I think we all agree that the current state of the voting algorithm is far from optimal. I've come up with the following technical suggestions that will fix some of the largest problems of the current iteration:
1. People can vote way too much
One of the main problems currently is those trending posts that could be considered lower quality. The main reason for that is that people don't get punished when they ride along on a lower quality post that for whatever reason started trending, because they can still vote dozens of times more without significant repercussions.
Solution:
- Voting power reduction has to be much more significant. I suggest when starting at 100%, after 10 votes you should be around 50% voting power. This still leaves the ability for people to vote over a 100 times each day if they want, but probably don't spend their votes that have the most impact on low quality content.
- Voting power should take 24 hours at most to be restored to 100%.
Now there is a new problem: when you are at 100% you might want to up-vote something and although it's not the best content you've ever seen, you still want to reward the content creator. This can be solved by adding a new feature: give the user the ability to choose what percentage of their remaining voting power they want to "invest" in this post!
2. Down-voting
Down-voting isn't very popular right now. The main reason is that not only don't you get rewarded for spotting bad content, you in fact get punished for it (any vote or vote change costs you voting power).
Solution:
- People should get curating rewards based on the amount of down-votes a certain post has when they downvoted it. This way it's a true battle of up-votes and down-votes because both parties are trying to make money by voting on the post based on the quality. This works very well in conjunction with the above proposed limitations to voting.
- Receiving a significant amount of down-votes should reduce your ability to post. Continued abuse should result in temporary bans from posting that get exponentially more severe.
3. Voting on low quality content
Just as you should get rewarded for up-voting high quality content, you should get punished for up-voting low quality content. Currently you can vote on low quality content all you want.
Solution:
- Consistently voting on low quality posts (posts that receive a lot of down-votes) should significantly reduce voting power. This also works very well in conjunction with the first suggestion of revamping the voting power reduction algorithm.
Conclusion
The above suggestions solve some major problems (including giving bots no financial advantage). The changes are relatively simple to implement, but extremely effective. Leave a comment below with your opinion on the subject. Cheers.
> This can be solved by adding a new feature that gives the user the ability to choose what percentage of their remaining voting power they want to "invest" in this post.
AFAIK, the blockchain already allows this (steemstream.com shows the "voting power" as 100% all the time so far); it is just not implemented in the interface yet.
I am beginning to think it is best to wait until steemit.com gets sorted out, in its present state, it is most unusable.
//Edit: arrrgh, it now even turns a > into
>! What are they doing?Yeah they seem to be changing HTML things today.
first of all thx a lot for the good ideas: having negative curation rewards can be a great idea, or a bad one, i dont now yet, but it sounds interesting.
Honestly i dont even know yet if generally the curation reward is a good idea at all. Currently the most of the curation reward, just bots seems to get that vote always for the same posters or always after the same whale has post.
I think the biggest problem currently is, that people come from Spybook and reddit. And just think a upvote here is like a like in FB.
I outlined here some suggestions how we could solve that with having there different upvotes, so they would have to click like twice, before the post would get some money:
Here the link to my suggestions, feel free to comment!
https://steemit.com/steemit/@arcurus/tagging-and-flagging-hidden-by-a-whale-how-to-evolve-further#@calamus056/re-arcurus-tagging-and-flagging-hidden-by-a-whale-how-to-evolve-further-20160807t184752235z
need upvote for money
The problem with the downvoting one is people can make intentionally bad posts on an alt account and abuse it heavily
Go read the article again. That wouldn't be possible (profitable) in my implementation.
it could also be added, that you max get the curation reward for downvoting that the postive curration reward + blog reward would be
Is it true you get penalized for down voting?
Yup it costs just as much voting power as an up-vote. I'll add it to the article.
Does removing an up vote also cost voting power or does it return the voting power the vote cost before?
Every vote or vote change costs voting power.
Interesting, didnt know that. Thanks for making this article..
Didn't know what? It's mainly suggestions to change the algorithms :)
algorithm posh word to scare non coders
Haha not at all, algorithms aren't even that complicated most of the time.
Excellent post. I've covered some similar topics to this myself. Such a shame there isn't more attention given to this sort of post. Keep it up though!
Everyone go poke @dan @dantheman @bytemaster or whatever his account names are :)
Hello! I am @upvotes and I am here to help you get upvotes!
Just upvote this comment and your post automatically becomes an @upvotes candidate for: @people, @places, and @headlines
Several times a day the most upvoted candidates become the Best of Category post
Hello! I am @upvotes and I am here to help you get upvotes!
Just upvote this comment and your post automatically becomes an @upvotes candidate for: @people, @misc, and @headlines
Several times a day the most upvoted candidates become the Best of Category post
Thanks @upvotes
You just gaining some followers 👍👍👍👍👍
Yes please
@bullionstackers new post