There are two different categories for reasons to flag:
- something wrong was done by the author
- the author got too much rewards
Now let us leave aside the debate on whether one should flagging based on too many rewards. To flag a post that has done too well according to some, will effect an author's reputation score iff the one who flags has a higher reputation score. If we had a low rep account that could down vote for us, then we could use that account to remove rewards without affecting the reputation of the author.
What do you think?
(Rewards declined)
I don't think people pay attention to rep scores anymore.
It came to be a representation of how much a user has milked out of the system.
It does not matter what one thinks of the reputation score, the simple fact is a higher reputation score is what has the most effect on lowering a users reputation score, thus always ensuring those with higher reputation scores no matter how received will always be able to destroy an account if they see fit.
I am seriously hoping that blocktrades can come up with a different system, for now though Reputation whether you want to ignore it or not is what controls how much damage is done to an account.
A lower reputation score will never be able to effect the higher reputation score.
I think downvotes for too much rewards is stupid. It’s done mostly by envious jealous and vindictive pricks .
I agree. I was leaving it aside for this discussion.
Not in support of downvote because a post seems over rewarded. The matter is subjective one as others like may not exactly be what you like. If it's a case of plagiarism then it's right to use that button
The flag of Argentina brought me here. Downvotes on posts that have a lot of reward seem sad to me, especially when they are authors who publish daily and not every day are well rewarded for their good posts. I suppose it is something that is done to maintain balance and that nobody receives much more than others, right?
That's right. Here at Proof of Brain, most of us don't like down-votes.
Many people quit Hive for being downvoted for no reason. They moved back to Steemit, https://Blurtter.com and https://Noise.Cash where there are no downvotes but other methods to get rid of spammers, scammers and plagiarists. Hive is living in the dark ages with their Discord Dictatorship Downvote system.
Sometimes things like this need to be discussed too, as I have seen from several platforms. That there are some people who get a lot of reward even though they only write a few words. Yes! Maybe the curator gives a reward for posts like that, maybe because they are his friends, or his favorite author. Yeah, it's not wrong for curators to reward posts like that because they are free to use voting power as they wish. But what makes it ridiculous is that when a reader wants to try reading a post on a platform, and he sees a post that only writes a few words gets a lot of rewards and those who write thousands of words get only a few reward. Then the reader will think like this: "maybe this platform was build to do farming, not to quality content."
And yeah a few hours ago I also saw your post which only wrote a few words but got a lot of rewards. But that doesn't matter to me, because I think it's also part of the payout for you because you've worked so hard to develop the POB platform.
Number of words and quality of post are not the same thing.
There are long posts with no point. Maybe those rewards should be corrected as well?
Yeah! If a short post or long post gets a lot of rewards because of quality, it won't be a problem. The problem is when we see short posts that are not quality but get a lot of rewards. But we also don't equate everyone on a platform, because there will definitely be some important people on a platform who make short posts that get a lot of rewards and that won't be a problem because they have worked hard to help develop that platform.
If long posts are not quality, surely the curators will not give rewards. And if long post not quality getting rewarded, maybe the curator appreciates his effort because have spending a lot of time writing the post...lol... But if a short post has only a few words without the quality of getting rewarded, it will look ridiculous because we don't know what the purpose of the post is.
AI already did my DV there, with a very long explanation of my point.
Yeah, I saw your comment there, and it makes sense. I totally agree with what you said there. BTW, I'm not defending anyone, but what you said there is not against the author but for the good of the POB platform. And I don't blame @leprechaun because writing short posts get a lot of rewards. I'm sure he also doesn't know that there is a curator who gives automatic up votes every time he makes a post. That he needs to do when he wants to make another short post is set it to "Rewards declined". And I'm sure he doesn't have much time to make long posts either.
BTW maybe POB needs an idea which to make a post must have a minimum of 500 words to be able to post on the POB platform…lol
I'm not in support of this, if a post goes up the trend line to gain so much reward be that's cool.
When an author have some something wrong, I will suggest a method of warning should be created after warning the author and her/repeats same thing, then Flag.
I see your point. Yes, sometimes this may be a problem.
But in my case I am not concerned at all. And here is why:
My POB curation downvotes comes from this modest 52.337 reputation account. With only 128HP.
So only those with <52 rep may suffer , and suffer in an EXTREMELY low amounts.
Reputation decreases depending on the power ( vests) downvoter has. My hive power
128 HP even at a full swing brings ( or takes away ) only $0.00172 .
O doubt that even the most vulnerable REP levels of 25-40 would go down more than -0.01 (30>29.99) from my DV.
I see people downvoting people with too much rewards on Hive when the poor sucker earns 1 or 2 hive. How pathetic are you to say that 18 pennies is too much ? Power has gone to these people’s head. Too many dictators, dictating value of someone’s work. Maybe it’s just one dictator… Brutal.
I have never downvoted someone. Not even when I see plagiarism, I prefer to report to the cleaners and have them take care of it. It may sound like I wash my hands, but it just seems like the best channel of action. Voting negatively for a post just because it has a lot of rewards is illogical. You have to let freedom run. That's what the blockchain is all about!
I either ignore or mute them.
Ignoring is a good technique too.
I have made the mistake once of downvoting someone who was a good friend of a Evil whale and had all my posts downvoted to zero. All my posts were a ton of work. They were all taken to zero. …. So I will never ever downvote anyone ever again.
Horrible anecdote. It's sad because it was done in retaliation. I believe that freedom of decision must be something very important in the blockchain. I am totally against the negative votes, but even more against the attack as a method of revenge. They seem like childish things to me ... What a shame that people with money power can take those actions and worse still, have those thoughts. I hope I am never in that situation!
With great power comes great responsibility… unfortunately those with great power on hive seem to use it for much Evil….
He's right Spiderman boy (just kidding.🤭) ...
to use it for bad, it's a shame.
Well said. The reputation of an author needs to be protected so as not to discourage them from posting.
Here is how I personally protect it:
Congratulations @leprechaun! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Your next target is to reach 9000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPInteresting idea, I believe that downvote should not serve to erase someone's profile, with the exception of constant plagiarists, so I believe that it should not be used by default.
But as they said here, there are posts with bad content that gain a lot of votes, sometimes constantly, and always from the same curators, and this in the long run can make it seem like only one side is benefiting, and as we've seen, that it always generates conflicts. Unfortunately, many people don't think about the long term or the effects of their actions and continue to do what they want.
Some people decide to stay on certain projects more for profit, and the really good ones who aren't worried about the financial part walk away, and then we see many projects not reaching the potential they could.
I believe that this scenario will hardly change, and then it's up to each one to choose what is best for them...
I think people can downvote for any reason they want. For myself, I have given 0 downvotes since I been on the HIVE network and that's a habit I don't plan on breaking anytime soon. If a TRIBE or the HIVE Network wants downvotes to stop being an issue the only way to do that is to do away with them.
It's not just a boolean thing. You can have a middle of the road. Flags should be descriptive. Flags should be like tags except curators can add them to a post. These flags should be instructive to authors rather than punitive. I was against flagging for rewards but should the community decide it's okay, I think flags of over-rewarded content shouldn't negatively affect reputation of the author.
I was reading a topic the other day about how Facebook tried to implement a "downvote" option but too much hassel was caused over it so Facebook then removed the feature. So if downvotes on a site like Facebook can stir up nonsense then its likely downvotes will always be a hot topic no matter what implementations they have. Add "loss"/"redistribution" of rewards in the mix and its a gntd way to have some conflict.
Very interesting, I made the complete opposite suggestion in a "downvote" topic that I came across not that long ago. My suggestion was for downvotes to only affect the rep of the downvoted. The issue with flagging for overrewarded content is what is considered over-rewarded to some might be under-rewarded to others. Who's to decide what is or isn't over-rewarded? The answer to that is each individual decides for themself which leaves us with the downvote option that is already implemented. The downvote feature is a tricky thing to nail down.
!BEER
So if I get $1000 for my post, and someone sees it as over rewarded; do you think it would be unfair if some whale knocks my reputation down to 40 because other people voted it up "too much"? Of course that would be unfair. I'm saying there should be an avenue to lower rewards in a way that doesn't effect reputation given we cannot eliminate that reason for flaggnig altogether. I'd prefer to eliminate that reason altogether.
No, I don't think that would be fair. The point I was making, there is no"fair" way. The general population will always have something negative to say or debate about with any downvote system.
I do like your suggestion (I should of made that clearer in my previous responses) but I also wanted to provide a counterpoint to it. How do you think your suggestion is best implemented? One way that comes to mind is have multiple downvote options that appear under the "downvote" function that allows the downvoter to choose (1) Take rewards away (2) take rep away (3) take both away.
!ENGAGE 50
I'm thinking having buttons for each reason to flag:
"Flag as NSFW", "Flag as Negative toward POB", "Flag as Positive toward non-POB currency". Something like that. Probably not those last two.
That could work.
Sorry, out of BEER, please retry later...