I think I was one of the first to bring up this concept to solve the higher cost of negative curation problem Aka. Downvoting/flagging being more expensive than upvotes.
It has since then been discussed a lot as one of the preferred way to achieve more balanced cost between Up and Down-Votes curation so I want to explain visually what I had in mind.
Reddit is one the most similar website to Steemit and a good example to learn from. A Study made on Reddit voting behaviors showed that about 10% of all votes were downvotes. Since Reddit has no direct monetary incentives and that the up and downvotes are anonymized it is good starting point for choosing a UP:DOWN ratio. In that case 9:1 resulting in 10 independent flagging pool)
Starting from an example of a user with 94.6% of his voting power left.
(check yours at https://steemd.com/@USERNAME)
Same original situation under the new proposed system
...
...
then
A future upgrade could allow for delegating the voting pools independently. So users who do not want to downvote could decide to delegate their "downpower" to one of the more organized initiatives like @Steemcleaners
Is this really a valid assumption? Using data from a non-monetized and anonymous platform as a model of what to do on a monetized not-anonymous platform seems like a leap of faith.
Having more flags would automatically take attention away from the few who do, making flagging more anonymized. Since most people think flagging take away money instead of redistributing it's better to rely on a system with no monetization to see what a normal behavior is.
9:1 is a suggestion 1:20 could be used at first.
Explanation for high upvote
The fact that it´d cost less to flag could very well be a reason for many users to make use of it more often, which again would decrease the fear among Minnows & Dolphins as well to flag bigger accounts with crappy content.
The Downside could be though that we´ll see new flag wars being started which could reach epic proportions due to the cheaper availability. So I think it´s a good idea in general but shouldn´t lead to very low costs of flagging after all. A higher ratio might therefore be the better choice to go with in the beginning.
There are for sure some necessary changes of the current flag system. I have flagged the posts of @steem-network for example with all my voting power (over 20 flags for their spam comments and posts) and of course it would be much profitable for me not to fight spam and actually uovote something (not even my posts) and earn some good curation rewards. I guess in this way people will be encouraged to fight spam and junk content more often than they currently do.
but i think we should clean spam and junk. because they are changes steemit sestem. every steemit user should learn about steem. but i want tell it that transisto isone of the best worker for steem. he want to support that steem worker who wanna work on steem with steemit system. i think before few days he posted like that.
Do you want to get rewarded for good flags? I got something for you. I think this project has massive potential to help promote policing of the blockchain. Your feedback would be appreciated.
https://steemit.com/flagging/@steemflagrewards/steem-flag-rewards-progress-report
Sorry for piggybacking but I do feel that this is relevant to the problem you stated. I want to make it more profitable for you to fight spam. :)
I like the unique concept and thought process! My concern with this model is don't you think it might lead to increased incentive to downvote? It seems like maybe having a designated downvote pool might lead people to feel obligated to use them up. Right now I kind of like that every downvote = potential money lost for the downvoter. That seems really interesting to me.
More downvote is the main purpose. Nobody is upset at having 50 thumbs down on his youtube video when it also gets 500 thumbsup. And this is the most sane and efficient way to curate.
Explanation for high upvote
But doesn't it also make it easier for those with that choose to abuse their power, to do just that. As you said, no big deal for 50 down with 500 up, if they are each costing you the exact same amount. But if 400 of that 500 have almost no power, and just a few of those 50 have a lot of power, making it quicker for them to power back up and repeat the process doesn't seem like a good idea. Makes it too easy for vigilante groups to go after even more people.
Wow! I hadn't considered that... Super interesting!
Agreed, people may downvote more if they can, but I am ok with that. It is like basketball with offense and defense. I don't like it when somebody blocks my shot in basketball. That is like a downvote. Maybe, I'll try to jump higher next time.
Yes that is the best !
Agreed, perhaps, it may be better to separate the upvoting and downvoting pools, and Steemians can vote on that, discuss on that, and it may help to an extent, but will that lead to Steem Utopia? Can a website be perfect even as people are not perfect, equal, or the same? Negativity is something people focus on even as they love better things more or so they say. Some people will choose to downvote a lot more. And capitalism is not equal. Some will do very well and some will not. Trying to level the playing field is something Obama did or tried to do. That is socialism, communism. If something is very popular, then that will get a lot of upvotes. And some things will get a lot of downvotes. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I do not want to lessen the lost any more than I would want to reduce the win. Maybe, I will win big and maybe I will lose big. I accept those risks and that is life and that is what I like about life and everything. Oatmeal.
I m backing you in this regard because all the fingers are not the same... negativity is all over .. some body can misuse it .
Yeah like right now, my REP went 57 to 55 today and ohhhhhh nooooo because I was ohhhhh too friendly and that is illegal I guess.
Good idea but maybe down vote power should not grow at 20% per day.
It would grow at the same pace as the voting power but would have the ability to deplete 10 times faster. (The first SP to go down when flagging.)
Explanation for high upvote : https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/temporarily-pausing-my-anti-abuse-efforts-while-sbd-is-off-the-chart
Also somehow if the system could factor in voter reputation while calculating payouts it will level out the field a little bit more.
That may work. I don't downvote but if that helps weed out spam and trolls and if that encourages people to make better content and stuff, then maybe we should try this.
I know flagging is pretty intense as an issue, but I think having two pools can help empower flagging abuse.
I think people perceive most flagging as abuse because only largest and enlightened stakeholder have seen the incentive to fight self-vote abuse by flagging. These people have a limited amount of time and attention to police the whole system fairly and evenly and I'm sure most would prefer not have to do that.
Explanation for high upvote
That is a sensational idea.
The present drawback to the system is that downvotes zap your VP the same as upvotes. Since people are limited to 10 per day at 100%, the incentive is not there to assisting in the policing of the site. This is especially true for the more active poster and upvoters. VP gets whittled down quickly.
If I am reading your chart correctly, each person would get 5 downvotes...would they be at 100% power or is that 5 at a reduced amount?
If someone doesn't downvote anything for 5 days his DVP (downvote power) would for sure be at 100%, 5 downvotes at 100% strength later and his DVP would be at 0% but VP (Voting power) completely unaffected.
Explanation for high upvote
So, if I follow along, under this system, one is basically given 1 downvote a day at 100% strength before eating into the next day's downvoting power....
Which brings up the question does one still have the ability to adjust the voting weight AND does the downvote (100% let's say) carry the same $ amount as the upvote (if a 100% upvote is worth $10 then a 100% downvote is the same)?
Upvote and downvote are represented at + 100.00 or -100.00 at the blockchain level. So you can lookup the resulting vote % to answer your question.
I'll come up with an alternative way to calculate it so a 100% flag at 100% take the same amount of rshare as a 100% upvote gives.
Explanation for high upvote
How would this work with all the bots?
You'd be more likely to see bots selling flags.
Explanation for high upvote
I think there are already a few doing that!
There are none that are being used. because there is no way to make any money out of it.
Explanation for high upvote
Interesting idea, and one that I could definitely get behind. It would certainly solve a large portion of the grief currently going on within the platform. I feel like people will say that 10% flagging power is too little though. At the same time, other people will not appreciate their upvote being diminished by 10% due to the forced delegation to flagging power.
Perhaps like you said, there could be a slider, where you can choose to delegate between 0% to 20% of your power to flagging, or something along those lines. It will certainly limit the flags so that they aren't excessive, while at the same time allowing those who only want to spend their power on upvoting content to do so without having to divert some of their voting power elsewhere.
Upvote power would not be diminished, if everyone has the same ratio everyone's power is the same. It just become more efficient for people to curate if they down-vote about once every 10 up-votes.
Explanation for high upvote
Ok, please bear with me while I run a couple scenarios by you to try and understand a bit better.
So let's say at the moment Person A had the ability to upvote a post $1 at 100% upvote power. When implementing the 90/10 upvote/downvote ratio, will they maintain that $1 upvote power and have a $0.10 downvote power? Or will they now have a $0.90 upvote power and a $0.10 downvote power?
The other way I could have understood it would be like this:
Person B has the ability to upvote a post $1 at 100% upvote power. After implementing the 90/10 change, they still have the ability to upvote a post $1 at their max voting power, but they will now run out of voting power 5 votes sooner (90% becomes the "new 100%"). Likewise, they can downvote $1 at max downvote power, but this diminishes rapidly as each vote would take away 20% of their flagging power.
If one of these is what you were talking about, please confirm. If I am completely mistaken in my understanding, please let me know that as well.
More options are better. That is what I liked about MySpace.
Delegating downvotes would allow a few “famous” Steem users to consolidate even more power. I’ve had downvote bots target one of my comments and it’s a hole only the most powerful users could dig themselves out of. Making downvoting easier/more powerful would lead to more downvoting and further make arguing with certain users an impossibility.
I personally think one should have two totally different voting powers. One for upvoting, the other solely for downvoting. The fact, that an investor will just curate rather than downvote in order for him to maximize his returns leads to simply to an issue, which could be solved in my opinion by creating a new sort of downvoting power and not hurting the investors interest to gain rewards.
People tend to be more negative, naturally speaking, and trolls and some people could be encouraged and are normally encouraged to downvote, to tear down, and it is easier to complain than it is to create and to uplift and stuff.
Good thoughts, one can see that you deal with the platform and that you search for possibilities to improve the platform.
I like the concept of implementing a second pool for the flags. I think this would definitely lead to better balanced rewards.
On the other side I can relate to the comments of @aggroed and @jasonyoakam, because I can also imagine that this would lead to flag abusing.
All in all I would go with your idea.
Especially the point with delegating downpower seems very interesting for me.
This is an interesting idea. But flagging itself is still hard work and still carries a negative connotation. It would be preferable to correct the limitations of the current distribution and validate votes individually and automatically rather than make flagging a more desirable process.
Flagging exists because the system is imperfect. While the system will always be imperfect, fighting human nature with human nature usually leads to mass causalities rather than thriving communities.
Continue to flag as you see fit (and as you please), but we should be searching for solutions so flagging can occur less often.
Alternatively, we can implement projects to incentivize flagging via community review. @steemflagrewards is something I started for such a thing. Not sure if you had an opportunity to see this and way in on it. Its still in it's early stages so is evolving. Your feedback would be appreciated.
This could even work in conjunction with a split voting pool as you described. Here's the latest. I plan to work on simplifying my language a bit to put it in more layperson's terms which should help get additional support. The one below is a bit technical so understandable why it may not have received as much popular support.
https://steemit.com/flagging/@steemflagrewards/steem-flag-rewards-progress-report
Here is a nasty idea: have your downvote power be the difference of your upvote power.
Aka, if your bar shows 70%, then your upvote is 70% and your downvote is 30%. Meaning, if you want to downvote, you need to spend power in upvotes.
Downvoting will deplete the bar as normal, meaning it gets stronger the more you use it, as opposed to upvoting.
But either way, it makes little difference if you don't have at least 1000 SP. I personally use the abuse form Steemcleaners is using.
Yeah, I'm a big fan of this concept... I periodically flag spammers in the IntroduceYourself tag... but it sucks to take up my voting power when I could be lifting up posts I really like. I'd prefer to have a seperate chunk, and I'd love for Steemcleaners to have a lot more power. Way way way more power.
Here's the problem, there are vigilantes using the downvote to punish upvotes by specific accounts, not based on the quality of the content. I don't think I've posted anything that could be considered spam, yet, I've run afoul of them a few times. So, no, if anything, downvoting should be more expensive than it is now. Want to combat bad upvotes? GREAT! Choose quality content and upvote, then, if you want to be altruistic, don't take the rewards. It all comes from the same pool and an upvote on other content will help to level the field.
Interesting idea. I'm not sure what would be the results but it's a valuable idea nonetheless.
This seems like a great change to the blockchain logic! If people still want to avoid what they see as contentious flagging they can, but those who are prepared to flag aren't sacrificing their vote power and curation rewards.
yes you are right.. i agree with you..
you are the 1st who bring up this concept to solve this problem..
overall thanks for the important info, thanks
You mean we earn curation of downvoting ?
Greetings@transisto! Do you think Steemit has what it takes to be one of the top 10 global social media platforms?
excellent that point out. These kind of confusion always be present on discutions about Steemit. Great!
Great analysis of steem,Thanks for giving us a good post
thanks @transisto
Downvoting spammers should be separate from downvoting posts over disagreement over rewards. I waste valuable VP whacking the ignorant little gadflies in the comments to get them to shut up and I have also needed to downvote phishing attempts posted as comments. These should be seen as community service and I see a lot more spammers needing to be whacked than the proposed system allows.
Downvoting content because you disagree with rewards is a whole other ballgame and I like the system you are proposing
I agree with you. This is new concept and really you are one who share this. Many different types of opinion you get from this post and steemit is now beta version that's why steemit need also opinion mostly solve this issue (upvote and down vote problem).
I keep pushing buttons I don't want because they are too close together or switch positions depending on the post. I agree the down vote should be separated.. I down voted my post today by the way. . by accident. It was great :)
Interesting, a very cool idea. Undoubtedly, solve a large part of the affliction that is currently occurring within the platform. I really liked this information, thank you, best regards @transisto.
Thanks for your valuable and informative post.
We can gather a lot of information by your post.
By dint of we can increase our skill that is beneficial for all steemians.
I will always visit your site & wait for your upcoming post.
Thank you for useful info!
Its a cool idea! You should post it on utopian also ;)
Interesting idea! One thing I have been thinking about is updating the reputation score to be more like a "web of trust" score or User Authority that some people have been talking about and your voting power would be based half on your steem power and half on your reputation. That way people with bad reputations but lots of money would find it harder to drain the rewards pool and people with less money but a higher reputation would be able to more effectively fight spam and abuse. Basically it's a checks and balances system
Obviously the reputation score needs a major overhaul for this to work because right now the reputation score is pretty much correlated with your steem power.
(upvoted for visibility)
Down voting are occur as rarely
Hmm
-Very interesting concept.
Is there any way to collect date on the voting history and patterns of the steemit community?
Look forward to reading more from you, this is a definite subscribe in my opinion. @darienparlick
Interesting idea! I’m with ya
nice learning post sir @transisto
nice post sir
but maybe down vote power should not grow at 20% per day.
sir you are right.. i agree with you..
you are the 1st who bring up this concept to solve this problem..
Thank you
I have really learned a lot from this post and the wonderful comment. Thanks guys
like the idea. having seperate pools for up- and downvoting seems sensible. also the ability to delegate your downvoting-power seems interesting.
great idea....i think it will be so effective
i will always support you man @transisto
This seems like a plausible solution, but I wonder if it will make up for people just getting butthurt and flagging or downvoting whoever flags or downvotes them. Couldn't the same problem persist?
Emotionally speaking, people will feel whatever that they may feel at times. But like in basketball or in other sports and games, you have to man up and play to win or to go home. Steemit should not be responsible for how people feel. Steemit could have an emotional disclaimer. I am in it to win it or whatever and to have fun and stuff. I have been downvoted, too, and I don't like it, but that is life. I try to suck it up and stuff. And problems will always be around and stuff. We can try to make things as fair as possible but things will not always be equal because some people do better and some do worse and that is life.
Detailed explanation sir @transisto . I have a quesion please help me out. How much upvotes can I made for someone so that my steem power and earning do not get effected ??? Please @transisto
Not exactly sure but it is kind of like a game, a lottery, or something. There are formulas that could probably explain it but just do your best to post and comment the best you can and hope for the best. That is all anybody could ever do.
ummm thankss @joeyarnoldvn... But i really searching for real and rational answer..
What you are looking for may not help you. My answer was real and is focused on the bigger picture that you seem to be ignoring.
oh don't take me wrong @joeyarnoldvn .. I just wanted the crucial part..
This appears like a conceivable arrangement, yet I think about whether it will compensate for individuals simply getting butthurt and hailing or downvoting whoever banners or downvotes them.
This is a welcomed initiative. As it would help combat the misuse of downvotes. However, this would affect the strength of steemcleaners and cheetah accounts which are doing a great job in this community.
The problem of downvoting / flagging is possible, but if you approach the solution using the example of Reddit, then much can be changed. But we can not rule out the possibility that with the possibility of Reddit, it is quite possible that some users will be specially targeted to do harm. Will not this create another problem, and will this problem from which you are trying to get rid of. Thank you very much for this, we appreciate it.
In any case, you are making real efforts and conducting research that would change the platform for the better and get rid of many problems. In my opinion, the biggest problem now lies with the Search. It is very primitive and almost unproductive.
Agreed, it may create another problem, perhaps.
good idea
I like the idea at first glance.