Friends @therealwolf@acidyo@transisto@lukestrokes yesterday when I reviewed the trends I realized that, and reflected on the contradictions of steemit, there is always talk about making a contribution of value to the community but sometimes you meet these users and their Spam publications that make you doubt about the seriousness of the platform. It is an abuse in all the extension of the word
Maybe as a community we should start exposing these voting rings so people can know who is contributing to this and who is working to prevent it? Reputation should matter, and if some people who otherwise have a high reputation are enabling what others call abuse, that's worth discussing.
I have people who vote for me, but I have no voting agreement with anyone. If I was to some day show up as being part of "abuse" I don't think that would be my fault as much as the people who decided to vote for me even if the community disagreed with the rewards payout. To me, those are the people we should confront and that includes those who run voting bot services which enable this to happen and profit from it.
I appreciate you discussing this and the downvotes you do to protect the perception of the value of the rewards pool. I know, as an investor, that's a double burden you have to take because you're not only not making money on your voting strength you could be making, but you're also exposing yourself for whale flag wars.
It's also challenging to directly defined voting circles and abuse. I have friends of mine who I always support and some of them support me also. Is that abuse or natural? Who's to say and what role does the quality of the content produced play? Hopefully we can all figure this out as we vote up or down based on perspectives.
Do you think we have enough visibility yet? To me, we could do more. This could be a regular topic of discussion with actual data. Weekly reports (maybe even daily reports?) and ask for engagement from the voters. I too often see people complaining about the author without calling out the actual voters who are doing the distribution from the rewards pool. Why don't we focus on the voters more? Why don't we have reports that don't assume blame, but instead try to explain? There may be valid reasons why some people decide to add others to voting bots. If we don't know those reasons, we can think it's a scammy voting ring. If we do, maybe we can reset our expectations on how (and why) people use their own Steem Power as they choose.
Many of the examples I've seen of people caring about the rewards pool distribution are (IMO) immature comparisons to "rape" instead of rational, non-judgemental discussions trying to understand why certain people vote the way they do.
People have reasons. Our ignorance of those reasons doesn't justify our moral judgements. If, on the other hand, we know those reasons and can clearly articulate them in ways the community at large can fully agree (or disagree) with, then it's possible support for those people will be removed or added. If there's still disagreement about the value behind the reasons for a vote, then it's not an issue we consensus on, so even more discussion should take place before we claim the community has figured this out and our solutions to it have failed.
I too often see people complaining about the author without calling out the actual voters who are doing the distribution from the rewards pool.
I think you are in a denial over the fact that most of these are actually enrichment schemes that involve paid voting, hidden common ownership of the voter and author accounts, or off-chain payment schemes that leave no evidence on the platform itself.
I'm not moralizing here. I don't blame people for responding to the incentives as the platform presents them. It is just that the incentives are broken.
P.S. I agree the 'rape' thing is sensationalist, not precise, and not helpful. My personal focus is not on name calling or even focused on any specific individuals. It is on looking at the mechanism and what it incentivizes. Currently the answer, unfortunately, is a lot of non-value-creating behavior.
I’m not in denial as much as I’m suggesting a path forward which would expose it clearly. If asked “Why do you vote for X?” and the honest answer is “Becuase they pay me in bananas / sexual favors / Slim Jims / pieces of paper with dead people on them / piles of coke / (whatever)” then it becomes clear. If they lie about it and are inconsistent, I think over time, that becomes clear to the community also. If in the off chance they have a legit answer, then we all understand more. I’m simply assuming good intentions first. If they don’t want to talk about their reasoning and are unwilling to justify their vote with a rational response, then what you’re describing becomes more clear to everyone and in a way that makes as few assumptions as possible. Innocent until proven irrational.
The recent call-out of @ranchorelaxo is an example of what I mean. It’s telling that he/she/it did not defend themself (yet) but instead @haejin did.
I agree, looking to improve the mechanism is the best, long-term answer. I also think we have to work within the system we have in the mean time. I’m also not sure what technical or system solutions would improve this activity since it’s a common thing we see in most systems with humans involved. It’s possible a better identity and reputation system could help, and I think that’s part of what SMTs and their Oracles may provide. The “reputation” number we have now is silly if we have actors on the system that many are frustrated with which hold the highest reputation on the system.
As to moralizing, I get what you mean, and I do fall into that trap quite a bit due to my upbringing, but I also look at it not so much in terms of good and bad but in terms of long-term rational self-interest which values oneself as part of a whole and irrational short-term decisions which harm others and oneself in the long-term.
IMO you are not suggesting a path forward as much as suggesting what has been done over and over again for the past two years (with little, if anything, in the way of real progress).
The recent call-out of @ranchorelaxo is an example of what I mean. It’s telling that he/she/it did not defend themself (yet) but instead @haejin did.
And then what? No response at all, and as far as I can tell @haejin is still earning something like 6000 USD per day (i.e. 2 million USD per year) for doing little to nothing to add value to STEEM. It isn't a small number either, that's around 0.25% of the entire market cap of STEEM going to one person/scheme with little or nothing to show for it. Even if this individual 'calling out' approach were effective, what would happen is that the account would quietly go away and the scheme would be rehatched under different names, possibly different 'content', etc. The one thing that remains the same is the clear incentive to maximize individual earnings.
After two years of repeated and unchecked abuses (despite numerous calling outs), it becomes very much a question of the insanity of doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
long-term rational self-interest
Long-term rational self-interest at the moment probably coincides with just maximizing individual earnings, because so many other people are doing it anyway and will very likely continue doing it, especially when the best answers we can come up with are: a) more of the same; and b) some poorly-defined and poorly-analyzed future 'solution' that probably won't ever even be fully implemented before moving on to something else (which is actually more of the same: Remember when 'curation guilds' were the solution, and then linear rewards?).
irrational short-term decisions which harm others and oneself in the long-term.
It is tempting to equate decisions which benefit oneself at the expense of others as irrational, but that is wishful thinking and moralizing, unless the rules of the system make this irrational, and they currently do not. Nor is it clear that @haejin earning around 2M USD/year is in any way irrational (for him and his affiliates).
I’m also not sure what technical or system solutions would improve this activity since it’s a common thing we see in most systems with humans involved.
The most likely solutions I see that would probably work are:
Dramatically increasing curation rewards so that most of the reward pool is paid out as a combination of effort and staking which takes away the free ride. If you want to earn you have to invest money, which at a minimum gives a lot back in terms of raising the STEEM price. (Alternately there could be a system where content rewards are similarly scaled by STEEM/SP staking but no one has proposed anything well-defined.)
Moving away from the socialized reward pool, which has been an interesting but unfortunately failed experiment, and toward low-friction tipping. When presented with the opportunity to spend (and especially with the opportunity to receive) money paid for by 'others', all or nearly all of the human systems you describe (and most certainly this one) devolve into waste and corruption. What fixes that is people spending their own money.
Reduce barriers to downvoting including: a) Remove annoying and misguided popup in UI; b) restore symmetric UI (upvote/downvote vs. 'flag'); c) separate pool of vote power for downvoting, so downvoting does not become a direct opportunity cost to the voter (as it is currently); d) research some cryptographic method of anonymous downvoting to prevent retaliation; e) Statements by founders/developers/leaders on the platform on the importance of a downvoting when needed to maintain the integrity of the system and restrain otherwise-misaligned individual incentives (at least mirroring what was in the white paper, and in contrast to a lot of the nonsense that has been previously stated by many of these people about only using downvotes for plagiarism, etc.).
I feel there is no simple solution, because Steemit is constantly developing and adding new features without addressing the current issues. And with more code, come more bugs, so the old bugs/problems will keep piling up until the sand pyramid collapses. I sincerly hope that doesn't happen and to prevent that, the system needs to halt anything unecessary (or not in production) and focus on the present problems. Once we have a solid foundation that WORKS for a while, then we can happily move on to other aggrandizing things.
I can compare the current state of things to the myth of multitasking. Trying to do everything at the same time is NOT productive. Fewer Priorities Leads to Better Work.
We have some interrim solutions in place but the definitive solution would likely require a code change. However, if the witness ranks have been compromised by the abusers, the likelihood of that happening is remote.
Check out @flagawhale if you would like to see a grassroots and crowdfunded approach to fighting high order abuse.
I agree with you and I have similar thoughts. What if I really like you as a person and upvote you every day (manually or automatically) regardless of the content? Or because I want to support you financially?
A great example is that my girlfriend is on Steemit and I know that if I don't upvote and resteem what she writes she'll get mad. Fortunately she puts a lot of work into what she writes so I don't feel bad about it, but it's a microcosm of what you are describing.
Why not accomplish both?
The action to upvote is levied by [your] account's reputation score, an index of your blockchain voting history (collective upvotes, comments, and resteems). Should justify reason plenty, however, there are larger forces at work that reason escapes the rhythm of logic.
I am unaware of sorting algorithms for the feed, similar to Facebook, in action here on Steemit, but if there is, it's much more flexible than the big Blue page. Steemit could employ automated bot services and controller/curators to divvy the flow of traffic, content, and category. SMT seems to offer at least partial complex to find a solution to financial exchange for content type, perhaps Proof-of-Brain concept may light the way to truly thoughtful, honest, information to earn author's weight in value.
Time is Art. In Life, all we have is Time. Why not make Art all the Time?
I am a proud @earthnation Steemit Guild Community member!
Thanks to their loyal support, I am able to create a passive income stream that funds my creative output and delivers this original content directly to YOU.
I thought that the wars of flags can only be on our platform Golos (fork of Steemit for russians) (sarcasm)
As I expected people are all the same:)
It is better to maintain good posts than to fight, there is still one pool. If good posts get upvotes, then scoundrels get less) We need to use positive reinforcement.
It's sarcasm meant to show that top trending content is serialized content self-voted by voting rings and that the comment section is littered with spam posted with the sole purpose to expect to earn a penny or two.
Being new to this platform, 15 hours in, I've seen some rubbish published here where the content is little better than an article spinner output with a catchy image. Surely this platform is better than that.
I would like to see more action taken on the part of the community to flag these type of submissions, otherwise there is a very real risk that what we see here will become little more than junk mail, and as users, we'll need to wade through a heap of crap to find something of value.
I would cite particular cases, but I don't want to give them any more exposure than what they have had already.
Totally agree that the more congruent with the intention of the platform that a user's actions are, the better the place will be. But, money is money, and opportunistic individuals will seek to take advantage where they can, rather than doing the right thing in many cases. Sad situation that people are so bloddy lazy.
Just imagine if every analysis haejin did was numbered... Then everyone on there would be serialized except the negative rep guy who's trying to improve the platform and the one legitimately unique article on there.
#604: BTC part 146 - Back to the BTC Future, the 50th cup and handle this month! We might see it drop or increase!
Dear sir @transisto
I ma a new steem member in steemit platform please give me some advice for success in steemit platform please help me sir and visit my blog and resteem my post
These guys have really figured this out. You can make money while you sleep, Just signup Download the free miner. There is never a fee. (not to sound like a shill) This is like a money drop! I will post again with details of my profits.
I’ve been saying for a while that the trending tab needs to be renamed. If it was called sponsored and we had a real trending tab based on actual organic votes that exclude all vote buying, we’d have a more transparent and community based platform! Gotta to change the names of the tabs!! Thanks for the post!!
I so love this. At least I can voice my opinion. In my candid opinion none of those post deserve the trending position. A repeated series post of some sort does not represent what steemit stands for.
Maybe I am yet to get it, but until I get it, trending should be taking out if those are the kind of post found on trending.
Good quality post that speaks steemit do not stand the chance to get upvote not to talk of trending. Sucks big time..
Content isn't even useful on here anymore. No knowledge shared. What's the point? The same people get on the trending page everyday. A platform where people comment just to earn votes from whales. No engagement with normal users. And it sucks prety much that 80% of the content on steemit are about steemit! Where's the knowledge?
I started a new tag on wednesday called #whaleshitewednesday where I highlight whales who are posting shite just to make a quick buck. If you have any nominees feel free to join in or send their names to me and i'll write about them :-)
Why do you focus on the multi-part content? I follow a few of these people and they’re covering travels in various countries so part 1 might be about an experience in Europe but by part 100 they’re talking about an experience in Africa or something.
Are the articles written deserving of this high payout? Probably not, but most posts on SteemIt are overpaid. We’re suffering from too much money, too little content, and money being horded.
What I learned here :
Steemit is not only about UPVOTES & Money
It is about writing..
It is about reading..
It is about knowing people and their side of the story..
It is about learning..
It is about finding a path to follow..
It is about keeping yourself motivated to write better..
It is about broadening your thinking..
It is about spending your time productively..
It is about making you think from a different perspective..
It is about writing without any expectations of UPVOTES..
lol, I used the bot tracker frontrunner tool and voted on this, but it is 9 days old. Looks like frontrunner tool views posts past payout as having $0 in votes for calculation of curation:
Quite interesting interaction I think.
@transisto did you just drop 100SBD to have bots vote on something beyond the payout window? Hopefully you have some experimental idea behind that and it wasn't an error. Also... WTF? I thought bots had max post age, lol.
Like I said many times, this places brings out the worst human emotions. Greed and jealousy, and the people who could truly do something about it are sadly the ones who are the most jealous and the greediest. Its not about whats great content or not, its about sharing and altruism, and there isnt a lot of that about :-(
by the way, if you want to see yourself trending, its easy. Start a new tag, write an article and use your new tag, hey presto. You're top of trending under your own tag..nice ego boost and a smile on your face :-)
This is what makes growth of minnow accounts tougher . Very few whales upvote , notice minnows posts . This platform needs more whales like you who support the community and care for the growth of the community equally .
Seeing above Steemians earning after putting in effort, give me hope that I can earn money as long as I do not give up and put in the effort creating the best content I know how.
How can a person get 843 upvotes if only 467 people have seen the post this is not right this hurts the genuine user who work day and night to achieve something on steemit . If this is not stopped then many people will get dishearted and leave the platform
Anyway at first I have misjudged ADSactly, thinking that it is a single guy raping the reward pool, you know, we have seen this scenario in the past, but no, it is actually a whole community!
Content is king, this is the first and golden rule to make any website successful, what I mean by successful: millions subscribers and users, millions visits every day, don't need to google it because already in peoples mind and my goal is to make steemit successful website.
99.99% of internet users don't need to search for Facebook on Google or YouTube or Twitter or Reddit or Wikipedia, they know already what they want.
It's about time we did flagged these self centered whales. Whales must play a part in developing minnows. That's why this is a community and not just a money making platform. Keep it up @berniesanders and @transisto
Platform known for content creation , Originality & self employment...working on concept of blockchain this platform has now been listen among top 1000 sites by ALEXA .....This is the achievement in itself....only two years and still at its initial growing stage , down the line this platform wud be touching something beyond sky.....
This is something like it makes users to work hard, earn alot of money , create content and stick with ORIGINALITY.....
Steemit is much more than i can ever think of expressing ...it is love ...it is STEEM.....
but these guys didn't get it easily for sure, they have put much effort and time to earn the trust of the followers and get some high reputation such as you did. you are one of the best examples of success on steemit and I'm trying to learn by following you for months that's why I'm sure you also didn't get it easily. you got it by the hard work and that's what everybody should do here then get the success steadily and gradually
I just how many hours using steemit.
I still lay.
I just made a post introduction myself.
if you have time, please visit my blog.
if my posting is wrong, please comment.
so I can learn from my mistakes.
thanks .
I think steemit Inc should impose some sanctions on these kind of steem users who got effective steem to put them into hot or trending section. I may suggest to impose a rule like not to self upvote until an hour if someone did he/she lose that much of SBD. Let's the content stand on its own.
The front end does play a role, for example in discouraging downvoting (yes, I'm aware that the front end is not the only discouragement, but it does play a role).
And who are most of those frontends self -obsessed whales.
One example I have seen is of grumpy cat,I don't know if he wants to flag someone or correct someone why their he needs a self upvote there,that seems like misuse of ultra power they have.
Can't the "community" only do so much considering witnesses determine what fork or patch to run and their rankings are completely determined by which whales vote for them, so clearly the witnesses would never have an incentive to run any patch that doesn't have at least a few ways for the whales to continue to direct the reward pool towards themselves in an efficient manner? And it's not like the witnesses would want to run any version of the blockchain that would scare away large investors in the first place even without that being true, so until whales stop wanting their cake in the immediate we will never see an end to any of this.
That's good news, but sadly I think anyone with a killer winning formula is going to go with their own coin/chain as far as anything with a sensible economic model goes. Steemit is a great case study on how not to make the economy of the future though, so there's that. Target inflation of 0.5% might as well be deflationary, and authorship/curation having different payout mechanisms needs to be addressed. Has anyone proposed a fork where they both give the same payout options?
Thanks for sharing this @transisto, this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with. Closed voting rings are something that only became apparent to me, but now that I know about them, it is very easy to see who is involved in them. This is a shame, because these rewards could very well be shared out betweem a lot of users on Steemit.
I have no issues with people voting for people constantly, in fact I don't really have an issue with the voting rings either; my issue is with people who only vote within set circles. If there are 5 different people that you upvote every day for whatever reason, but you also upvote 5 other users per day, I don't see that as an issue - in fact I have people that I vote for on every post because I think that their content is excellent and they deserve my full support, but I also upvote random good content.
I am not full sure of how to combat this, but I am currently playing out an idea with a few developer friends for a platform somewhat similar to Steemit, and have been addressing all of these issues with them, especially the fact of trying to regulate something like voting on a platform that is not regulated - we are looking at predefined protocols, but the issue with them is they can always be gamed, eventually.
No no no - that is all the fault of voting-bots! (warning: sarcasm)
Exactly, let me quickly write a post how to eliminate all problems of Steemit and use all the vote buying services because it's okay when I do it.
but only if you downvote all bot-comments - so nobody knows that you used them.
You sir are a genius.
i love this post- so amazing post in my life , Thanks for sharing this post.
Profound! Following you straight away
Friends @therealwolf @acidyo @transisto @lukestrokes yesterday when I reviewed the trends I realized that, and reflected on the contradictions of steemit, there is always talk about making a contribution of value to the community but sometimes you meet these users and their Spam publications that make you doubt about the seriousness of the platform. It is an abuse in all the extension of the word
Gracias por la risa, lo agregaré a mi UBI para sus publicaciones originales.
Maybe as a community we should start exposing these voting rings so people can know who is contributing to this and who is working to prevent it? Reputation should matter, and if some people who otherwise have a high reputation are enabling what others call abuse, that's worth discussing.
I have people who vote for me, but I have no voting agreement with anyone. If I was to some day show up as being part of "abuse" I don't think that would be my fault as much as the people who decided to vote for me even if the community disagreed with the rewards payout. To me, those are the people we should confront and that includes those who run voting bot services which enable this to happen and profit from it.
I appreciate you discussing this and the downvotes you do to protect the perception of the value of the rewards pool. I know, as an investor, that's a double burden you have to take because you're not only not making money on your voting strength you could be making, but you're also exposing yourself for whale flag wars.
It's also challenging to directly defined voting circles and abuse. I have friends of mine who I always support and some of them support me also. Is that abuse or natural? Who's to say and what role does the quality of the content produced play? Hopefully we can all figure this out as we vote up or down based on perspectives.
We're two years in, the community has tried 'exposing' and all manner of things. It is clear by now that the mechanism is badly broken.
Do you think we have enough visibility yet? To me, we could do more. This could be a regular topic of discussion with actual data. Weekly reports (maybe even daily reports?) and ask for engagement from the voters. I too often see people complaining about the author without calling out the actual voters who are doing the distribution from the rewards pool. Why don't we focus on the voters more? Why don't we have reports that don't assume blame, but instead try to explain? There may be valid reasons why some people decide to add others to voting bots. If we don't know those reasons, we can think it's a scammy voting ring. If we do, maybe we can reset our expectations on how (and why) people use their own Steem Power as they choose.
Many of the examples I've seen of people caring about the rewards pool distribution are (IMO) immature comparisons to "rape" instead of rational, non-judgemental discussions trying to understand why certain people vote the way they do.
People have reasons. Our ignorance of those reasons doesn't justify our moral judgements. If, on the other hand, we know those reasons and can clearly articulate them in ways the community at large can fully agree (or disagree) with, then it's possible support for those people will be removed or added. If there's still disagreement about the value behind the reasons for a vote, then it's not an issue we consensus on, so even more discussion should take place before we claim the community has figured this out and our solutions to it have failed.
I think you are in a denial over the fact that most of these are actually enrichment schemes that involve paid voting, hidden common ownership of the voter and author accounts, or off-chain payment schemes that leave no evidence on the platform itself.
I'm not moralizing here. I don't blame people for responding to the incentives as the platform presents them. It is just that the incentives are broken.
P.S. I agree the 'rape' thing is sensationalist, not precise, and not helpful. My personal focus is not on name calling or even focused on any specific individuals. It is on looking at the mechanism and what it incentivizes. Currently the answer, unfortunately, is a lot of non-value-creating behavior.
I’m not in denial as much as I’m suggesting a path forward which would expose it clearly. If asked “Why do you vote for X?” and the honest answer is “Becuase they pay me in bananas / sexual favors / Slim Jims / pieces of paper with dead people on them / piles of coke / (whatever)” then it becomes clear. If they lie about it and are inconsistent, I think over time, that becomes clear to the community also. If in the off chance they have a legit answer, then we all understand more. I’m simply assuming good intentions first. If they don’t want to talk about their reasoning and are unwilling to justify their vote with a rational response, then what you’re describing becomes more clear to everyone and in a way that makes as few assumptions as possible. Innocent until proven irrational.
The recent call-out of @ranchorelaxo is an example of what I mean. It’s telling that he/she/it did not defend themself (yet) but instead @haejin did.
I agree, looking to improve the mechanism is the best, long-term answer. I also think we have to work within the system we have in the mean time. I’m also not sure what technical or system solutions would improve this activity since it’s a common thing we see in most systems with humans involved. It’s possible a better identity and reputation system could help, and I think that’s part of what SMTs and their Oracles may provide. The “reputation” number we have now is silly if we have actors on the system that many are frustrated with which hold the highest reputation on the system.
As to moralizing, I get what you mean, and I do fall into that trap quite a bit due to my upbringing, but I also look at it not so much in terms of good and bad but in terms of long-term rational self-interest which values oneself as part of a whole and irrational short-term decisions which harm others and oneself in the long-term.
IMO you are not suggesting a path forward as much as suggesting what has been done over and over again for the past two years (with little, if anything, in the way of real progress).
And then what? No response at all, and as far as I can tell @haejin is still earning something like 6000 USD per day (i.e. 2 million USD per year) for doing little to nothing to add value to STEEM. It isn't a small number either, that's around 0.25% of the entire market cap of STEEM going to one person/scheme with little or nothing to show for it. Even if this individual 'calling out' approach were effective, what would happen is that the account would quietly go away and the scheme would be rehatched under different names, possibly different 'content', etc. The one thing that remains the same is the clear incentive to maximize individual earnings.
After two years of repeated and unchecked abuses (despite numerous calling outs), it becomes very much a question of the insanity of doing the same thing and expecting a different result.
Long-term rational self-interest at the moment probably coincides with just maximizing individual earnings, because so many other people are doing it anyway and will very likely continue doing it, especially when the best answers we can come up with are: a) more of the same; and b) some poorly-defined and poorly-analyzed future 'solution' that probably won't ever even be fully implemented before moving on to something else (which is actually more of the same: Remember when 'curation guilds' were the solution, and then linear rewards?).
It is tempting to equate decisions which benefit oneself at the expense of others as irrational, but that is wishful thinking and moralizing, unless the rules of the system make this irrational, and they currently do not. Nor is it clear that @haejin earning around 2M USD/year is in any way irrational (for him and his affiliates).
The most likely solutions I see that would probably work are:
So what's the solution?
It has to come at the coding level, no?
I feel there is no simple solution, because Steemit is constantly developing and adding new features without addressing the current issues. And with more code, come more bugs, so the old bugs/problems will keep piling up until the sand pyramid collapses. I sincerly hope that doesn't happen and to prevent that, the system needs to halt anything unecessary (or not in production) and focus on the present problems. Once we have a solid foundation that WORKS for a while, then we can happily move on to other aggrandizing things.
I can compare the current state of things to the myth of multitasking. Trying to do everything at the same time is NOT productive. Fewer Priorities Leads to Better Work.
We have some interrim solutions in place but the definitive solution would likely require a code change. However, if the witness ranks have been compromised by the abusers, the likelihood of that happening is remote.
Check out @flagawhale if you would like to see a grassroots and crowdfunded approach to fighting high order abuse.
I agree with you and I have similar thoughts. What if I really like you as a person and upvote you every day (manually or automatically) regardless of the content? Or because I want to support you financially?
A great example is that my girlfriend is on Steemit and I know that if I don't upvote and resteem what she writes she'll get mad. Fortunately she puts a lot of work into what she writes so I don't feel bad about it, but it's a microcosm of what you are describing.
You also might not get any more BJ’s if you don’t vote for her. :)
Why not accomplish both?
The action to upvote is levied by [your] account's reputation score, an index of your blockchain voting history (collective upvotes, comments, and resteems). Should justify reason plenty, however, there are larger forces at work that reason escapes the rhythm of logic.
I am unaware of sorting algorithms for the feed, similar to Facebook, in action here on Steemit, but if there is, it's much more flexible than the big Blue page. Steemit could employ automated bot services and controller/curators to divvy the flow of traffic, content, and category. SMT seems to offer at least partial complex to find a solution to financial exchange for content type, perhaps Proof-of-Brain concept may light the way to truly thoughtful, honest, information to earn author's weight in value.
Time is Art. In Life, all we have is Time. Why not make Art all the Time?
I am a proud @earthnation Steemit Guild Community member!
Thanks to their loyal support, I am able to create a passive income stream that funds my creative output and delivers this original content directly to YOU.
I thought that the wars of flags can only be on our platform Golos (fork of Steemit for russians) (sarcasm)
As I expected people are all the same:)
It is better to maintain good posts than to fight, there is still one pool. If good posts get upvotes, then scoundrels get less) We need to use positive reinforcement.
There's also this useful quote to consider:
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
I think it takes both positive reinforcement and clarity on what is accepted and what is not based on action which includes downvotes.
What does it mean?
It's sarcasm meant to show that top trending content is serialized content self-voted by voting rings and that the comment section is littered with spam posted with the sole purpose to expect to earn a penny or two.
o yes, I understand now. it seems they have abused this platform. thanks for sharing sir ...
Being new to this platform, 15 hours in, I've seen some rubbish published here where the content is little better than an article spinner output with a catchy image. Surely this platform is better than that.
I would like to see more action taken on the part of the community to flag these type of submissions, otherwise there is a very real risk that what we see here will become little more than junk mail, and as users, we'll need to wade through a heap of crap to find something of value.
I would cite particular cases, but I don't want to give them any more exposure than what they have had already.
Totally agree that the more congruent with the intention of the platform that a user's actions are, the better the place will be. But, money is money, and opportunistic individuals will seek to take advantage where they can, rather than doing the right thing in many cases. Sad situation that people are so bloddy lazy.
Just imagine if every analysis haejin did was numbered... Then everyone on there would be serialized except the negative rep guy who's trying to improve the platform and the one legitimately unique article on there.
#604: BTC part 146 - Back to the BTC Future, the 50th cup and handle this month! We might see it drop or increase!
RIP Trending
Perfect analysis! That's what I thought. Those whales just don't wanna stop getting richer and richer.
They should at least dedicate one 100% upvote for community each day . But guess what , they want every penny for themselves !
Yes .. I agree with you @transisto
Thanks for your comment ..
Dear sir @transisto
I ma a new steem member in steemit platform please give me some advice for success in steemit platform please help me sir and visit my blog and resteem my post
hey! that seems to be a criticism.
this is how I make real CASH commenting!
Computta
https://computta.com/?ref=268161
These guys have really figured this out. You can make money while you sleep, Just signup Download the free miner. There is never a fee. (not to sound like a shill) This is like a money drop! I will post again with details of my profits.
I’ve been saying for a while that the trending tab needs to be renamed. If it was called sponsored and we had a real trending tab based on actual organic votes that exclude all vote buying, we’d have a more transparent and community based platform! Gotta to change the names of the tabs!! Thanks for the post!!
I so love this. At least I can voice my opinion. In my candid opinion none of those post deserve the trending position. A repeated series post of some sort does not represent what steemit stands for.
Maybe I am yet to get it, but until I get it, trending should be taking out if those are the kind of post found on trending.
Good quality post that speaks steemit do not stand the chance to get upvote not to talk of trending. Sucks big time..
Content isn't even useful on here anymore. No knowledge shared. What's the point? The same people get on the trending page everyday. A platform where people comment just to earn votes from whales. No engagement with normal users. And it sucks prety much that 80% of the content on steemit are about steemit! Where's the knowledge?
Came for the weird crypto faucet, stayed for the weird crypto faucet. That's what us normies are here for, right?
@transisto,
Do you think those posts are not worthy enough to be at trending list?
Well duh. Just look at their awesome rep. They must be the best users on Steem!
Lol you said it all already, love the sense of humor here.
Like seriously the higher your rep the higher your reward.
I started a new tag on wednesday called #whaleshitewednesday where I highlight whales who are posting shite just to make a quick buck. If you have any nominees feel free to join in or send their names to me and i'll write about them :-)
Maybe #WhalePoop would be good to use too
Why do you focus on the multi-part content? I follow a few of these people and they’re covering travels in various countries so part 1 might be about an experience in Europe but by part 100 they’re talking about an experience in Africa or something.
Are the articles written deserving of this high payout? Probably not, but most posts on SteemIt are overpaid. We’re suffering from too much money, too little content, and money being horded.
What I learned here :
Steemit is not only about UPVOTES & Money
It is about writing..
It is about reading..
It is about knowing people and their side of the story..
It is about learning..
It is about finding a path to follow..
It is about keeping yourself motivated to write better..
It is about broadening your thinking..
It is about spending your time productively..
It is about making you think from a different perspective..
It is about writing without any expectations of UPVOTES..
@transisto
lol, I used the bot tracker frontrunner tool and voted on this, but it is 9 days old. Looks like frontrunner tool views posts past payout as having $0 in votes for calculation of curation:
Quite interesting interaction I think.
@transisto did you just drop 100SBD to have bots vote on something beyond the payout window? Hopefully you have some experimental idea behind that and it wasn't an error. Also... WTF? I thought bots had max post age, lol.
Like I said many times, this places brings out the worst human emotions. Greed and jealousy, and the people who could truly do something about it are sadly the ones who are the most jealous and the greediest. Its not about whats great content or not, its about sharing and altruism, and there isnt a lot of that about :-(
by the way, if you want to see yourself trending, its easy. Start a new tag, write an article and use your new tag, hey presto. You're top of trending under your own tag..nice ego boost and a smile on your face :-)
wow that was amaizing..
resteem your post sir..
Actually I do not see this thing in everyone
.png)
No its suppse to be a joke, users keep making same post with a number different and bam the reward appears
I typed in BING SEARCH last week "steemit hack" just for shits & giggles to see what showed up & this was the top result: #JerryBanfield
I think Steemit is a fantastic platform on which you can really earn. Thanks for sharing
I don't see any future in content being ordered based on vested votes.
This is what makes growth of minnow accounts tougher . Very few whales upvote , notice minnows posts . This platform needs more whales like you who support the community and care for the growth of the community equally .
its very helpful for all steemers thanks for sharing man @transisto
useful information sir @transisto
Seeing above Steemians earning after putting in effort, give me hope that I can earn money as long as I do not give up and put in the effort creating the best content I know how.
nice learning post sir @transisto
owww just amaizing
good post sir
interessant post...
How can a person get 843 upvotes if only 467 people have seen the post this is not right this hurts the genuine user who work day and night to achieve something on steemit . If this is not stopped then many people will get dishearted and leave the platform
What did you flagged all those posts what is the problem with them?
he didn't flagged them, it's just photoshop, as he said :))
Very good story
change this comment or you may be flagged for commenting without reading/having any idea about what is been presented in this post...
yes sir..I'd rather spend my day on steemit than in other social media...nice post.
How could you upvote and flag the same time?
Hehe I actually upvoted that one a bit because it seemed to be genuine cryptocurrency research.
Anyway at first I have misjudged ADSactly, thinking that it is a single guy raping the reward pool, you know, we have seen this scenario in the past, but no, it is actually a whole community!
Content is king, this is the first and golden rule to make any website successful, what I mean by successful: millions subscribers and users, millions visits every day, don't need to google it because already in peoples mind and my goal is to make steemit successful website.
99.99% of internet users don't need to search for Facebook on Google or YouTube or Twitter or Reddit or Wikipedia, they know already what they want.
I agree with the title, but why are this posts flagged?
One day I'll make it big on here.
i like your job and what you are doing on the platform...
yes, you are right great thinking @transisto. but why you flag post?
It's about time we did flagged these self centered whales. Whales must play a part in developing minnows. That's why this is a community and not just a money making platform. Keep it up @berniesanders and @transisto
Platform known for content creation , Originality & self employment...working on concept of blockchain this platform has now been listen among top 1000 sites by ALEXA .....This is the achievement in itself....only two years and still at its initial growing stage , down the line this platform wud be touching something beyond sky.....
This is something like it makes users to work hard, earn alot of money , create content and stick with ORIGINALITY.....
but these guys didn't get it easily for sure, they have put much effort and time to earn the trust of the followers and get some high reputation such as you did. you are one of the best examples of success on steemit and I'm trying to learn by following you for months that's why I'm sure you also didn't get it easily. you got it by the hard work and that's what everybody should do here then get the success steadily and gradually
.
Great Information Post .....
Thank you sir for sharing
I just how many hours using steemit.
I still lay.
I just made a post introduction myself.
if you have time, please visit my blog.
if my posting is wrong, please comment.
so I can learn from my mistakes.
thanks .
Been here for almost a year and still struggling to get consistent views and votes...
please teach about using stemeet
this is really great
you have got skills buddy @transisto
owo great post sir @transisto
thanks for shareing
you are right sir @transisto
Using # and then a number is abuse?
But but but... What do they do then if they don't use the voting bots?
I think steemit Inc should impose some sanctions on these kind of steem users who got effective steem to put them into hot or trending section.
I may suggest to impose a rule like not to self upvote until an hour if someone did he/she lose that much of SBD.
Let's the content stand on its own.
This isn't a job for SteemIt inc (well maybe a better frontend is)
This is a job for the community
The front end does play a role, for example in discouraging downvoting (yes, I'm aware that the front end is not the only discouragement, but it does play a role).
And who are most of those frontends self -obsessed whales.
One example I have seen is of grumpy cat,I don't know if he wants to flag someone or correct someone why their he needs a self upvote there,that seems like misuse of ultra power they have.
Can't the "community" only do so much considering witnesses determine what fork or patch to run and their rankings are completely determined by which whales vote for them, so clearly the witnesses would never have an incentive to run any patch that doesn't have at least a few ways for the whales to continue to direct the reward pool towards themselves in an efficient manner? And it's not like the witnesses would want to run any version of the blockchain that would scare away large investors in the first place even without that being true, so until whales stop wanting their cake in the immediate we will never see an end to any of this.
As a witness your assumptions don't fit my opinion. I'd gladly run a fork that had sensible changes that had been researched and outlined
That's good news, but sadly I think anyone with a killer winning formula is going to go with their own coin/chain as far as anything with a sensible economic model goes. Steemit is a great case study on how not to make the economy of the future though, so there's that. Target inflation of 0.5% might as well be deflationary, and authorship/curation having different payout mechanisms needs to be addressed. Has anyone proposed a fork where they both give the same payout options?
Thanks for sharing this @transisto, this is an issue that really needs to be dealt with. Closed voting rings are something that only became apparent to me, but now that I know about them, it is very easy to see who is involved in them. This is a shame, because these rewards could very well be shared out betweem a lot of users on Steemit.
I have no issues with people voting for people constantly, in fact I don't really have an issue with the voting rings either; my issue is with people who only vote within set circles. If there are 5 different people that you upvote every day for whatever reason, but you also upvote 5 other users per day, I don't see that as an issue - in fact I have people that I vote for on every post because I think that their content is excellent and they deserve my full support, but I also upvote random good content.
I am not full sure of how to combat this, but I am currently playing out an idea with a few developer friends for a platform somewhat similar to Steemit, and have been addressing all of these issues with them, especially the fact of trying to regulate something like voting on a platform that is not regulated - we are looking at predefined protocols, but the issue with them is they can always be gamed, eventually.
Thanks again for sharing this.
Do people visit the trending page? I don't think my antivirus allows that url.
I love commenting too, for others member content when i like