If you pair an additional action with the auto-votes, people will code bots to do that action as well, and it would become worse, not better.
As long as there is value tied to curation, there will be gamesmanship, but there is no incentive-aligned way to reward authors for creating content without simultaneously awarding curators for discovering content.
We can mix up the reward algorithms all we want (and have many times over the history of hive/steem) but there are no changes that can be made that remove it from the realm of human behavior, greed, and game theory.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There is a big difference between a vote, a comment, and curating something. I can see rewarding for auto-curation. Let them use bots to collect and share content to others, that is what content creators want and need.
However voting on something is NOT curation.
Hive uses content surfacing algorithm to determine which content to display in Trending and Hot. While many people consider the content on the front page to be irrelevant, the same algorithm is used within community pages, with exception that community moderators can pin content they consider more relevant.
The surfacing algorithm is based on time-weighted value of votes received. Upvotes are what determines which page content appears in Trending and Hot pages within communities. Tell me again how an upvote isn't curation?
It's your opinion that upvoting is not 'good' curation, and I'm not in disagreement there. People upvote for lots of different reasons, on lots of different quality levels of content. But when the upvote is at the heart of one of the most important algorithms that is used for content discovery, an upvote is absolutely curation.
When an upvote is done automatically with no consideration to content then it is not curation. Agree to disagree.