One of the main features of steemit is getting a monetary reward for people voting for your posts and you voting on peoples posts, which is an integral part of steemit however I don't think anyone but the poster should be able to see the amount of money they are making on a post until the initial one week payout is complete.
Why I think this:
There is no shame in the fact that we are all more likely to vote on a post doing well for a portion of the payout and I am a big fan of the voters getting rewarded for helping a post do well, however because people vote for the payout many people fall into the pattern of trying to get the largest return for their vote, which again is fair, but in the long run I think this will and already is negatively effecting the whole steemit ecosystem.
It means that people often don't vote content that they read and enjoy because they see that it doesn't look like the payout will be big. Which means that many new steemians posts won't get votes because of the payout.
Whereas if only the poster could see the payout during the initial week people would be more likely to just vote for content that they enjoy which would help the wider community as a whole.
When steemit grows and has a wider amount of active users I think this will most likely become less of an issue as the site will likely gain users that come purely for the content not to create content, however I think with the amount of users currently on the site a feature such as this could be beneficial to the overall growth of the site.
I vote on anything that i enjoy no mayter how much the vote price is which really the monetary vote im guessing depebds on the sp, tge curaters sp, if they have bot votes, and the tagging
You seem to be a rare breed my friend. The whole payout for voting depends on a few different factors I believe, More sp more your vote is worth, then you vote on a post that makes a lot you get a small portion, to put it very simply and possible a little wrong. None the less I admire you for voting on post you enjoy and I encourage more people to do the same.
Yeah thats what this platform is for.
It's a good idea, also what may be good, is a way of indicating that a post is under 7 days old without saying exactly. Because I've noticed that people don't like to vote on posts more than a day old, which I don't get because the rewards don't change anyway.
Cg
Ye I agree that also would be a good feature, as you said after the first day or two posts seem to get ignored so it could be could to hide the payout and post date until the first 7 days is through.
...another good point.
I have noticed that also, and never really worked out the logic to it...
Your blog was insightful. I hadn't realised that you can get paid more for voting on a post doing well, and like my predecessor I vote for what I like. I have a lot to learn. Thank you.
I think it's fine to see everyone else's earnings. It keeps the site feeling of being decentralized. I like seeing other people's post earnings. Makes it all transparent so no one can cheat the system or something. Yeah there are those who cheat the system and upvote themselves and such but I like the transparency of Steemit somehow.
I had the same thought when writing this post, however I think that transparency wouldn't be an issue of you only didn't see the earning of a post during the first 7 days, because if someone did try to cheat the system in some way they would be found out very soon after.
Ah I see. Well I dunno, let's see if they make a change or not. For now I am happy with how it is.
This information wants to be free, it's impossible to hide it completely. It may be hidden i.e. on steemit.com, but there are many other apps and sites built on the steem blockchain. People that wants to access this information will find it.
Good point however I feel like it would still make a difference as a lot of people do just stick to the main site and don't venture to the other apps and sites as regularly, then even if it pushed people to visit these other areas it could be beneficial too
I must admit I sometimes vote tactically - some of the people I follow always gets lots of votes on their postings - I think there are people that earn far more on their postings than what I think is "fair" considering the quality of their posts. I usually don't upvote, but if I see that they have posted something within the last 20-30 minutes and it's not totally crap and they don't have as much votes as they usually get, I tend to give a tactical vote.
I can only hope that people will behave somehow erratically and giving non-selfish votes to what they think is quality content. Steem will become a Keynesian beauty contest if everyone vote tactically, and voting bots may be the key players even. Or ... actually, a rational selfish player should rather write lots of comments (perhaps having a bot generating comments) and self-upvote them.
We all vote at times tactically its something that can be hard to avoid, and with bots being involved it just ads another level to people not caring about actual content and really we should all vote for what we enjoy and not vote for posts we recognize as poorly done just for the rewards.
It is one of those areas that if we were to all tactically vote on occasion it would likely not be an issue but because people use bots and almost exclusively vote tactically it becomes the issue it is today.
So buck the trend, start by voting for this post! :-)
Cg
Oh ... I didn't? Perhaps because I didn't agree with it. But it was a good post even if I don't agree with it, so I'll toss in an upvote.
Fair enough; I just wish people would 'normal' vote more, as well as tactical, which I really don't think is worth it when SP is under say about 20,000.
Take me for instance, tactical voting would probably be the difference between me making 5.1 steem per week and 5.4.
I auto vote, and I vote randomly, can't make anyone else do the same, but I do think it's a good tactic, each to their own I guess . . .
Cg
Actually, it's not all "fair enough" - I think it's important to try to lay aside personal opinions and vote on content based on quality and not opinions.
I've seen opinion-biases causing big "echo-chamber"-effects back at Reddit (i.e. r/btc), where people tend to downvote a well-given argument just because they happen to disagree with the conclusion, as well as upvote ad-hominems and other fallacies as long as they agree with the conclusion, it's quite bad.
We seem to live in a time where if you are to disagree with something you automatically shut it down.
It seems that people need to become more willing to listening to opposing views and trying to understand and maybe even learn from the.
It's really bad, and only becoming worse.
Internet was supposed to bring mankind closer together, but instead we're seeing the opposite effect, even in multiple dimensions:
People naturally seek like-minded people, they naturally want to get their values and beliefs reinforced rather than challenged. Internet makes it easier to connect to like-minded people.
Earlier we had telephone numbers, later we got email addresses, UseNet and the IRC ... but after that, things have gradually broken down, the IRC network split in two, and people started using various commercial and/or proprietary solutions like ICQ, MSN, Skype, Slack, Telegram, Wickr, Reddit, etc. It's really challenging, for instance we've started the Pirate Party here in Norway, but we can't communicate with each other, hence it's a dead end!
I don't use bots for voting, I only do manual voting, and I strive to upvote what seems to be quality content. Sometimes when my voting power is at 100%, I may desperately choose some tags I care about, search out new posts and give an upvote to the best post I can find.
I think it is fine just the way it is so you can catch scammers before they get paid.
The system in place of course has its positives and negatives but I think it could be worth testing a slightly different way of doing things to see if it works out as better or worse
A very interesting point you have sir, and one well worth consideration.
I'm not sure about it,- I also haven't really thought about it, thought it through - but it seems that it just may be a powerful -but very subtle , game changer.
good post.
Thanks for the kind words, I agree it could be something that appears a small change but makes a real big difference.
...less of the 'kind' if you don't mind!
😂
I have a contrarian reputation to uphold!
Seriously though, it _is a very interesting idea.
Obviously you have thought it through, a lot more than myself...
Would it serve the interests of the big players, or the opposite?
Or would it make any difference at all to them...?
I'll ask you the questions, to speed up my thinking processes! lol
ahaha
What I would assume would happen would be big players who don't produce high quality content will be likely lose some of their votes, in place these votes will be used on other creators based on how good the content they put out is.
So I would say there is potential for it to help fish and whales alike, as long as they themselves are posting content that is deemed as high quality. Then for small posters who post "low quality" content their votes would likely not change.
So overall I feel it would be a change that would promote all round good content, which would also make people push to make their post better, in theory of course.