I don't think, that "Autocurator" is a bad thing. If something can be done properly in an automated why... then this should be automated.
BTW, this is your second post which I like. Subscribed :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't think, that "Autocurator" is a bad thing. If something can be done properly in an automated why... then this should be automated.
BTW, this is your second post which I like. Subscribed :)
On the current moment you're right that "Autocurator" isn't bad. But is it good? -- the question is open for community to resolve. The community is growing and this matter is not solved whether it is good or bad.
I plan to dig deeper into this in my next post.
the problem with autocurator is... that it can mislead people. If there will be 100 autocurator, which will vote up "good author", which this time posted bullshit, that will end up with situation, where specific author will be favored for old contributions.
Maybe there should be a mechanism which punishes in long term those kind of mistakes... where lets say, 50% voters says that article is bad but you voted up anyway.
But.... what if "up vote" would be replaced by:
This cannot be so easily automated... and that gives the author so much more feedback.
Maybe all options should be available: upvote, summary, detail grade - and summary will be worth more.
I agree. Spamers can also use payvote scheme with autocurator to post their spam messages.
We have to think a way to do not let such things possible.
Different upvote? Maybe
in fact, if every role in steemit could be automated, which i think would be very hard, it would be a good thing
yeah and will this automated system need new original content? I guess no