not having a FREE downvote was never ever the reservation for downvoting for 99.99% of us. They fixed a problem that most people never had. Sure the rich folk were worried.
Potential? :-)
There are some whales I would love to flag. Maybe I will start doing that soon ... and maybe, at the same time, that will be the end of my STEEM 'career'. :)
At least then I can keep earning by playing Steem Monsters, haha.
Yeah, we all know that any action you take, downvote, upvote, comment, whatever a whale decides to take offense at... could wreck you if you're a plankton. Downvoting does me, as a plankton, zero good.
Since you brought this up, let me share my view: Overall, we lose good actors based on demotivation... which is caused by not gaining any traction on posts that they spend a lot of effort on.
I believe that as long as it's hard to find good quality (under-rewarded) posts, the whole system will just keep making the rich richer.
Why? The majority of the users are very aware that if they upvote an invisible content creator, their "ROI" will not be that high. You see this in effect when a user is added to a whale's autovote, a lot of extra auto-votes are coming in soon in the following posts. Everyone wants to profit from the whale's big vote as a curator.
The solution? Make it easier for the tiny players to be discovered. It should be possible that even if you only have 50 followers, you get 200+ upvotes (and not just because @curie found you). If tiny players can structurally gain good rewards when they have something awesome to share, curation will indeed turn into "finding good quality first". Right now curation is mostly just "predict who will earn well".
I agree with this and it’s something that has always frustrated me, and why I’ve worked with Curie and then eventually made my own curation group.. as we lose such great creators as they go unnoticed. To me upvotes are great, but engagement is a big part too.
Curation currently for most has nothing to do with quality and just voting what gets you a return.. I find that sad.
I am curious about your opinion on how these frustrations of authors who spend so much time on content to then be ignored are also caused by seeing such minimal quality content rewarded so well?
I guess I have this hope that if the rewards were actually balance with using downvotes to not only fight abuse but counter the over rewarded, this would help the overall thoughts on rewards? My hope would be these creators would no longer see a poorly taken selfie with a sentence at $20+ and therefore the frustration they feel would be decreased a bit?
Just curious your thoughts on it.
I also agree with a group handling it with clear guidelines so it’s more consistent and not just some sort of grudge etc.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Steempeak team actually gets it. This whole thing is a complete misdiagnosis. It probably won't do a ton of harm, but if people are thinking all the sudden "regular users" are just going to start downvoting people like crazy, you just don't get it.
Giving a 'free' pass to just use a feature doesn't turn it better or an improvement to any platform. If there is a need to give anything would be more sp to new users that come to the platform and want to engage with all the energy they have but sometimes they can't because their bar is drain and can't contribute as much.
I really think @r00sj3 is right downvoting will only increase even more personal grudges and will not promote a better experience or a more curated content. That should be always done by elected people that can do that work properly with a strong sense of judgment, tolerance and above all respect for every part involved in it.
The 15 SP gift was costly, and the abuse taking place due to it had to be stopped. I have seen 10s of initiatives to fuel new accounts and don't think that is the reason they didn't stay - @paulag might have something on retention before and after the change - it has always been very poor.
@r00sj3 could well be right, no-one knows for sure. What is pretty clear though is that we have many openly taking their rent home with poor content knowing that in time, others will just follow their lead.
I do like what palnet and steemleo are doing with a centralised account, and as a reasonably good Steem actor, I've long wanted Steemit Inc to take a more active role in policing the network. Some will disagree, and some will disagree that steemcleaners (fueled by 2m SP via Ned) are always right with their downvotes.
We need a change, I'm hopeful this is a positive one.
not having a FREE downvote was never ever the reservation for downvoting for 99.99% of us. They fixed a problem that most people never had. Sure the rich folk were worried.
What was the reservation? Potential retaliation?
We lost our good actors to poor economics. I'm hopeful of an improvement but that's all it is at present.
Potential? :-)
There are some whales I would love to flag. Maybe I will start doing that soon ... and maybe, at the same time, that will be the end of my STEEM 'career'. :)
At least then I can keep earning by playing Steem Monsters, haha.
Yeah, we all know that any action you take, downvote, upvote, comment, whatever a whale decides to take offense at... could wreck you if you're a plankton. Downvoting does me, as a plankton, zero good.
Since you brought this up, let me share my view: Overall, we lose good actors based on demotivation... which is caused by not gaining any traction on posts that they spend a lot of effort on.
I believe that as long as it's hard to find good quality (under-rewarded) posts, the whole system will just keep making the rich richer.
Why? The majority of the users are very aware that if they upvote an invisible content creator, their "ROI" will not be that high. You see this in effect when a user is added to a whale's autovote, a lot of extra auto-votes are coming in soon in the following posts. Everyone wants to profit from the whale's big vote as a curator.
The solution? Make it easier for the tiny players to be discovered. It should be possible that even if you only have 50 followers, you get 200+ upvotes (and not just because @curie found you). If tiny players can structurally gain good rewards when they have something awesome to share, curation will indeed turn into "finding good quality first". Right now curation is mostly just "predict who will earn well".
I agree with this and it’s something that has always frustrated me, and why I’ve worked with Curie and then eventually made my own curation group.. as we lose such great creators as they go unnoticed. To me upvotes are great, but engagement is a big part too.
Curation currently for most has nothing to do with quality and just voting what gets you a return.. I find that sad.
I am curious about your opinion on how these frustrations of authors who spend so much time on content to then be ignored are also caused by seeing such minimal quality content rewarded so well?
I guess I have this hope that if the rewards were actually balance with using downvotes to not only fight abuse but counter the over rewarded, this would help the overall thoughts on rewards? My hope would be these creators would no longer see a poorly taken selfie with a sentence at $20+ and therefore the frustration they feel would be decreased a bit?
Just curious your thoughts on it.
I also agree with a group handling it with clear guidelines so it’s more consistent and not just some sort of grudge etc.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Steempeak team actually gets it. This whole thing is a complete misdiagnosis. It probably won't do a ton of harm, but if people are thinking all the sudden "regular users" are just going to start downvoting people like crazy, you just don't get it.
I wrote my post in a new thread.
Giving a 'free' pass to just use a feature doesn't turn it better or an improvement to any platform. If there is a need to give anything would be more sp to new users that come to the platform and want to engage with all the energy they have but sometimes they can't because their bar is drain and can't contribute as much.
I really think @r00sj3 is right downvoting will only increase even more personal grudges and will not promote a better experience or a more curated content. That should be always done by elected people that can do that work properly with a strong sense of judgment, tolerance and above all respect for every part involved in it.
The 15 SP gift was costly, and the abuse taking place due to it had to be stopped. I have seen 10s of initiatives to fuel new accounts and don't think that is the reason they didn't stay - @paulag might have something on retention before and after the change - it has always been very poor.
@r00sj3 could well be right, no-one knows for sure. What is pretty clear though is that we have many openly taking their rent home with poor content knowing that in time, others will just follow their lead.
I do like what palnet and steemleo are doing with a centralised account, and as a reasonably good Steem actor, I've long wanted Steemit Inc to take a more active role in policing the network. Some will disagree, and some will disagree that steemcleaners (fueled by 2m SP via Ned) are always right with their downvotes.
We need a change, I'm hopeful this is a positive one.