Nothing is flawed about number of votes being meaningless. If you have been on other sites with rampant purchased followers and sock puppet bot voters you should understand this. IMO the biggest flaw is that the count of votes is displayed at all. Voting power = SP, not vote count.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@smooth In a sense, you're correct, only invested users should have meaningful weight on content curation; however, keep in mind that the stake now may not accurately reflect user investment. In the long run, the rewards system is intended to align SP distribution with reputation (people who provide real value in the system outweigh trolls), but that self-balancing effect might be too slow. Eventually the number and quality of whales will be quite large, and they'll have sufficient bandwidth to upvote all kinds of good content and downvote the crap, but right now we're still working on attaining that level of decentralization in the content curation.
It appears that the decentralized social media competition is now on, and if Steem is going to survive, it needs to keep up. Part of that might be figuring out how to grow valuable users' relative SP faster. One obvious way to do this is to decrease the degree of dilution mitigation SP holders enjoy, which will require SP holders to create comparatively more value to maintain their slice of the pie, and instead allow the high-value minnows to grow their relative stake faster. I'm not saying this is the solution -- I haven't put enough thought into it -- it's just an idea off the top of my head.
@stellabelle is pointing out real problems. Let's not let our excitement about Steem lull us into complacency; we need to fully understand these problems, and act to resolve them at their roots.
Designing a content publication platform with an economically-driven curation model is still an open problem. Will the current algorithms move the SP distribution in a better direction? I don't know what an ideal distribution would look like, but certainly some distributions are better than others, and we would do well to figure out what makes for a better or worse distribution, and ensure we're moving in the right direction. Even if the current algorithms are moving in the right direction, are they moving fast enough? If someone else can create a competing platform that moves in the right direction faster, they should rightly eclipse Steem, as that would be a superior solution.
I like Steem, though, so let's try and beat 'em to it.
@modprobe, my comment was narrower than that. I'm not suggesting that there can't be improvements, only that raw vote count is meaningless and has been consistently and rampantly abused on every other such platform, and those are platforms that don't even award money. With direct monetary incentives the abuse would be even greater.
So I agree with the broader issues you mention being considered and explored, I just disagree with statements made on the basis of "how many votes".
1000 minnows probably couldn't move that post.... but then again 1000 views on youtube doesn't pay the creator either.
+1
As a redditor for 5+ years, most votes are bots and the number is meaningless. This is the same on Steemit and I completely agree with this. Engagement is another story though -- there could be some economics built into posts that drive engagement (right now there's not).
This is where my ideas about groups and integrated chat systems helps. Especially the latter, because it is a place in which like minds can interact in real time and spin off ideas, or even just to organise external activities that base their economics and accounting, and put their marketing, on the Steem blockchain.
This post is past the initial reward period, and I didn't actually specifically write it just for rewards, I wrote it because I want to help people understand Steem:
https://steemit.com/ascensionteam/@l0k1/steem-is-not-a-blogging-platform-steem-is-an-ad-hoc-public-and-transparent-corporation-let-me-explain
If these principles are refined, expanded, and integrated, I think the solution of engagement is solved. A lot of what drives engagement cannot be directly integrated into Witness nodes, or easily quantified, and the mechanisms of users using Steem as their Department banking system and investment pool gets around this issue, so you can market, bank and account your little enterprise's activities, and by the simplicity of also doing so, the integration of Steem into the enterprise's accounting and fund management system, will naturally anchor more vested and held funds in the platform, where it continues to maintain the ability to scale up and keep rewarding good ideas and good content.
The problem is attention scarcity and limited means to delegate the human attention resources (human computation) in an orderly fashion. It is in this area that Synereo will excel with their design while Steem can adopt delegated human computation but it's not currently designed for it.
So you can simply let whales delegate their voting power and the problem is solved. I outline it here: https://steemit.com/steemit/@dana-edwards/time-to-decentralized-curation
The reward system itself is fine, but there needs to be more human attention, from a greater variety of minds, to distribute the Steem Power via curation. Randomization can help provide for that variety of minds.
Not even close. ;)
Maybe the function rewarding sp is too steep. I believe the function is based on squaring, why not based on a smaller exponential. Bots are not a problem unless not armies are making worthlessness ostensibly of over. Dollar or two. I honestly don't think this happens . If it does just penalize by the percent of votes that go to the same author like the thirty minute rule. If 100% of votes are one author then voting power drops to 1%, if 50% then 50% and if 1%?or less go to same author you get 100percent voting power.
The squaring function of SP is largely a misconception. SP is linear-weighted between accounts. 5 accounts with 1 SP each voting on a post is exactly equal to one account with 5 SP voting on a post. The squaring comes into play when comparing posts against each other. A post with only a small amount of SP voting for it gets essentially no reward at all, and the reward rapidly climbs as the amount of SP voting for it (whether from one person or multiple people) increases. This is useful because otherwise you would have thousands of spam posts getting paid each just getting a few votes from each of those thousands of bulk accounts that @alexgr just posted about (vote limits per time does not work there).
So content is not judged by votes but by the SP (steem power) holders.
Correct and the answer is to decentralize curation itself. The owner of the Steem Power only wants the profits, they don't have to do the human computation if they are willing to accept half the profit.
Content is judged by votes, but 100 minnow votes will not be worth the same as one whale vote.
And you can build SP by writing good material. Which also qualifies you as a quality voter. I think the curation rewards system adds nothing but we will see whether I am right and this becomes commonly agreed.
We already have content arranged in order of number of votes. We only need to look at the Hot page. This page often shows posts with spam votes so of course the trending page ends up being better. But from what I can see at the moment it doesn't look like the posts that are getting the most votes are not getting enough payout.
I'm pretty sure the Hot page was reworked and no longer considers number of votes at all, only rshares (essentially SP) and recency. I could be wrong, but that was my understanding from what one of the devs told me.
It's not votes count only that needs to be hidden its everything, dollar amount and author included,