which can't work in a decentralised and transparent media, the point is no singular control and no censorship, you are kind of saying keep the up/down vote mechanic, get it off the main site, make it more complicated and don't bother us with it...
sounds interesting, but I'm not sure how to quantify it, downvotes do that right now, obscuring people to provide a level of security?
I just don't see a point, currently you can see anything and nothing is being kept from you, that is in miles better, you don't have to wonder, that mechanic is in place right now, if you don't like a post and you think it should pay out less you can use your stake, or you can use your stake to reward something that has more value than it's currently getting, hence you have the whole authority of your stake and vote.
An upvote and downvote is confusing because a downvote psychologically implies that you dont like the content. That is different than a disagreement with the payout. Most people dont downvote content if it is overvalued because it doesnt benefit them and they may fear being singled out. This results in most content only having upvotes which means rewards arent distributed fairly according to “wisdom of the crowd”. Everything is still transparent from the backend like steemd.com but the interface keeps it hidden. If you keep the payout hidden before voting, each person votes on their subjective perception of the value. In this case, they wont know whether they “upvoted” or “downvoted” until after they vote because they wont know whether they voted above below the current pending payout. The interface will faciliate the mentality of giving fair rewards as opposed to choosing whether you “like” or “dislike” content. Their corresponding stake will either add or take away rewards from the post. I dont understand why you think that cant work in a decentralized and transparent manner. From the blockchain, everything is still visible and transparent.
Posted using Partiko Android
Namings don't matter, that's subjective, because we put a negative connotation on the word "negative" doesn't mean that electro-magntism is bad, currents and poles still exist and the particles love it.
because of the complexity it has to bring relative to the "result" the result is a idealised version of what we have now, currently if everyone was a fully-formed individual capable of expressing opinions and their view of the world, steem works, we get to talk to one another and negotiate what is good and bad, hence upvote downvote.
In practical terms you want to quantify a relationship between people and content, that requires values, how do you measure subjective value, well you say what you mean and mean what you say.
We have that same functionality, I'm sure changing the packaging will change how people see it, but right now you can do what you said above, if you don't like a post, or for whatever reason want to downvote, you can. Stake is still king as in your interpretation.
In short that's a front-end "fix" to a problem that wasn't solved years ago, it's not a real solution, it doesn't change the dynamic.
It's the same thing, it's been proposed a lot of times by a lot of people here, " just obscure the rewards and they will be more honest? " sadly the cat is out of the bag and in reality it doesn't work like that.
I misunderstood your idea, I thought you wanted to have some back-end layer of logic that sorts a pool of data and determines the post value on payout, which we currently have, since the blockchain was made,
right now your stake directly determines the amount of payout, so you can do the math and if you think a post is worth 10$ you are free to flag that 150$ bid-bot post (and based on your stake you will make a difference :| ). We don't do it because it would be bad to slap someone, I'd rather give my 10 cents to real people that don't move just for money, rather than slap some spammer that wants to live in his glass house.
So in theory your idea is what we have right now, plus a bit more complicated on the front-end, seemingly a simple solution, but it won't change anything.
Namings definitely matter. Names greatly influence human psychology. If you ask any random person that isn't part of the Steem blockchain what a "thumbs up" means, they will say it means "good" or a sign of approval. Likewise, a "thumbs down" means disapproval and a sign that something is bad. On Steem, a thumbs up is supposed to mean "this post is worth more than it is" and a thumbs down should mean "this post isn't worth as much as it is". This creates confusion and makes people resistant to downvoting. That means overvalued content will probably stay overvalued. Steem is currently failing at showcasing the best content on the internet.
So when the interface has a thumbs up and thumbs down button, people will only use the thumbs down button if they disapprove of something (i.e. the content sucks). Why are we going to use a symbol or word that people associate with something being "bad" when we actually want people to decide as a whole how much a post is worth? A different presentation needs to happen if we instead want people to vote on how valuable they think it is. That is the point of "wisdom of the crowd". The idea is that if you get a crowd of people to vote on something, the answer will probably be closer to the truth than randomly selecting an individual person. This will allow a lot of overvalued content to decrease and increase undervalued content.
We do have the same functionality, but it isn't used effectively because of what I said. Having something more neutral than thumbs up and thumbs down will remove biases in voting habits more effectively.
Nothing needs to change on the blockchain if this is implemented. You're right; it is a seemingly simple solution. Stake is still the king but it is currently biased towards overvaluing content remaining overvalued. The only thing is changing the voting options that are more synonymous with voting on value as opposed to a post being "good" or "bad". I have to disagree with you. I think it will change.
first paragraph is why I say it doesn't matter, people should understand and then see through, thumbs up and down is associated in history as the "wisdom of the crowd" the emperor hears the crowd and kills or boasts the gladiator...
hence we have that problem since we have crowds and we have that since we have people, so we have a lot of problems we keep naming differently, hence namings don't matter.
And
But we just said people have biases and now we are saying if we make a bias based on biases, we would have a objective measure of value...
The only thing that will change the current result is a different behavior, so think differently, act differently, make a difference, stand by it, in this case, make a dApp, run it, change people's behavior, come and bring light to the forsaken :P
but yeah you can't remove voting biases, you need them in fact, you need more bias as you say, people are too positive to downvote the trending crap, trust me many have tried, :D people just like business as usual, it's not bad to be good and say things need to change, people have been doing it, actively, that's what I like about this place, but still you have the problems persisting, because we are human and we have them and we allow them.
The idea is quite vast, so a perception of a metric won't change the outcome much, we are talking about poeople's interactions, a simple framing could have great consequences, but do you think that just that would change everything necessary for a whole behavior to change.
Personally I think when you go into a new place, you don't carry the old stuff with you, you go seeing what is different, then you go back to your old stuff and change them, that's a better approach than going somewhere with your problems and asking for solutions.
So I was quite active here or quite a long time, trending back then was 70% same old, as some say whale-voted authors, didn't matter, didn't care, it bothered me, I saw better things elsewhere, it's not fair, that's life... it's not better now, it's not gonna become great tomorrow,
I've been saying people need to talk to each other and read more, that's not feasible in scale, but it sure would help everyone out more, it would build more bridges back and forth, the economics will still be broken because the whales will still have the stake, but hey who needed to be visible, wasn't me I bidboted one post about bubbles :D fake visibility doesn't make you famous, if you are crap in real life having 500 payout on a post might feel good, but that's not real value.
Still that has been proposed at least 2-3 years ago, it's not that well argumented as a solution I suppose, it's just a name to a mechanic, sure it will give you a different perception, but people don't go to the trending page to read good content, nither do they go to downvote to make content more deserving of rewards, I go there to sift through 50 posts, get some new updates, read two good posts and get out to people, at least I used to when I was here all day.
so yeah alternative trending pages are made, steemit.inc hasn't announced changing the condenser front end also called steemit, so no updates on the upvote/downvote popups, in fact it used to be called flagging, it was said that it should be used for what you said sooo now it's downvote, because that's what it does on the blockchain to better reflect the true behavior or something. Even back then downvoting was bad and people were arguing much like we are now :D call it downvote not flag and so on, flag is associated with reporting bad behavior ... :D
merry christmas also :)
If people would vote on the value of posts on the trending page, the majority of the posts would be raided with "downvotes" which makes bid bots less profitable. Maybe a post on the trending page is only worth $50 to most people but it is overinflated to be $250. Having a more neutral voting appearance would make most people "downvote" the content (which thereby uses their stake to return steem back to the reward pool) and now that can go to better content.
By the way, what solution are you proposing?
educate people on education, economics, psychology, sociology, throw some history, hope for better judgement, so we don't keep running into this wall at least ...
out here you don't get to vote on all content, the stake reflects your stake in the system, so you can't affect the whole system, only the part your stake reflects, so most people wouldn't have a say in the trending page, as they haven't for the most part, there are good whales, there are bad whales, people act differently, I don't see any solutions, I was out of here for some time now, as I said in the other comment, it's been a persistent problem, lots of things factor into it, I don't see a simple solution.