Blurt is virtually unusable most of the time. Transactions are paid for with blurt and they did not mirror our follow lists and so one must start from scratch and for very little payback. I tried to work on Blurt; it was posting into nothingness. My time was way better spent on HIVE.
I really do think we should do away with down-votes or at least penalize/remove those who down-vote frivolously. There are accounts that only downvote. Plus all down-votes should be equally weighted, so that the big fish cannot kill the little fish. Perhaps too we could stipulate that an account needs to be in good standing regardless of its value, liked that they must leave a comment and as such can be down-voted and perhaps these comment downvotes could be anonymous to avoid retribution. There should be multiple downvotes ... say a percentage of the upvote ... before the monetary value of the post is affected.
Right now, just about the only accounts that use the downvote function are bot accounts.
Disagreement of post value is too subjective and this in particular should be removed. With a 50/50 curation, much of inequity wrt to over valued posts has been removed and incentives for finding an undervalued post before anyone else increased.
This and the removal of upvote bots really fixed most of the problems. I do feel HIVE is a place that rewards time spent with and supporting the community. Sometimes this is what the post value is really showing and we do not want to discourage the community.
That is one of the reasons I like the auto comment if someone is going to down vote a post. That way the down vote only accounts can be down voted for malicious down voting. No down vote should not be able to be countered.
Yep ... that was a great suggestion. A lot of downvote accounts don't post and so there is no way to bring down their reputation.