It is a problem because it constitutes voting abuse since the major portion of the rewards come from an account that does not meet the "proof of brain" concept as outlined in the Steem documentation. In that same documentation, downvoting (negative voting) is described as a means to mitigate such abuse. It is a problem because it gives people ample cause to rightly downvote the article based on disagreement with rewards. @haejin doesn't like to get downvoted, so he employs fear tactics to discourage it. I would like to talk about resolutions so that he won't have to worry about being flagged so much.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I know it was a long post and I may well have added important parts of it in an edit you missed but I'm not sure what question you think you're answering.
I didn't just ask why it was a problem, I was asked why is the solution not being demanded at the code level. It is impossible for it to be truly solved unless you change the smart contract rules that govern Steemit. Unfortunately as far as I understand it you'd not be able to change enough to actually completely close the loophole even if you did, not without changing something fundamental.
Flagging will absolutely not work and can't possibly work. All you're doing is trying to push the water back in a leaking bucket. Well it's a losing battle that's why people are finding they're not getting anywhere. I really have no idea why anyone thought flagging would be any effective way to deal it.
The entire system of flagging is like the most basic possible placeholder one could have added, just so there's SOMETHING. It's one catch-all button. You can see people refer to flagging interchangeably with "down voting" which is quite telling knowing how people normally use up/down voting or like/disliking on places like Youtube and Reddit. Here since flagging is the only option people can use so they will use it to signify their disagreement as well as being the same button to press if someone uploaded child porn or death threats or to complain it was their content that was stolen. You only get one button and it all goes in the same flagging pot.
The entire reason this is a problem at all is that voting power is linked directly with post rewards, be that upvoting (give rewards) or flagging (take away rewards). It has nothing whatsoever do with the content it has nothing whatsoever to do with how many people upvote the content. Now of course in theory we HOPE that good/popular content will eventually coincidentally also get voted on by those with significantly powerful up votes. But the fact that hundreds of people can be overruled by or made totally insignificant against a single powerful upvote, means that the very foundation of which Steemit functions works in a way that creating content people enjoy, find valuable and quality is completely disconnected from the reward pool.
Why do people make so many lame posts? Why do people make so many posts which you can see they put the bare minimum amount of effort into it that they think they can get away with? Because you're insentivised to do that! Because you know you can buy an upvote and the role you post plays in the game is just a means to an end. The appropriate attitude to foster is one where you need a certain amount of consensus that has nothing to do with voting power so that if you put no effort in you can't get rewarded like that. The attitude should be one where you are always thinking about what value your post could bring to other people, because you need them to be rewarded. Currently we have a system where the power of the vote is what matters, where that vote doesn't need to come from a person that values your content and which you can even buy.
The upvote value does not indicate quality anymore than someone with a powerful flag on a post means there's anything wrong with the content whatsoever. All flagging is doing is highlighting the other side of this serious flaw within the the system.
The rewards need to be connected to something which have some direct relationship with the value people find it's contents. So long as you can literally make a post valuable by sticking money to it then you'll never get what you really want, which is undoubtedly what the original intention of Steemit was - That the monetary rewards a post generates actually represents the value people find it to have and so if you failed to grab anyones attention you'd therefore not get rewarded for it
Edited to add: Holy shit, dude. Do you realize you edited these two posts 61 times? How's anybody supposed to have a conversation if you keep going back and changing what you said?
LOL, ya think?
I agree with most of what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is that changes to the blockchain will take a long time to incorporate. I believe we (Haegin supporters and Haejin detractors) have the means to settle this right now, at our levels. We have made significant progress these last couple of days, and I feel that we can continue to build on that progress, if only we can stop ourselves from getting side-tracked.
I'm not totally convinced that a change to the smart contract is absolutely necessary. Changes to the trending algorithms can be made at the site level. There are a number of things which could be done at that level such as
All in all, I think have a lot more options than most of us realize.
They don't give a damn, thereby this network, clumsy as such, is turning more and more into a ghost town. Why would I even contradict anyone when that will reduce my influence to zero, while I can have an interesting conversation anywhere, at minds.com or Google and even Facebook ? And earning money is only possible with content for desperate people (like crypto junkies), or with the help of whales - thereby the one forte steemit is supposed to have turns out to be a real time-waster.
Im fairly neutral in this whole thing.
Could you point out how the account does not meet the Proof of Brain criteria - Im honestly curious, if not no prob, I can look at it closer later when I get some time, thanks!
You are correct... steemit the way it is isn't worth investing time into, so creators mostly leave after a few weeks, I know a few others and I am a leisurely one myself.
There are newer networks where pundits haven't yet established themselves... a few creators stay here for whatever reason and people like haejin are successful because they sell content that others think they really need, or that will earn them money.
You know the principle "only sell to desperate customers" ?
So he has a great advantage there over others here because he's pretty prolific, obviously.
So haejin developed into the no1 goto address if you are looking for a positive market outlook, and that is what people always want...
As to the quality of his content, you can get the same or better on youtube, in any case you should be proficient at TA yourself after watching haejin AND others for a few months... but some will never be, and they need haejin, and haejin is obviously more successful on steemit than off steemit, so he will be a permanent phenomenon here.
In conclusion, steemit will either change for the better or stay the same, I see it as a tool to use - I tested it out and will create some content here, insofar as steemit is technically better at a few things than other networks, and worse at others, to share on those networks rather than here.
Sharing on steemit with neither desperate-customer content nor whale help seems to be a waste of time, and as a social network steemit is rather a ghost town anyway.