be required to do this, or harassed if they don't.