The Steemit devs need to deal with the changing situation. We bloggers can only do so much. If the platform can be ruined, it will be, so Ned and his crew are the ones to take preventive measures. Steemit is a work in progress and will need to be tweaked as we go.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@chessmonster, agreed. But much as I admire @dan and @ned (and now @sneak ) and the Steemit vision... like most creators of potentially game changing ideas, I also believe they VASTLY underestimated the foibles of human nature and the depth of human greed. And that's not a blaming statement... you generally don't sit in a product development meeting and go "What are we going to do about the veritable army of cheaters who will try to bring this project to its knees in order to make 50 cents?" That's too much of a downer...
... and yet, it's a situation every site like this has to face and deal with.
I thought they designed the upvoting and reputation system to weed out the bad players. I guess we'll see how it goes. @denmarkguy
That was my impression, as well... but I'm guessing they just didn't factor in just how many people there are who are willing to sit and click links for a chance at making 1/2c.
Gotcha. So if people keep abusing Steemit, and nothing is done about it, the Steemit ship will surely founder. Getting rid of self -voting would be a good start.
I read a good suggestion somewhere... which actually got the attention of several of the witnesses... that the code be modified in such a way that people absolutely can upvote themselves... BUT it drains your voting power multiple times faster than voting for others.
I like it because it doesn't get into the gray area of censorship, but it does go a long way towards disincentivizing self-upvotes.
@denmarkguy ... Yes indeed...tweaking like that was I meant before. They'll figure out a way to handle these things. 😎 Steemit is just too good an idea to let it get ruined by abusers.