It's an idea, but it needs implementation from the devs. Also, it will not only affect curation rewards but also, the post eventual value, maybe?
But I love the idea of people actually upvoting because they like the content so much that they think it's worth it!
smooth is smooth.
When we discussed it, I didn't envision it affecting the post value...at least not directly. If people are voting on trending posts because they want a piece of the big reward (which mostly doesn't work anyway) then those votes would stop because it would be completely clear there won't by any such rewards. In that case the post values for trending posts might end up lower. If people are voting because they actually believe the post deserves to be rewarded more then it already is then those votes (and the resulting post value) would be unaffected.
I'm curious to see what happens in practice. I say because as of now, it's unclear why a post gets popular, at least to me.
If people stop voting for trending posts just for the curation rewards it will reduce the post reward for sure as it will probably lead to getting just half of the votes it would normally get. The way steemit works at the moment with the higher the reward for the post the more value each next vote adds, even if the voting power of the user is not that big, we are probably going to be looking at significant reduction in the rewards earned by the top trending posts in the end. That happening may not be a bad thing actually as people's expectation for earning tens of thousands as a reward for a single post should become more realistic, though I'm sure some people won't be happy because they will be earning less with their posts.
But the less they earn (what they "loose") will distributed to all other active posts from dolphins and minnows !!! (Since the steem each day contributed as rewards are the same! same pool for all)
That is why I've said it might not be a bad thing, especially on the long run... at the moment many things on steemit leave the impression that they are not well balanced, and are often at the two extremes. Like some good post getting 10K rewards, for various other reasons besides being good, while other good ones are struggling to get even 1 cent...
If they still vote the system will just inform them that they don't get any more curation rewards but the author still get's the added reward in case of further votes !!! (so the post value would not be unaffected!)
That is in order. I would gladly upvote post of someone doing something valuable like development etc. For me in this case it is not about curing rewards.
Upvoting because they like the content? Wow, what a novel concept!
Right now, a vast majority of curators are out to make a quick buck. It's very easy to learn and game the system. During my experiments with the curation articles, I was easily hitting 3% of my Steem Power per week.
It's pretty simple really, you just need to know the authors and topics that do well. You need to know the bots that upvote these authors, and at what time. More people are discovering these trends, and getting in on the action.
The end result is you see the same authors, the same subjects, the same tags on the Trending page day after day. The whales are doing a great job in diversifying content, but it's not enough.
I like the suggestion of offering a warning at the Trending page upvote. If a post is at $300, someone holding a lot of Steem Power can still receive a pretty decent curation reward for upvoting, so stopping it entirely will just discourage that. Instead, as @smooth points out, it's about educating the user that their upvotes have negligible impact.
But getting back to my initial rant, the main problem is well before the Trending page. People are simply much less motivated to check out and upvote content from an unknown other and a niche subject.
My suggestion would be along the lines of penalizing curation rewards on "sure shots". By successful authors, and in successful subjects. I should receive a much greater curation reward from upvoting a post by a new author talking about neuroscience than Dan talking about Steemit. I hope someone more attuned with algorithms reading this can make more sense of this thought.
Let's see how Hardfork 13 helps with the bots.
"The end result is you see the same authors, the same subjects, the same tags on the Trending page day after day." Absolutely agree! The system is closing itself this way. If the concept of Steemit is evaluation the "content" not more (the author for example), all articles, upvote and downvote have to be anonymous.
That's not realistic, but it will be an interesting experiment. I bet the trending page would then look completely different.
Completely different every single day! And exactly this will keep the fire of Steemit. Now the fire is only keen, but for how long? Why do you think it's impossible? Technically or for other reasons? It's just β version. A lot of improvements ahead. Although I'm not an IT, sure it could be. Too much information is shown to all users. Wallet, transactions, feeds, reputation ... The downvote must to be anonymous to work. No one wants to make enemies unless he is not the God.
^^^THIS
I had express the same idea before weeks and @ned seem to agree with it ;)
https://steemit.com/steemit/@anyx/cheetah-bot-the-fight-against-spam-and-plagiarism-continues#@liondani/re-rockymtnbarkeep-re-anyx-re-rockymtnbarkeep-re-anyx-cheetah-bot-the-fight-against-spam-and-plagiarism-continues-20160721t213857253z
Or give a bonus to curators that found a successful "outsider"!!! ;)
Yes, that's a much more positive way to put it. :)
To be fair, the current system does reward large SP holders more with new finds, but it's the masses that need to get behind this idea.
yes, I agree. I suggested earlier in some discussion that it might be better to link rewards to reputation. As much as I like @complexring, I think it's unjustified that a post like this earns more than several small fish have in their entire accounts combined.
I would say that curation reward should be higher if you are early to up upvote a popular article from a newcomer with low reputation than from upvoting a 60+ rep account. Its very easy to just upvote anything from a high rep person, expecting it o do well without reading. With over 100 votes, that's what happened to that simple "test" post of complexring, which he justly tagged as "spam".
Me too ;) Take a look here ....
https://steemit.com/steem/@dantheman/negative-voting-and-steem#@liondani/re-dantheman-negative-voting-and-steem-20160814t175827625z
I'm with you man! that's my point as well. I am not too happy with your solution, we don't need one that stifles upvotes, but maybe we can find a happy middle :)
Yeah, I didn't go into details as I'm well aware it sounds radical and controversial. But I'm sure someone good with the numbers can find a sensible middle ground.