What you are saying makes sense. I think you are in the minority as far as users who want it to work that way though :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
What you are saying makes sense. I think you are in the minority as far as users who want it to work that way though :)
No argument here, friend. Merely conversation. It would appear that I missed out on the discussion and was unable to put forth my thoughts at the right time.
I'm no coder, but it would seem to me that if the fundamentals are in place, then an iteration as small as this should only require minor adjustment. As I said though, I am no coder so I could be wrong about that.
I just wanted to share my thoughts, and I like that this is the sort of community where that is welcomed. Have a great night.
Same to you :)
Well, I don't speak for everyone, and neither should you.
If both ideas produce the same benefit but, one has a downside that the other doesn't, then I see no reason why people should prefer the way that would cause some people to lose downvotes.
It may seem to be a very small difference, but to users who are trying to get started and end up quitting because they didn't get the votes they could have and lost motivation, it's not a small thing to them.
It's often spoken of how we should be redistributing STEEM to the community to minimize the oligarchical status of STeemit, and I feel it is paying attention to the minutiae such as this that can serve as a catalyst to doing so.
Where do those votes, and that payout go if not to those undiscovered posts from low level users? They will once again wind up at the top of the pyramid, with the users who consistently hit the trending page.
As I said before, I think it's a wonderful idea to separate the two, but if there is a chance that there could be a more efficient way to do it then I don't see why it's a problem to have a discussion about it before it implemented.
I wasn't trying to get into an argument. I see value in what you are proposing. There has been a lot of discussion about how to handle it though and I was basing my comment on what I have read in all the discussion threads.
The other popular idea that seems close to what you are suggesting was to give users a filter setting to either show both "user created" and "resteemed" - or just "user created" (based on their setting). This would have been harder to implement though, and most users would likely have it set to show "user created" only - which has the same problem as far as user's content not being seen.
Having three tabs (one with both, plus one of each - separated) would also not fly either.
I am in favor of discussing things like this, and maybe more changes could be made later. It has been implemented though - @bitcoiner has already done all the development and submitted the pull request. Pointing out how it should be done differently at this point is basically asking for the work to be redone.