I can give you the reasons why I concluded that it was the reason (without being 100% sure):
- When it got downvoted there were zero comments.
- I know the history of the downvoter complaining about authors not interacting on the platform (well: what about giving them a chance to interact by commenting himself?).
- I was seeking, but really couldn't find any other explanation (no plagiarism, no farming, no spam, no excessive reward ...). Writing that, I don't like the habit of downvoting without giving any explanation, which is frustrating for the victim: it can neither learn nor revise their 'mistake' as there is no given reason. It's then just perceived as (and actually is) a hostile action.
There's a lot of people using AI to fake engagement these days, when caught they pretend they were on different devices or that a friend was also commenting on their account at the same time, etc. I reckon it may be that. It's literally her second last comment regarding the issue.
if you're not 100% sure don't make it sound like that's definitely the reason when u bring something up is all I'm saying. I don't know if that's the reason either.
Why don't we know the reason for sure? And why also all the other readers who see such downvotes without commenting on them (but drawing their conclusions!) don't know the reason? Because people who pretend to protect Hive (while having their vote circles themselves!) downvote other users without any explanation, without offering any help! I can't help but see 'punishing' as the main motivation then! In my opinion this causes much more damage than small accounts like the concerned one could ever cause! It's perceived as bullying!
You are absolutely right that is better to write of a 'strong guess' instead of a 'fact', if one is not 100 % sure of the reason for a downvote, but I had no bad intention as for me the reason seemed to be obvious.
Assumed it had something to do with the use of AI, why it is not stated ("I suspect you were using AI for creating this post, please abstain from that in future!)? Also for unaffected people who notice the downvote and wonder why?
I don't know why you'd accuse someone of doing malicious downvotes to hurt the platform.
Explanations aren't always great, they lead to endless debates and time wasting as has been proven time and time again and people always have endless excuses or become hostile, etc.
I'm all for it, but pointing to one large stakeholder here and coming to your own conclusions and sharing them as facts while painting them to be malicious goes too far imo.
Because I am convinced they do? It might not be intentionally 'malicious' but in my personal, discussable opinion the effect is just exactly that.
There are quite some eyeballs reading quietly. They see the downvotes and feel threatened. So it is my honest advice to people who are heavier invested in Hive than I myself should think thoroughly about the effect of their actions (and make the effort to explain them).
I checked the last comments of @itsmemic now, so I saw that you made the effort to ask her what she is doing. I think that is the way to go, discussions to follow or not! It makes a much better impression on quiet readers and let them understand in case downvotes might follow in future.
You are convinced after doing close to no research by the looks of it, since you had missed my comments on her 2nd and 3rd last comment. How do you know @galenkp maybe hasn't left comments before? She's been getting downvoted for a long time now. Even if he hasn't, there's a clear reason as to why he may have left the downvotes now yet you continue to be convinced he's being malicious?
Again, not always explaining doesn't automatically mean you're being malicious. It also doesn't help when people like you going around painting others in a bad light for no reason when clearly you hadn't even properly looked things through. That's why I initially commented here cause I was aware of what it is that user may be doing, something most people should be aware is frowned upon.
You brought in the term 'malicious'. I mean not 'malicious' (I checked the exact meaning now) but 'harmful'. There is quite some difference between these terms. 'Malicious' means to have a bad intention. 'Harmful' can cause damage without having a bad intention.
That is not true, as these comments came after I had written my comment. That means at the time of my comment I had no chance to find them anyway.
Concerning the downvotes on her main posts I still didn't find any explanation (maybe I have missed one?). But true, I only went a few months back as my time is limited.
Sorry, but I have to write again:
I know you hate it and I understand you, but I just try to make you bigger investors face the fact that downvoting (as necessary it in general is) plays a role in the downtrend of HIVE and is a very sensitive topic.
When people outside HIVE talk about HIVE, these downvotes are a topic if you want to accept it or not. And therefore, in my opinion, it's the least to explain one's downvotes, and be it for the silent, only observing readers. Also in my opinion, you old Hiveians are completely underestimating the psychological effect of downvotes on people who are not accustomed to talk about "only a redistribution of the rewards pool" every day.
I know for example that even the in my eyes rather harmless downvotes of smooth drive users away because they don't understand the reasons. Users like vanje reduced their activities after only one single of these downvotes (even if their posts earned well anyway) because they felt attacked! Also the user andyjaypowell complained bitterly in a private message about smooth's downvotes (at least recently he started to post more frequently again). Of course these downvotes are not 'malicious' but people don't understand why they are receiving them. Now imagine what people outside of Hive think, who understand the downvote mechanism even worse?
Do you think I write this to attack HIVE? How would I benefit of it? I write it because honestly I feel that most whales just don't understand which psychological effects downvotes can have. They are so technology minded (which you can also see in the fact that still automated voting is more beneficial than manual voting due to the fast diminishing curation reward with the time)!
By the way, I don't think the smooth downvotes are effective because he focuses on single posts with very high rewards instead to take the frequency of posting (and earning smaller amounts daily) into account. But that is another topic.
It's okay to discuss these things, I just don't think it's okay to single people out based on their use of downvotes when they could have legitimate reasons to be doing them which you seemed to ignore/not figure out.
I don't disagree with how downvotes make people react, even on reddit it's a problem even though votes are anonymous, but that doesn't mean people stop using it.