Hello Steemit,
Lately I've seen this practice where certain accounts, usually of the whale variety, will flag (or downvote) a post, not because it is spam or plagiarism or some sort of abuse like that, but because "it makes too much".
I can understand this. The idea is that this one post is sucking away a large part of the reward pool, and leaves the remaining posts with less to go around, so flagging this post is a way to spread the wealth.
However I think this is a bad strategy, and would recommend a different path. Instead of flagging that one post that is being rewarded too much, why not find about 10 under rewarded posts and vote them up.
Let's take a look at both scenarios:
- Flagging one post:
if you flag one post, you'll end up with one very unhappy person. We will call this
-1 Happy.
Flagging gets you no curation, so your curation award is
0
- Upvoting ten posts:
If you upvote ten posts, you'll end up with 10 mildly happy people, each one being 0.2 happy
10 * 0.2 = 2 happy
Also you'll receive 10 curation awards, so your curation awards are
10 curations
Conclusion:
It's plain to see that 2 happy > -1 happy and
10 curations > 0 curation
So I believe that upvoting 10 deserving posts is the better outcome.
I really like your thinking @neoxian This makes sense because a downvote is detrimental to the emotional health here. So upvoting more content should definitely have the balancing effect in the rewards pool without the strife.
You make some great and valid points and I can understand both arguments. If steemit has bots checking content how come especially in photography and recipes we see posts with pictures clearly taken off the internet earning money.
I have seen so many and yes the earnings are not particularly high but detracting from the pool of money in the first place. There is a lot on steemit now which is not original thought or content and I do believe people are just posting anything to earn money which is not what this site was really about
There has always been some of this. People that make a lot doing this eventually usually get called out. This happens a lot of places. There likely will always be some of this. There is a lot of great content that ends up on steemit too. That of course is my opinion, and you are completely justified in having a different opinion.
EDIT: I REALLY started enjoying steemit when I posted for myself rather than worrying about how much my posts make.
I use stock pictures whenever I can to avoid leaking metadata. I don't post to photography, and wouldn't unless it was my own.
Most people don't care as long as you cite your sources and don't try to claim that were done by you. Yes, there have been people that do that.
Most of the time people ignore citing sources too unless people are trying to claim it is their work. Though when in doubt cite the source... it'll potentially save you some headaches from the people helping out steemit by cleaning that stuff if they happen to see one of your posts on one of their OFF days. We're all human.
I do try to cite sources every time, even in comments.
You should be never flagged for that then. :)
I agree fully with you @ianstrat. Many people get away with posting little and we constantly work hard, but sometimes our posts are not recognized. At this stage I post as an example for my students and because I love Steemit. Somewhere things will turn again in our favor. The money is just a bonus as that is not my focus.
your post is logical. However, the problem is that most humans do not operate by logic. Most operate from their emotions. And some people are completely not interested in creating happiness, and are much more tuned into the amount of discord they can create. This is found everywhere and why a utopian ideal will quickly come crashing down when unleashed into the wild.
Exactly ! Some don't care to make people happy. It's not in their nature. I recently made a post about utopia but nobody showed much interest. I might go for Dystopia instead ...let's see if some whales drop by faster. #justbeingsarcastic
Pretty much all human motivation at an emotional level can be boiled down to either fear of pain or greed. So in this case logic and emotion could match up by appealing to the greed side of the equation by giving them a strategy to both profit themselves and reduce the payout they believe to be too high.
As it doesn't directly affect them however it's a lot more complicated than that and may not fall into this at all.
Actually I was thinking the opposite, that the emotional appeals were not working and they needed something more logical to catch their attention.
But both bots and quirky AI are strictly logical. The botmasters could use this formula to improve their returns and the long-term good of the platform.
I feel happy everytime a Minnow Upvote my posts, Just imagine how happy can I fell if some whales Upvote my Posts. :-) @neoxian this Makes a lot sense to me.
I understand. Just be patient like most of us are
Good points... I have always preferred the solution of "building up" things, rather than "tearing down."
The whole issue opens (for me) the potential discussion of whether "flagging" should simply be an autonomous process SOLELY to indicate spam, clickbait, plagiarism, duplicate content and so on... clearly "abuse."
Separately from that, maybe an examination of whether bots should have the same degree of voting influence as a human curator actually reading the content and making a decision. Or maybe a bot vote is still "a vote" but a bot vote is only worth 10% as much "reward" as a human vote... certainly might encourage more human curation, and narrow the gap between "votes" and "views."
What makes these things inherently bad? Who gets to decide what constitutes "and so on"?
I think this is a bad idea. But even if I thought it was a good idea, im skeptical that there would be any method of implementation that was not easily circumventable. And even if such a thing was possible, im not sure that committing to what would likely be an endless programming arms race with people like xeroc and recursive is a judicious use of steemit resources.
https://steemit.com/til/@sigmajin/til-the-best-strategy-for-reducing-rewards-disparity-in-defense-of-the-flag-part-i
It is worth reading some of @sigmajin's other work too. While I know he still stands by what he wrote about in that post, I also know he has recognized some bad activities as well in more recent posts.
I recognized the bad activities when i wrote the post. Its the nature of the beast. I just don't think a certain level of inevitable misuse is a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Yep, I just try to sway some of those doing "bad activities" if I can. I know that is mostly a losing game, but it has influenced some people. Some of the same people still do the same things, but others stopped doing it completely. (and it may not have had anything to do with me)
Here is one example of what flagging can lead to outside of steemit.
https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/681743255410319373
So for the decision to flag on rewards, it potentially can add up to a lot of negative PR for steemit, which can actually make it in the long run more damaging than even your math has indicated.
EDIT: That was one of @skeptic's / @mrcuntycat's post. Not affiliated with me I just knew he was another person very vocal about this issue recently, and definitely didn't approach it as reasonably as @krnel.
EDIT 2: My point... was not to bash bernie, my point was to show that the impact of the negative reaction to flag can have much farther reaching implications, so the up votes make a lot of sense. Though if you've been powering down for quite some time and buying bitcoin which has gone up, crashing steem due to your activities could make it easier to buy back in with several accounts or a really big one at a much better price. So the only RATIONAL reason I see to continue this in light of your math is for price fixing reasons.
Hahah. Nice. I like the "happy" math. Makes sense to me. :)
Yes, it took me a while to work out the complex math behind this post, and I'm glad you appreciate it!
because this uses ~10x more voting power than 1 downvote. I'm not advocating the flag-craziness, just pointing out an opposing idea. :)
You could vote them at %10 power..or at full, why not? You are getting 10 curation awards after all.
Hehhe... I can feel more fun math coming on with a new variable. ;)
Nice. I saw other people recommending this a few days ago. They had no math to back it, but I've stated that as well once they presented it.
that -1 happy person may end up being very loud too.
And negative news seems to be what more people pay attention to than positive news these days.
Nice post... resteemed.
that is an interesting suggestion, don't think i've heard that perspective tossed into the mix yet.
I like your perspective with this.
That's my kind of math!
Hah, well that actually makes sense. It'll mean the flaggers will have to put more work in though, instead of just checking the trending page ;-)
I'm not sure happiness is something that can be mathematically quantified like that, but I agree that upvoting several other good posts is more productive to the community than downvoting one bad post. Showing what you value is more useful information than showing what you dislike, too.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with Fournier-Goldman Happiness units...
I am acquainted with the concept of utils in economics. It's similarly bullshit. But at least your happiness units are associated with a webcomic. That's something going for it.
Why stop with ten happy people? Why not 1000? ;-)
LETS do some basic math
(🐋+😀)10=🤣🤑🤣😍😍😘😅😋😎👩🚀
🐋+😀+🚩=😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😥😭😭😭😭😭😬😬😬😬😬😬😬👿👿👿👿👿👿👿👿👿💩💩💩💩💩🍆
Now that's my kind of KISS math. Hot Headed Negative Reactions destroy the Good Works Faster than a community can rebuild. Greed knows no bounds. Gaming the system with bots that vote for personal gain/wealth is wrong. Whales who think they are Steemit mini gods? What The FritoLay is going on? Why would this minnow ever want to invite anyone to this madhouse?
Upvoting is certainly a better strategy in terms of curation rewards. It is absolutely not a better strategy in terms of correcting overly top-heavy of rewards that result from concentrated whale/bot/trail voting. The problem with your first analysis is assuming the equivalent alternative is upvoting 10 posts. It isn't. The alternative would be upvoting hundreds of posts, which is impossible due to limited vote power in addition to being impractical. The math behind this is in a post by @sigmajin, though from what I've seen of your posts I'm sure you are capable of working it out yourself.
Ok, I just read sigmajin's post and..I get it. From a pure mathematical perspective, what you do makes perfect sense.
What you've got is a PR problem. I'll grant you are very polite. When you say "Hi there, I liked your post but I'm going to have to downvote due to <insert complex math that 90% won't understand>", it just..looks bad. It makes you look bad, it makes Steemit look bad. People will go to minds.com and complain about how the whales are bullies and censorship here.
I don't know. Maybe this goes back to the whole (N * log N) thing. I guess that would help with this.
Well said. I agree about changing the reward curve.
Another example of the hidden cost of the down vote. Another person that has been really up beat and promoting steemit. Also going crazy with all the little graphics.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@karenmckersie/im-taking-a-break-from-steemit-downvoted-by-smooth-for-no-reason-warning-to-new-members
I don't think @smooth's intention was to scare off nice members that people like.
This is the hidden cost to a down vote that is subjective. It hurts the platform. Protecting the reward pool in this matter ends up being short sighted if we stick our heads in the noose in terms of long term.
Resteemed!.
To the actual value of a social network, it must be subtracted the number of users that spam, flag and mute.
Attracting and retaining users augments the value of the network.