As of late, one of the hottest topics around ye olde "Steemit Water Cooler" seems to be the increased use of "Self Upvoting" since HF19 took effect.
Red flower in our garden
Earlier today, I was reading a post by @calamus056 which was basically a listing of Steemit users who had been materially upvoting themselves since HF19 (popularly dubbed "equality") took effect on June 20th.
I won't get into the deeper motivations behind the post nor it's "effectiveness" (or lack of) but it did start a very active discussion on the pros and cons of self-upvoting, and whether the practice will have a positive, negative or neutral effect on the Steemit community, and the overall future of Steemit.
It also made me think of a post by @joseph from a few weeks back, addressing meaningless comments & spam.
I bring both up because it seems to me there's a bit of a connection or "bridge" between the two: namely variations of "taking shortcuts."
I'm not here to moralize on whether that's "good" or "bad;" I just want to name it according to how I perceive it.
TL;DR Version
History from other "content sites with rewards" over the past 20 years has shown that not keeping spam and "abusive gaming of the system" under control is likely to cause a site's gradual demise.
Solitary gull on a rock
Just because Steemit is "on the blockchain" does not exempt us from having to deal with the darker and more selfish sides of human nature.
Junk content and system abuse/exploitation inevitably drives away legitimate users, leaving junk/spam to dominate. Such content makes a venue unattractive to new users; eventually membership stagnates; ultimately the site dies.
Steemit can't "go bankrupt," but the Steem token can become regarded as "yet another shitcoin" and we could end up with 1/2c Steem as a result of junk content and antisocial behaviors being allowed to proliferate.
We must remember that our actions TODAY become the permanent "advertisement" for recruiting new Steemit members 5, 7, 10 years from now. Is the action you take now in alignment with what you want to tell a potential newcomer Steemit "is about," 5 years from now?
We must have open discussions now to consider how we want to shape Steemit for the future.
End TL;DR
A Couple of Personal Notes
Cairn in the sun
A lot has already been said at the micro and "local" level when it comes to self-upvoting, spammy comments and begging for votes... and I have little to add to that. So I'm taking a more macro approach.
As a personal preference I have the "upvote" box UNchecked when I post. For me, that's a choice because upvoting my own posts feels like going into a bookstore and buying a copy of my own book in order to boost my sales. Again, personal philosophy... not implying anyone else should feel the same.
I occasionally will upvote one of my own comments if it is a long screed addressing an issue in a post with lots of discussion. I do so purely for visibility; that is, to lift it out of the cloud of "nice post, please follow me" spam at the bottom of the comment stream.
But let's back out and take the meta view here-- the 50,000-foot overview.
Part I: By observation-- based on 20+ years of web content creation-- as soon as there is money or "rewards" involved on a user-generated content site, some people start behaving badly. Or if you don't like the idea of "badly," let's just call it selfishly.
Exotic hydrangea varietal
If such practices are left unaddressed, there appears to be only ONE possible outcome: Site failure.
I was there when Nirav Tolia launched epinions in 1999... I was on themestream, I was on writtenbyme, gather, associated content, squidoo, bubblews, tsu and about 50 other sites that all rewarded content. Most "died" within a couple of years, some lasted longer.
Most had good visions and plans but pretty much all grossly underestimated the destructive nature of unchecked human greed.
The evolution tends to go the same, every single time. Someone has a great idea and starts a project. Legitimate users flock in, grateful for the opportunity, and start using the venue according to the original vision (or white paper). People are happy. Then another type of user notices that "people are making money." For the most part, they don't really care about the site or its vision-- they simply see it as a "free cash dispenser" they feel compelled exploit in whatever way they can possibly think up. If the site were called "counting frozen tacos," they'd be there. If the site was called "herding donkeys" they'd be there. After that? It tends to become a one-way ticket to nowhere, fast.
Red flower in our garden
This "thing" we're just experiencing the beginnings of here on Steemit? Not new.
Of course, the typical "defense" I hear around here tends to be "Yeah, but Steemit is DIFFERENT. We're on the blockchain and we have our own currency and we have INVESTORS."
Allright-- then let's look at Part II: What IS Steemit?
Is it actually a "Social Content Platform?" Or just a "bit of fluff" attached to an investment vehicle... namely the Steem token?
It's an important question.
Because if this is merely "a bit of entertainment" to be enjoyed while we invest and trade on the exchanges, discussions like this are no more than a very insignificant storm in a very large teacup.
But if Steemit is-- as I suspect-- actually the "flagship app" that lends validity and substance to the Steem token? That's a whole different kettle of fish.
How so?
Thinking About "Investing"
If we allow the flagship representative of the Steem token to just become a giant ocean of spam and selfish behavior... as an investor, I would probably take a quick look at that and then pass on by.
Bald Eagle, juvenile
Why do we invest in things? (Sorry folks, "day trading" is not "investing." It's a whole different beast.) Usually in hopes of appreciation, which piggybacks on the expectation of growth and maybe profits, which typically are a product of a thriving venture. Point? If Steemit doesn't look "thriving" to the world, getting those investment dollars will get harder and harder.
Sure, something will still be "here" and a bunch of people can have fun trading their 1/2c Steem because most people will look at this otherwise brave new social experiment and think "Oh yeah... that's just another shitcoin." But sure, all the "investors" will have the freedom "to do whatever they want" with their upvotes. Have at it!
If that sounds unattractive-- or even "over the top" to you-- maybe it's time to have a conversation about what we're trying to achieve, here.
So What IS Steemit, then? An Analogy
Here's a bit of my own analogy and thoughts on "what Steemit is:"
Our "Princess Tree" in bloom
I see this community as most resembling a big ship, and we're all out on the ocean, sailing towards the future together. All sorts of people are on the ship, with various intentions, aspirations and histories. Some will be selfish, some will be selfless. But as different as we may all be... one would still assume we share the common goal of wanting the Good Ship Steemit to keep sailing.
Now, I'm all about the whole "free to do whatever we want" thing... so the question arises of what to do when some insist that their "freedom" involves drilling holes in the hull of our ship "because they feel like it?" What do we do when some choose to exercise their "freedom" by using the ship's fuel oil to light their BBQs on deck so the ship runs out of fuel?
I know some of the community's "Freedom Absolutists" are going to to start saying that any regulation is a bad regulation... and somehow addressing self-upvoting is like a form of communism or "government."
I don't think so. I think it's a form of giving a shit about our basic survival.
If you have termites in your house, do you take steps to ensure the survival of the structure... or do you just hit the metaphorical "mute button" believing you are thereby granting the termites their "freedom" to be termites while not being able to "see" them somehow means they don't exist?
Might work... UNTIL you wake up one morning, and all that's left is a pile of dust.
So what's my point of this post?
Eucalyptus tree in bloom
I think some people are losing sight of the fact that we should probably focus a little more on the broader aspect is what it takes for Steemit to thrive and survive in the long run... rather than get bogged down in "who's entitled to do what" in the short run.
If there's no Steemit left, it doesn't really matter a whole lot whether you get to upvote yourself... or not.
It also seems to me that a lot of these "mini crises" we encounter are the result of people acting out of short term self-interest, at the expense of long term stability and growth.
It's not my place to judge that... but perhaps to toss out a cautionary word or two, pointing to the danger of possibly killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, like in Aesop's fable.
A Final Thought...
I am not convinced this is all that much about "good" or "bad" so much as it is about "short term thinking" vs. "long term thinking."
Desert sunset
What's perceived as "selfish" behavior typically revolves around very short term thinking-- i.e. "What can I put in my pocket, RIGHT NOW?" It tends to disregard the long term "price" or consequences of focusing on short term gains.
So, in a sense, my reasons for writing this article are COMPLETELY SELFISH! That is, I still want there to be a thriving Steemit community, in 2025!
I think it's high time we started looking at Steemit as a long term proposition, rather than a series of short term fixes.
How about you?
What do YOU think? What is your vision for Sreemit, 5-10 years from now? Or do you even think that far ahead? Do you believe self-upvoting, short spammy comments and vote begging will hurt Steemit in the LONG run? Moreover, does Steemit "matter" to you in the long run, or do you see it more as a place to make some "grocery money" RIGHT NOW? Do you think these issues can "solve themselves" if we simply "mute" or ignore the offenders? Or does the community need to take action? Or does some of the underlying code need to be rewritten to prevent certain windows for exploitation? Leave a comment-- share your experiences and feedback-- be part of this important conversation!
(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Published 20170727 16:05 PDT
1. What is your vision for Sreemit, 5-10 years from now? I want to still be on here. I am hoping by then the junk will be vastly eliminated. I do think there should be some sort of limit on actual posts per day. Because one user a while back had 22+ blogs "written" in a 7 hr period. They were all copy paste jobs and poorly done at that. Some had dangerous info /suggestions in them that would've been harmful for diabetics, or just flat out misinfo. I called this person out, they had no good answers for their posts just that it wasn't their opinion....Okay then why'd you post it? I digress.
I think you are right that STEEMIT is like a big ship. As such there will be lots of various circles of like minded people. Likeminded for the good or bad of steemit. Yes, some people will be offput by shitty, spammy content. I am. I can't tell you how many thoughtless comments I've received on my posts bevause people didn't actually READ it. Some were flat out sexist and rude. So I flagged those comments. I think flagging should be in place. Truth is, i really don't think there's one person on here flagged into the single digits that got there via "unfair" means. They may be bitter and continue trolling around, but keep getting ignored/downvoted and eventually give up/go away. That's for the "minor offenders".......
For people who have known histories of unlawful things like um, being directly tied to someone's suicide for instance, that's not something i want around here. Just a random example. I feel if someone can fairly explain a bad situation that's good. But if you are ignoring questions of your moral integrity that's a red flag Right there. Why can't you address it?
There needs to be something in place for the extreme circumstances of bad or really fishy people. To ensure the safety of the community. I mean or ship. If one part is burning, eventually the whole ship will.
As i mentioned above, there will always be various circles and groups of People. I personally can't stand the superficial crap that's going around like "watch me go to the grocery store " i think we need sustenance. But as i said there will always be the groups that enjoy that sort of thing. Or the braggy look what i Just bought at the mall posts, or look at my bank account. ..digressing again.
2. Or do you even think that far ahead? think i just covered that. Lol
3. Do you believe self-upvoting, short spammy comments and vote begging will hurt Steemit in the LONG run?
Selfupvoting - I do not think self upvoting of your own post that you put effort into is bad. That's just me. If I wouldn't upvote it, why should i expect someone else to? In other words, i think My post is good enough it deserves my own vote.
Self upvoting of your own comments though? That's a bit different. By the time you are in the comment phase you are more or less conversing with your followers. To me, upvoting a comment then seems kinda like saying "hey guys, i like what i just said." Especially bad of all you said was "good post, follow me, I'll follow you" there will always be the superficial folks upvoting their own lame comments though. Although as you pointed out it is different if you put a lot of thought and effort into a comment. At that point, I would like others the be upvoting my comment though if it was that good. Lol.
The vote beggers and these voting cliques will end up getting bored in my opinion. Simply bevause that behavior isn't earning them much, if anything
4. Moreover, does Steemit "matter" to you in the long run, or do you see it more as a place to make some "grocery money" RIGHT NOW? as far as me personally i think I've made this clear. However I'm extremely bothered, even concerned, for the people thinking steemit will do that for them. I saw a post a while back from a relatively new steemian who decided to Just sell all their stuff and steem only. If you are that confident in yourself, good on ya, but don't count your chickens before they hatch
STEEMIT is merely supplemental income to me at this point. I enjoy the interactionsand all the cool people like @denmarkguy that I've met
I'm in this thing for the long haul. It actually matters to me to contribute, learn from others,
encourage the good, discourage the bad, have People enjoy my posts, or maybe someone even learns something from me.
5. Do you think these issues can "solve themselves" if we simply "mute" or ignore the offenders? Or does the community need to take action? Or does some of the underlying code need to be rewritten to prevent certain windows for exploitation?
The "minor offense" trollers will as i said be eliminated by the community the way they are right now. By the fact they won't get anywhere.
People suspected of serious crimes should have their accounts plac3d on hold AND hold it to a community vote?
To discourage the IMMEDIATE *good post follow me" shit we are getting on things that took us two hours to write....I think the developers should implement some timed mechanism so when someone clicks your post they have to be on it for say at least 2 minutes before they can comment to try and encourage people to READ
@chelsea88, thanks so much for the long and well thought out comment! I really appreciate you taking the time.
I'm pretty much on the same page as you, with respect to most of your points. I have actually contributed to a couple of sites that had timers on comments to cut back on spam; they also made it so you couldn't paste anything to the input box... but, of course, determined hackers come up with scripts to bypass pretty much anything.
My personal opinion is that the best approach is simply to make "undesirable" behavior unprofitable. Most people who try to "game" systems are 100% money motivated... which is also what makes them a threat to the platform.
@denmarkguy not being able to paste would be difficult, but hopefully the timers will be implemented to cut back on spam. Thanks for the supprt on my comment. Sometimes i get a little long-winded so I am glad it made some sense to everyone. :) keep it up, i always appreciate your insightful posts
I totally agree!
Better yet, people should actually have to look at the article first in order to up-vote. Go look in the "Hot" and "Trending" sections, and you'll see all the top articles have more up-votes than views... so pathetic really.
So true. I say two minutes before they can comment. Because just in case they are a skimmer.....we don't want it to be too long or people might forget to comment at all. Lol
Ha ha, yeah, but somethings gotta change for sure.
All articles have an indication of how long read it is on Esteem. Maybe add the duration of embedded video into that and there you would have it. You could no longer comment or upvote on things you haven't seen. But:
The most common bots wouldn't be able to upvote anymore, trailing votes, automatically upvote your favorite bloggers wouldn't be possible anymore. You would change a very large part of what Steemit is today.
And I kinda love it here as it is, imperfect yeah, but still a great place.
Fair point (s)
All of this!^^^ So much YAY!
Glad you and I are on the same boat literally @egregorian =)
You got to the key issue at the end after a long ramble.
Who sets the long-term goals for steemit?
Is the long-term goal to be the premier blogging site in 5-10 years?
Once the goal is established, then actions that are essential to getting to the goal are easier to define.
You'd think that the development team that has $1M each into the platform, would be all over actions that can drive STEEM up by 10x or 100X. Cash out in 5 years and set for life to blog till the cows come home.
On the other hand, if the platform is just a play toy to run a social experiment, then leave things as they are.
This could become an online version of Big Brother. Really crappy TV that I assume no one ever watches.
@davebrewer, some of this has been confusing to me, and continues to be confusing to me. I know we have the original White Paper and we have an ostensible "road map" but it seems mostly concerned with "what we're going to do next" and "features we'd like to add."
As of this writing, I have not seen any cohesive 5-year or 10-year plan with any sort of benchmarking. Of course, I can hear the peanut gallery murmuring about such things being "the evils of centralized structure."
Well, not really. They are the building blocks of a well thought out project. A constant series of "course corrections" aren't much good unless you have a carefully laid plan to follow.
I do it also very often for that reason. I think it is very reasonable.
Which also means-- on quite a few occasions-- that my self-upvote might only be 10%.
I upvote my own posts. But I also feel that I've put enough time and effort into them for them to be worth the $0.20 or so cents my upvote is worth. Also, I generally only post once or twice a day so I still have plenty of upvotes to spread around the pool.
However, it might be a double standard, but I do think it's unfortunate when people whose upvotes are worth a significant amount of $ use most or all of those upvotes on themselves. That seems wrong to me. But as you said, with no set rules in place, it's up to each of us to decide where we draw the line.
@redhens, I really have no issue with people upvoting their own original blog posts, especially if they are creating quality content. Besides, the default setting on the posting page is "upvote."
My concern is mostly those who'll apply 80+% of their daily voting to upvoting their own comments... which are often just "nice post." The sad thing is that they are really "scamming" themselves as much as they are "beating the system." If you're not out there curating and interacting with others... don't expect to get a long-term following.
I completely agree. It's frustrating to see people reap huge rewards for little effort when others, such as yourself, strive to create excellent content and build community -- the two things that will ultimately determine whether Steemit is a success or not.
This was a great post. I really appreciate your thoughts on this subject. It seems like the Steemians whose work I like best all seem to be on the same page when it comes to these things, which is a positive sign.
Thanks! There's certainly a "selfish" part of me that knows (a) that it's a pain in the butt to have to "evacuate" 100s of articles when a site is about to shut down, (b) I hate having a lot of good content associated with a "crap" venue and (c) I understand and appreciate the VALUE of having a body of work published in ONE place for a LONG time. If you have to hop from one site to another, you lose a BUNCH of subscribers every time.
Hence, I want to see Steemit do well, in the long run. Blogging here is a long term investment in my writing. As such, I am fairly protective of the venue... and if I see things that threaten those long term aspirations, I am going to shine the light on them and do my part to make people pause and think about their actions.
Yes. The people that do this will not have many followers. I would think they would eventually get bored really. Because to make a "quick buck" on steemit by using scammy comments, you would have to invest a lot to begin with. I do like your analogy of the termites. It is not something people will turn a blind eye to though. I have seen some almost battle initiatives against major abusers. People will work together that just enjoy being here in this community of communities.
And there's part of the irony @egregorian-- sometimes the time and effort to figure out how to "game the system" is actually more than simply using the platform legitimately, as it was originally created.
It is really sad to see high quality content make pennies while poor quality posts make hundreds because of unequal voting power and folks who upvote themselves... It is also frustrating to read through spammy comments that are posted and upvote solely for the purpose of gaining followers rather than actually having a true response to various posts. The bots that post the same thing on multiple posts in a row I find disrespectful as well. I put effort and time into each one of my posts, and (this may seem silly but) I get excited to have a conversation about things I'm passionate about but when I scroll through several " follow me, I'll follow you, nice post" it's disheartening and a waste of my time to read. I want followers who genuinely appreciate my work and want to discuss the topics, not a million bots or spammy comments
Not silly. I'm passionate about it too. So the spammy bull shit posts are really really annoying to see making so much
I thought I was coming on this platform to make some pocket change and then quickly realized that I prized the commentary above the Steem. I want to make Steem, but only because of what I'm saying interests people, rather than the idea that I may have gamed the system the right way and always get votes.
I absolutely chose Steemit (over another couple of possibilities) because it seemed easier to use this rewards system than wrestling forever with installing Google AdSense on another blog... and dealing with all that hassle for a few cents a week. But whereas I like the rewards here, I feel like I want them for writing not because I happen to know how to code a "clever hack" to exploit the system.
We're in agreement.
I agree with you.. And i am a poor one who upvote my self
Thanks @lovewild... you bring up something that's part of my favorite part of Steemit-- "Community Engagement." Which happens to be important to me... and that's also why I use my upvote power to reward others, not myself. Among other things, I can actively curate responses on my own-- and other people's-- content, "sorting" the most meaningful to the top with higher voting power. Few things annoy me more than some boogerhead coming in and writing "nice post" and then upvoting their own inane comment to the top of the comment stream. It makes a mockery of those who sincerely try to create content of interest and value.
I upvote my own posts, but not my own comments. I also upvote the people who comment on my posts, and I upvote what I consider quality Steemit content by others. I am trying to build, rather than game, the system.
Before HF19, my vote was worth a couple pennies ta most, so self-voting was irrelevant. But after HF19, it feels like if I don't upvote what I write, sometimes no one will. And I put effort into what I write, and think it's freakin' awesome, and it deserves at least my own upvote.
I have waffled around on precentage voting power, and I think I will be 100%-upvoting most content, upvoting at a lower percent if I like something but feel like it's not up to snuff for 100%, and upvoting comments at 10% unless they look like spam.
@jacobtothe, I don't have an issue with upvoting original posts, especially when someone is posting quality original content. As for voting power, my rule of thumb is that if it's good/important enough that I'd resteem it, it's good enough for a 100% upvote. The rest of the time, somewhere between 10-50%... which works well with the amount of time I can give to curation on an average day.
Comments? Mostly 5-20% upvotes, unless I feel something said really deserves a boost. Or I am trying to vault it past other stuff to greater visibility.
Good points.
I personally don't agree with the logic people high up on Steem has about self-voting being a way to help "get yourself noticed". At the same time, there is a limitation that can't prevent self-voting since someone can just create another account and delegate to that account and upvote their own posts. It's almost like a catch 22.
It's up to the community and also the large stakeholders to determine what is the good "etiquette" to change this type of behavior.
I think a lot of people over look that this is a capitalist platform since it is Delegated Proof Of Stake.
With that said, I have come to view self-voting neither good or bad for the time being. I believe over time as the user base grows and with community tokens, each community can create what behavior is accepted within those communities.
Thanks @bitcoinparadise!
I'm definitely looking forward to see how "Communities" play out, when they finally come to market. I feel hopeful that they might encourage at least "pockets" of the community where the conduct is a little less self-oriented.
I don't see anything inherently evil about selfishness and capitalism-- the problem here is "short sightedness." Sometimes if all you focus on are maximum rewards NOW, you don't get to have much of anything in the future. I also recognize that this is "new territory" to many of the people high up on the Steem chain... they suddenly have $500,000 in assets, "just like that." That's exciting! But it also can go away again, JUST AS FAST as it arrived, as a result of poor choices.
Yes, I believe "communities" can encourage "pockets" of the community to do this.
I agree in some aspect of the "short-sidedness." However, the way this platform is designed, it's a race to get as much STEEM as possible. At the same time yes, poor choices can have quite an effect.
I think the way the system was designed it will be a difficult for those high up to power down to lose their influencing power on the platform and the "capital" to continue earning more. I think the community tokens will change things for the better.
I do remain quite hopeful about "Communities," as well as hopeful that we'll see something concrete from the development team fairly soon... as I recall, the estimated "delivery date" was 2nd Quarter for that.
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.
@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.
Great article @denmarkguy. I don't upvote my own posts because it just doesn't feel right to me. If I do, it's most likely because I have committed to share the reward with someone else.
This is both a Steemit culture, and a system issue. Are we fostering a culture where it's fine to upvote yourself all the time, and reap the rewards which you may not deserve? Some will say "yes, because the system allows it." To me, that is where the problem lies. The system does allow it, but it was not intended to be used in that way.
I wrote a proposal a few days ago, with a system of diminishing rewards for self upvotes. In short, each self upvote you make results in a bigger and bigger reduction in voting power and weight, until after a certain number of votes, your voting power is zero. This system makes it more worthwhile to gain rewards from curation, rather than rewarding yourself first.
It's past its payout day, but would still like to see it get some consideration. It is here if you are interested:
https://steemit.com/steem/@bmj/proposed-hf-changes-to-bring-voting-back-in-line-with-its-intended-purpose-rewarding-quality
P.S; It also deals with delegated Steem Power.
@bmj, thanks for the comment, and also for bringing the whole ethical/philosophical issue to the table.
Looking at the original White Paper and looking at old interviews with @dan & @ned there's little doubt there's a strong element of idealism underlying Steemit. Sure, people are here "to earn rewards" but there's also a strong element of being part of something potentially game changing. Now we are dealing with an influx of people who are far enough "removed" from the original Steemit vision that they are basically just "here for the money."
It's a strange "get out of jail free" card. It's like going to work at a place where you can have free sodas from the cafeteria, which is nice... but then some people take it upon themselves to make off with a case of soda everyday because "there's free soda" and no fixed rule that says you can't take a case of free soda.
So we end up at where many ideologies fall apart-- the assumption that people are moral, ethical and work towards a common good. Sadly... wrong. Many-- if not most-- people work only towards their own personal gain.
I'll go check out your other piece.
I upvote my own posts because at a certain point I noticed that my posts that I upvote get more upvotes from others than the ones I don't. My posts are not spam. I put alot of thinking and effort into writing them.
I agree with everything you are saying about spam, etc. but I don't think self voting is the real issue when it comes to that. Steemit should have better means for allowing users to control what they see, and that is what will really make the difference.
Me either like you mr. @orenshani7 i upvote my self post..
Agreed, we do need some better tools to sort content for viewing.
Scenario: A user writes "nice post" as the comment on 10 different posts, and then upvotes those 10x "nice post" with 100% self upvote, using up their max. voting power for the day. They give nothing to anyone else... basically, they treat Steemit as a "free cash dispenser."
Would that not present a problem, in terms of the site being attractive to anyone, INCLUDING new investors?
Good point. Still, as somone already mentioned, even if self upvoting will not be allowed (which I don't mind btw), people can still.open.another account and cross vote between.accounts.
Valid point, for sure.
Ultimately, I ask myself the same question: Why are people willing to put so much time and energy into finding "ways to cheat" when they could put the SAME amount of effort into simply using the system legitimately... and possibly even have better net results, in the end.
Now that is a good question that I don't have an answer for...maybe the "thrill" of gaming the system?
As good an answer as any... or maybe it feeds certain people's self-perceptions as being "rebels."
That is a question that was on my mind alot lately in a broader sense. I think the reason is that on the local level, cheating always seem easyer... but this is a topic to another discussion
What's a "Social Content Platform"? How does it differ from "fluff" on? How does it differ from fluff on other platforms? Or they don't have fluff?
They don't see it as that metaphorically, only we do because we see how it doesn't align with the long-term vision we have. They have their stake and their actions that are allowed by code, and they justify it from that position to support their personal desires, drives and motivations. Not holes, but money to them.
Their desire, drive and motivation is based on being entitled to do what they want with their stake/shares. That's the corporate mindset that prevails. How they want to personally use their shares is only their concern, not yours, according to them. Thinking beyond how they use their shares is secondary at best.
Some people call pointing out these issues whining, complaining or bitching, etc. Their only retort is to silence exposition of an issue. I was really into Steemit before the flagging issue, but lost my fire ;) Getting people to stand against issues is hard, especially when influential and powerful people will lash out with flags to silence the few who speak out against what their doing. Steemit Inc. was a bit too dreamy in expecting social pressure to be united to set a course for the platform when so many people have diverging and conflicting drives and motivations for their behavior.
I kept that pretty ambiguous for a couple of reasons-- one being that Steemit's self-definition seems incredibly vague, the other being that it allows for a lot of inclusiveness. I really have no idea what this place is. Or wants to be. People make references to Reddit, but IMNSHO that's sucky thing to aspire to... it's mostly a snakepit of petty politicking, pseudo intellectual mental masturbation and dictatorial sub-redditors with huge egos.
Short-sightedness is the death blow to many things... around here, I see far too many people getting wrapped up in the price of Steem tomorrow, while remaining blatantly unaware of the greater picture and meta trends that create long term growth and stability. As someone else here pointed out, you'd think that some of the early adopters would have more interest in planning how their current $1M stakes could grow by 10x or even 100x by 2025 so they can have their freedom on the beach in Mexico... but of course that requires a "common good" mindset... and that's very communist thing of me to say! :P
Don't know if you saw @bmj's proposal for weighting self-upvoting in such a way it simply burns through your voting power much faster-- seems quite worthwhile. No dreaded "censorship" of self-upvoting, merely adjusting the code to disincentivize the practice. https://steemit.com/steem/@bmj/proposed-hf-changes-to-bring-voting-back-in-line-with-its-intended-purpose-rewarding-quality
Some mega whales advocates for flagging content they don't like that gets too popular and rewarded too much to their liking. They want to be the dictators of who can or can't keep their rewards just because they don't like the content getting popular, or don't like the person, etc.
Jumping into decentralized social interaction without a plan makes for an omnidirectional mess hehe. If Steemit Inc had set something to being with, at least there would be a set goal to work with for starters. We can't seem to even start one lol.
Yeah well... it's really hard for many people to rise above their own shit long enough to realize that if the want their own shit to float, they need to (somewhat selflessly) take care of the "pond" that makes it possible for their shit to float, in the first place. But that somehow seems to be rocket science...
I've long been wailing at the moon about the weakness (or "Achilles Heel") of decentralization (a good idea, in principle) being "fragmentation." Or, as you put it rather well "an omnidirectional mess." Maybe it makes me a heinous traitor to the cause to say so, but not all aspects of centralized structures are inherently "evil."
The thing is on the blockchain, you cant have centralized power, it violates the whole trustless tech aspect. I had the idea of splitting into two ledgers, one as a real ledger for financial transactions, and the other chain for data/info. I have lots of ideas on how things would be better, making another blockchain, possible even a deployable package for people to tokenize their own sites and run it like that.
You NEVER Disappoint @denmarkguy! Wonderful written, beautifully articulated article. And as always I enjoy your nature photos! This is an issue for real here on steemit, like you in more words then I have today said we have seen this before and history repeats istelf. And many time it does because of that greed that some have, that unquenchable thirst for more. I find many Steemians that want to be here are people that understand the greater good, that inner feeling of utopia. That feeling is within and to some extent I see it in many of Steem Users. This in itself is huge for the growth of this community. To stick around in this environment and do well takes effort, time and a certain commitment. It is in many ways unique. And the STEEM coin makes more transactions a day then many other coins. This is a powerful notion. In 5 years I can see this becoming one of the most amazing networks on earth. And many phenomenal projects can come from this between Steemians and beyond. The purpose of STEEM as a currency. I'm sailing on the ship, I'll be there. Peace!
(This comment took 20 minutes to write with 2 breaks and lots of editing ;)
Quality Content Takes Time @egregorian... which also happens to be the title of my next post, which is current "doing time" in my drafts folder while I answer comments. Which also takes time. As you know...
I really would like to see Steemit be around for a long time... but that also means that either the community OR the base code has to discourage those who'd relentlessly try to exploit the system, rather than simply use it as intended and still get benefits.
There's a thought I've never been asked:open discussions now to consider how we want to shape Steemit for the future.
If I'm not helping in the programming side of the site I didn't think anyone cared about my future plans for the site. Then you decided to ask it and I find myself taken back by it.
As a developing writer I want to write. As a reader I want to read. Doing this in order to learn and share in the moment with people. Create a community online based on mutual respect. I'm sure there is more, but I'm cut off guard and really need time to think about it. Thanks for the thought provoking post
It's important stuff to consider, @kubbyelizabeth, especially in a decentralized structure like Steemit. The questions must be asked... it's a bit like going to the doctor; we try to impress the doctor but forget that the doctor works for US (we're paying!), not the other way around.
I want to write, and I want a venue of some consistent quality that remains stable and "there" in the long term. As such, I recommend we figure out long term objectives, so we can implement short term solutions that inform those long term objectives.
And that can be very hard to do in a system that involves rewards... everybody's more concerned about whether they can "buy a hamburger tomorrow" than whether they will have $10K in their investment account, five years from now.
How do you recommend we figure out long term objectives, so we can implement short term solutions that inform those long term objectives.
Is wanting a venue of consistent quality that remains stable in the long term to simple to achieve?
I strongly believe that the kind of behaviors you conduct on Steemit tends to bring those who agree with it to your side. They become your ally, friends, neighbor, those who help you when things go ajar. There are those who play Steemit for the short term, and those who play it for the long term. Many shortcuts are great short-term but will hurt you long term. People who disagree with your kind of behavior will not follow, upvote, and leave a comment more often than not. They might even mute you.
As far as upvoting your own work. I experiment always with a different way of doing things on Steemit. I’ll still upvote my own blog(s) but I tend now to wait 45 minutes or so to give any one who first read it and wants to upvote it the chance. I’m still small and not having that initial start of 1 upvote seems to put me at a great disadvantage till I build up more of a readership and support. I have not upvoted my own comment in a while now. I feel if my comment did not get the rewards vs the time I invested or maybe it did but I still spent hours on it. I’ll just expand it out further and make a blog out of it. Those who spam comments all day generally can't use the time they already invested in that spam comment to make a great blog out of it that people will read and upvote. It’s all about trying to find that balance.
Thanks @enjar, for the feedback.
I guess the "side" I take in this debate, and what I am willing to lobby for is standing behind the long term perspective. I have "seen enough" here to determine that Steemit is an awesome model for an alternative social content platform... IF it is used appropriately by its keepers (i.e. we, the community) it can easily keep going for 10+ years and turn into a major player in the worldwide social market... 50 million users by 2025 is not an unrealistic goal.
But that requires LONG TERM planning and thinking, as well as people being able to act according to supporting a big picture in the long run... not just their pocketbooks TODAY. Unfortunately greed seems to be an inherent part of human nature... and it tends to run counter to long term objectives.
Indeed, finding balance is an important thing. "New" or not, you write some of the best comments I get... so I always upvote them... which (for me, anyway) is how "community" works. You interacted sincerely and intelligently with my content... thank you. Upvote. Pay it forward. Putting 30c in your tip jar doesn't cost me anything but it might help you build your SteemPower balance, which in turn will help build someone else. Synergy. Everybody wins.
Human greed can always be used to reinforce good behavior, but same can be said for bad behavior in the terms that we see it as. Take today for instance. I dealt with a spammer who was begging for upvoters. I informed the guy that is not how Steemit works. One other person noticed my comment as well, and reply to it reinforcing in what I was saying. He also upvote my comment to indicated to others that this is expected behavior when we see spam we should call it out, and try and resolve it. The spammer in term swore at us in another langue and that was all I needed to know about him. He got my downvote. The spammer was rather an anger about it. I took a look at his wallet. He withdraws every liquid sbd he can get his hands on. He gets very short tempered with people who call him out, and all he has to do is anger one whale enough to be put into a pit of dispersing of a bad rep. This guy will self-destruct in time and be done with Steemit because no one will be I willing to help him expect other greedy people.
I try and always help out when I can. Even if someone has been here longer than me or not and they might not welcome it. Even in last 24 hours spent a few hours either helping or trying to contribute to helping minnows out. If the spammer would have been nicer; not only would I not have downvoted him, but I would be happy to help. Instead, he chooses greed and anger so all he gets in return are a few cents here or there from people who do not understand his disingenuine.
While some days I really wish there was more tools for dealing with comment spammers, beggers, and others alike. I also know over time they just won’t make it. Yes they will extract asome amount SBD and even STEEM out of the system. The only issue I can see in regards to this is those who create robots that spam and make money. Those sadly are here to stay. More needs to be done.
When these people get really greedy the community comes out and downvotes them into the ground. I found a guy the other week. Was making up to 7$ per spam comment. Took me hours to find people to downvote him but it happened. Three people downvote him to the point he lost money because he was buying his spam comments upvotes.
At the end of the day as long as we focus on building and working with those who want to see Steemit be successful 10 to 20 years and even beyond we have a fighting chance. The scammers and those who want to do us harm I hope for most part are just lone sheep who won’t get many friends. With our influence gained over time we help control witness ranking, the reward pool, and how others wish to interact with us.
At least that’s my thoughts at 3am! I hope it’s somehow understandable lol.
Wow, this was an amazing dialogue, I am new on my husband's account that I made into a family account as I was waiting for two weeks for my own....still nothing yet..oops I digressed. So ...I had no idea anyone would upvote themselves. That seems really contrary to the entire system. I have merely tried to write good content but is is very sad when no one votes. But since I am in it for the long haul I will just keep at it. I do think that when I have read something I often need the little reminder that if I liked it to upvote and resteem... Do you think that is not a good line to write or is it frowned on by the veterans? Thank you!
Sadly, there's no way to regulate sincerity. The people who post spammy comments just to upvote themselves are not sincere at all, but motivated purely for monetary gain. Then there are brilliant and sincere comments that offer great insight into something and so often they're worth $0.00.
I have to remind myself that monetary gain is not really the point of Steemit, but meeting interesting people, following good content, and having good conversations. The monetary reward should come naturally from good content and interactions.
@denmarkguy, excellent article. Thank you.
Quick question, what do you think of services like minnowbooster, or randowhale? Do you believe that this damages the lasting power of Steemit?
@ironshield
Thanks @ironshield, appreciate the kinds words and feedback!
Just based on personal observation, there seems to be two dominant schools of thought on Steemit:
Steemit is a social blogging/content site that happens to reward contributors for their activity. As best I can tell, that's the more idealistic approach which I also gleaned as forming the heart of the original Steemit White Paper, as well as Dan & Ned's vision of this being the game changer of social content sites.
Steemit is purely a "make money online" site, and people are within their right to use "whatever means" to extract as much bounty as possible, within the limitations of what the code allows. Content doesn't really matter, except as a vehicle to activate the "cash dispenser."
These two will tend to conflict because one focuses on long term community building... while the other focuses on immediate rewards. In addition, under the first paradigm, the reward flows naturally as the consequence of an action we take; under the latter, the "action" is dictated by the reward.
With respect to upvoting services... I see them as problematic in the sense that "automated" rewards are taking away from "organically awarded" rewards, but that's perhaps a fairly minor issue. The greater issue is the fact that they mostly amount to so much "churning;" that is, people are paying $2.00 to earn $2.00 in most cases... so the only person who substantially benefits in the long run is the "seller" of the upvote... who already has a ton of voting power.
I should remember that if the reward comes naturally from the action, rather than the action dictated by the reward, then I am lending to the longevity of Steemit and promoting the platform. I really hope it has staying power. It would be sad to see it become only a cash dispenser.
Thank you for your insightful response. Steem on! @ironshield
bots attract spam.
Upvote bots are a nuisance because they have zero intelligence.
Things like cheetah and twitterbot aren't a problem; they just provide information.
Excellent content and I totally agree with your early comments. We all try to get noticed and carry on posting quality posts without much recognition. It is very frustrating to hear of those who have already succeeded, abusing the system to their advantage, shame on them! :)X
@get-baking, thanks!
I get that it's "tempting" to give yourself a bunch of upvotes if you have a lot of influence... but it's also short sighted; you can't build community if all you focus on is yourself.
And if you're an "early adapter?" Set an example you'd want others to follow...
Again, totally agree. They should not abuse their influence, spend time commenting and upvoting the small people. Having looked at how much money these whales have made from Steemit; it is doubly disgraceful. Why are people so greedy! :)X
I cannot agree more. Being a 'wrinkly' and establishment orientated, I like things to be fair. I love that some have made a lot of money, but don't be greedy and abuse the system for more gain. Be satisfied with your 'lot' when you have been successful. Great debate. :)X
A well thought through post, being a Captain I loved your ship analogy :-)
Drilling a hole in the hull to prove your freedoms is classic.
I've had demanding guests that wanted things their way because they leased the boat. I try to accommodate but would rather have them mad, then put the ship in danger or head into a scenario that would make them feel worse overall. I'm very anti athoritarian but some people need forced guidance. For their own well being and that of others.
Cheers my friend
Thanks for the comment @codypanama! Yes, I bet you get all sorts of things, being a charterboat captain... friend of mine used to take out tourists in the Virgin Islands and he said it was sometimes a thankless job because people can just be outright nasty and entitled.
Indeed, some people just need "forced guidance."
Brings back memories. I think I was something like the 500th member there, basically one of The Old Ones once it got to the point where huge numbers of people were signing up.
But Epinions had a deeply flawed design. If I remember correctly, for a while at least people were getting something like 20 cents per page view, not even needing votes. People were writing crap like "Gruidl fibbing ifjinh ghvkj fijjlv" and getting paid for it.
At least it's not quite that bad here. 😅
THIRTY CENTS per page view @preparedwombat, it was stunning. But then again, it almost required a degree in rocket science to actually GET a page view, back then... well, not quite. And then it became 3 cents, and everyone went "waaaahhh!" They were burning through their "angel funding" at an insane rate.
Remarkably, I kept getting royalty payments till-- I think-- 2014 or 2015.
Flawed or not, the eventual system of members and "category managers" with different levels of voting power did somewhat contain and sort the pure garbage for quite a few years.
Point here being that they did address the issue of spam and spun content rather than pretend it would not be a serious problem.
Well, one thing that can be done is to reverse HF19.
All it has done is penalise the power voters - the ones that did the hard yards of curation. I'm not sure how or why the linear voting thing came about, or why they decided to drain people's voting power after 10 votes, but one good thing about steemit is that if an experiment doesn't work out, it can be reversed in the next hard fork.
HF19 has been a mixed blessing, for sure... allegedly, it would make minnows feel like their voice had a "say" because an upvote would be worth 3-4 cents instead of zero. Whereas that has perhaps happened, so much else seems to have gone backwards...
I think steemit rewards should go 100 percent to the curator. ( the writer is the first curator). Then everyone is focused on voting for winners rather than themselves.
That said I think it's fair to vote for yourself as long as you also vote for others.
That's an interesting proposition @ender. I don't really have issues with occasional self-upvotes for quality content and even comments... the the abusive version that bothers me... when someone is using 90%+ of their daily voting power on themselves for two word comments... makes a mockery out of quality content creation.
I upvote my posts (not comments) and my vote right now is only worth 0.08, but it's the same if it was worth 10.00, I don't think upvoting myself is wrong so why should I think a whale upvoting himself is wrong? Now the question here is does Steemit make Steem valuable or does Steem make Steemit valuable? Because if the value is in Steem whatever you post on Steemit will not affect Steem's price, the market will.
@gduran, I don't really have an issue with upvoting original blog posts... and-- after all-- the default setting when you post is to upvote the post on publication.
What I am mostly concerned about is exploitative behavior on junk content. For example, a person posts something and upvotes themselves. Fine. Then 10 people come along and leave comments. The original poster then goes in and responds "thanks" 10x and then does NOT upvote the 10 comments, but upvotes their own 10x "thanks" at 100%, thereby burning through their daily voting power without giving even a whisker back to the community.
Upvote, Shared! reading your article and reading the comments I feel covers my thoughts on where and what this community is and where it can go, I love what I see here on the level of quality content but also see a few of the downsides with the spammers/bots and I am hoping powers that be can remove the drills out of the hands before it sinks. I am here for the long term 10-20 yrs and see a future of borderless coming together of humanity to create a future for us all. Thank You for saying what I am feeling and seeing!
Thank you @weetreebonsai, for your encouragement! I think this community has a lot to offer... and could potentiall become a "game changer" in terms of what happens with social content platforms in the future... people helping people in a GLOBAL network.
interesting Analogy what with steemians seen as whales dolphins and minnows nice touch great post though sadly I've forgotten most of it :/ but I also seen quite the chat that followed as well after the first lengthy reply well done @chelsea88 and @denmarkguy I myself do not upvote my own posts due to being new and I see myself as poor :/ but I upvote other's that peek my interest and give me a smile or in this case something to think about . I agree those that ask for upvotes or follow for fallow will either start working better at sharing content or fade into the background spam no matter the form (to me at least) is bad and tasteless and should be tossed aside. I think I done gave an opinion neat that :) great read liked the pictures will resteem to get this passed around. thanks for sharing
Thanks @freakygeek... of course, it takes a little while for everyone to learn the way things work. In general, the best way to build community (and a following for your own content) is to follow a "pay it forward" philosophy... I may not be the "biggest fish" on Steemit, but doing so has stood me in pretty good stead here.
In the ideal world, we can try to re-educate those who spam and encourage them to use a different approach. Some will learn-- sadly, some will not.
I honestly think this is a minute issue compared to these "minnows" "support" "bot" "auto" thingy. They even upvote plagiarised work, then claiming their upvote is from a community of something quality. Please.
@chuckler, I kept that particular can of worms OUT of this discussion on purpose! The entire "paid votes" thing is an issue onto itself... and not a good situation. I could even see "paid upvotes" being a workable thing if they were dispensed by a human curator, but that's unlikely to happen.
Part of what we're seeing here is a struggle between "earning for merit" vs. "earning withOUT merit."
Hi @steemias..
I am yusnadi.. From #Aceh.
Actually i am a new one in @steem programs.. I joined this @esteem 21 july 2017.
POOR ON ME
I UPVOTED MY POST TO GET MY SELF CONFIDENCE in order to notice people that i am here.. But now and so on.. I have understand that @esteem want me be created quality till people know and notice me.
Please teach me how to uograding my skill and kowledge as you all..
Thank if you follow me and upvote me..
A million thank to all of you..
You can join us on Discord in the PAL channel. There are lots of people who can help you on your way. Also @papa-pepper has a slew of helpful articles on how to be more successful on steemit.
It is very good for you to want to be part of the community. Welcome!
Thank you for invitation @matthewtiii
I will join sooner.. I hope i will find more friends in @papa-paper..
Thanks again and again..
Sincerellry Your student
@yusnadi
Well, first off welcome to Steemit @yusnadi.
Patience is important, as is a willingness to learn. @matthewtiii made a very good suggestion to join the PAL channel on Discord... a really good place to learn.
Thanks sir.. @denmarkguy @matthewtiii
I am very appreciate your respon sir.. I wish to learn and sharing more and more.. By the way..
What is the PAL channel sir..?
Self voting is a head scratcher, but I have an excellent solution for the spam comments.
(Past payout)
How is that not a thing yet? Why did I not think of that myself! I really wish reputation was used more and that sounds like a solution. I am just getting so fed up with spammers and beggars and people who can’t even spend secs to read before posting. I even try to reason with them, offer my help if they are not understanding. More times than not it ends with me downvoting their spam for that blog, and then I move on. I only do that in very select places here since I feel I know the blogs author enough, and we both have an understand in my actions.
Is there any solution at this time to even remotely try and deal with these people? I have not spent much time researching on the matter as I would much rather be a builder than a destroyer. However, I’m starting to notice these people more and more. They just seem so unchecked. It’s like they enjoy taking away instead of adding to things using their spam.
I can't see any way it's a successful model, but there's a constant stream of newcomers who assume it's the best path to success.
We need a filter.
Thanks @mattclarke, I will check it out!
I think it is ok to self upvote your articles of you post one or two a day, just to boost the visability, but up voting everything you post including comments is a pain in the ass really.. But the good thing is that the voting power drains really fast.
Cheers and all the best
Original content posts, not a problem... but the people who will post 10 short comments and then upvote themselves 100% for each... that becomes a problem.
Fixing the short term problems allows you to make it to long term. If unchecking self upvote drops self voting by 20% it seems like the easy short term solution to get you to the bigger philosophical questions.
True... but to move towards a meaningful long term, we have to have a common goal; some plans.
Upvoted and RESTEEMED :]
Thanks!
The whole thing is a rather slippery slope. I feel that we are in a world of two steemits at the moment. Those that are respectful to the platform in some fashion and those that aren't. Many of the aren'ts are new members with low rank.
I don't know about the whales that are playing daisy-chain games with many accounts, whether they are new investors or have been pulling crap since the beginning.
I don't feel the sense of community that I felt before HF19 and steemit has only been functioning for 15 months or so. A trend of community divide, that has lasted more than 5% of the platforms existence, is something to be concerned about.
I feel the ones that care about steemit are failing to realize that the culture is changing rapidly on this platform. So many of the newest steemians are disillusioned about their experience. "A social media site that demands original content and thoughtful commentary, screw that."
The new accounts have definitely taken over the majority of users. They don't know anything of success on the sight and view the early adapters as evil or benefactors. These new accounts tend to upvote themselves at any chance and take the socialness of the experience, out of the picture.
It would seem to me that the comment self-upvoting be curtailed with a change to some of the coding. It is perverting the platform and it's not going away.
Outstanding article. I am guilty of upvoting my posts, certainly not for the money but for the recognition. If you put any time into your posts, it is disheartening to not get any upvotes. There is a psychological component to the concept. But you have me thinking now about the long term investment; we all are making for the survival of Steemit. This may outweigh the instant gratification of seeing 1 lonely vote on your posts. I also sit in disbelief at the content that does get rewarded, no judgement, but if Steemit is going to survive, we must add value to the conversation.... Just my 2 cents
First off... I loved the random pictures, they made my night. Secondly, I just wrote an article pertaining to self-voting, and to sum it up in a few short words... the shits gotta go!
All they need to do is remove the self-voting aspect of this platform, and I could really see it going places.
Whales, and dolphins, and small fish (oh my) alike will actively seek out good content and up-vote it once again. As for now though, they will up-vote themselves dry, sign off, and do it all again tomorrow... and why wouldn't they?
The system as it is now will surely fail, and I can already see the effects firsthand within the "Hot" and "Trading" tabs, because ever since this new self-voting code (why anyone thought this was a good idea we will never fucking know) was implemented, the top posters have been making significantly less.
I'm personally prepared for a long run.
The problem has been discussed constantly by other users, whales, coders.
Recently we discussed the problem with @dwinblood and I even proposed automatically to downvote all self-votes proportionally to owned SP, say if user has 100,000 his self-vote would be in 10 times less than for other users, but anyway we couldn't find any algorithm which couldn't be beaten by multiple accounting.
For now we can only stop to support those people - stop to upvote, stop to follow and unfollow existed self-voters. I mean massive self-voters - who vote every his post and comments. if those guys would be in isolation they would start to think what they are doing.
Thank you for your input
What do YOU think?
Simply that Steemit ought to strive to become a super improved version of reddit and entirely replace it for the most part. Examining all of the flaws, lacking functionality, and issues with reddit would offer great perspective for improving this platform.
I have a lot of qualms -
I mean you could write a book on all the inadequacies of the platform now in its beta stages, I'm just hoping people aren't at all happy or settling for how things are now so that improvement can happy more rapidly.
Fantastic post my friend @denmarkguy. I feel myself like some kind of hidden extravagant muse. So, thank you very much for this post mate. I guess I already have had the good chunk of the comments & feedback I was looking for. }:)
¡Crap! now gotta edit & change the couple for a triplet of shared links at the end of that muses parchment. :)
What a well-written article. As a plankton, I have been upvoting my own posts but not my comments. But I'm trying to think of Steemit and Steem Power as long term investments and I tend to think of every Steem I get as being worth $10 or more. So in that regards what I'm doing is probably pretty selfish and I think from now on I will no longer be upvoting my own posts as well. You are right. If we want this to turn into something bigger and better we have to think outside of our own selfish needs.
I see steemit as my retirement/investment account on the monetary side. I am definitely in this for the long haul.
At first, I thought it was just a social media site that you get paid for. I found that it was that, but so much more.
The community here is like nothing I have ever experienced. There are so many people that want to help. They help with generosity of time more than anything and when someones chips are on the table, out comes the wallets to save the day!
Of course, everybody comes on here for the money, I haven't seen any steemit ads that don't mention the money. Steemit, by it's very nature and advertizing, draws greedy people. Maybe we should advertize differently. Sure, saying 'blog to earn' is going to attract a lot of people, but you will get a lot of the wrong types of people.
As far as self voting goes, it has been here since the start and I have experimented with it, but my conclusion is probably a strange one.
I only now upvote the posts of my own that help other steemians, like my Weekly Wednesday Wonder posts or posts that I am donating the proceeds from to another steemian.
I don't get a lot of money from steemit and what I do get, I use a lot of to help others. After being here for almost a year and being close to some great steemians, I have learned that it is far more gratifying to be a good shepherd than it is to make a quick buck.
I do use some of the money I have recieved to make other investments with, like EOS (may it reach the stars), but on the whole, I have a meager income to live off of and until some of my investments pay off, it is enough.
My riches come from the nonjudgemental way that most steemians have accepted me. I have felt useless pretty much my entire life and when some of the greatest steemians took me under their wing in my first days, I started to realize the value within myself. I can never repay their kindness because they gave me something I cannot give back, my self respect.
So I go on here at steemit, not trying to imitate, but always trying to help. This is why I do the WWW now and I think I always will. I don't want to be famous, so, I will probably and hopefully never acheive fame. However, I would like more power to help people, so I will keep learning and keep writing and cooking and planting, and keep writing better blogs and getting better at interacting because this is what, to me, is a successful ride on the Steemship.
As for comment spammers and the like, be warned, I am about to start flagging you down. I have never downvoted a person on steemit, but, there are pirates on the ship and I intend to defend it!
Thanks for this post, it really moved me and made me think. It also bade me to draw my sword.
I think all the "self voting lists" and the entire issues is completely over-shadowing all kinds of other work we should be doing on the Steemit platform.
To quote @smooth:
"Someone who buys SP and then selfvotes is not 'draining' anything and at best can get back a portion of what was put in. It causes no harm at all."
Investors are the ones who underwrite all of the rewards on this platform. If you are not an investor, or are only a smaller investor, you need to focus your efforts on creating inspiring content that makes investors want to give their money to you. Whatever else they do or don't do with their money (including self-voting) is not your concern and does not harm you in any way. Nevertheless, you do have a downvote that you can use to disagree with what you think are underserved rewards. I suggest using it."
"The idea of creating 'lists of shame' and demonizing people is divisive, creates a hostile and toxic environment attractive to no one, and serves no useful purpose. There is no way to tell from these lists whether the content is deserving of the rewards or not. The only way to tell is by actually looking at the content, and if you think it is undeserving, downvote it."
"Your own statistics show that self-voting is awarding about 8.5% of the reward pool. I don't find that suggestive of any problem whatsoever. It is probably a very reasonable number given that the current parameters give people 10 full power votes to make per day. Thus one is being applied to the voters' own content and nine to others' (on average, of course). Seems fine."