I was listening to the interview of @blocktrades by @taskmaster4450 on the brofund 3speak channel with interest yesterday, especially about some of the plans for the coming hardfork.
One of the inclusions will be a change in the curation mechanism, where instead of a 5 minute window with "lost curation" if voting early, it will shift to a two hour (I think) window where the curation is flat, meaning that there are no multiplier benefits in voting early, which should effectively cut out a lot of the issues with bot votes undercutting human curators. The stacking benefits will only com into play after the two hour window, where all voters within will benefit from the multiplier.
I believe that this is going to be a very interesting experiment for Hive, as it is a halfway point between what LEO Finance have done, where all curation is flat, meaning that it doesn't matter at all when someone votes, the reward is directly correlated to the stake. I see LEO voters happily voting on my posts after days, unconcerned that it is costing them curation and I hope that Hive starts to follow suit to some degree, where there are more manual curators willing to spend the time to read an d comment before voting.
However, this doesn't mean that autovoters themselves have no place at all and if anything, perhaps it makes them more relevant and acceptable by the community. Currently, autovoting hasn't got a very good reputation because it is seen as "blind voting" and most people assume that it is for curation returns, but this isn't necessarily the case. For example, I autovote a few people who I read often, of not every one of their posts, having already voted doesn't stop me.
The negativity around autovoting is more centered around the maximization approach however so supporter and maximizer get lumped in together, yet in another context, autovoting seems the norm. Essentially, every subscription service is an autovote, where a person has an automated payment schedule to gain access to content, sight-unseen. It might be a Netflix subscription, a podcast, as a Patreon supporter or even still, a magazine or newspaper subscription. Essentially, people prepay, not knowing what they are going to find inside. Yet, most people do not subscribe to a random magazine or podcast, they have some experience with it before making the decision. Are autovotes for subscription a negative? The difference between these kinds of subscriptions however, is that there is no benefit in when a person subscribes in relation to another person, which means that what the person is paying for is in support of the content and service itself.
I would suspect that most people believe on Hive that the best content should get more reward than the worst, however, this shouldn't be dependent on whether particular supporters happen to be present that day or not, as the reward pool will be allocated regardless. And in general, proof-of-brain does work in regard to the highest rewarded content and downvotes do work when people disagree with the reward on the highest rewarded content.
The thing is, that when people subscribe to products and services, they aren't always going to want r be able to allocate the same amount of attention to what they have paid for. Some Magazines and newspapers will get a quick glance, others will have hours spent on them - Some weeks Netflix will get 50 hours of viewing time, other weeks zero - Some podcasts will get listened to, many may not - even if paid for.
However, when people pay, they want to have access to what they have paid for when they do have the attentional bandwidth to spend on it. If they find that they aren't enjoying what they have paid for, the might turn away and come back to the next offering, but if it is consistently disappointing, they will no longer subscribe. Autovoting on Hive is for many people who look to support is very much like this, where they find someone who produces content they find value in and decide, I am going to support this person, even if I don't read every post, because I want to have it available when I do have the time and, I think it is valuable for others and many might enjoy it, even if they can't reward it well.
This is actually a model that many of the podcasters use, where their patrons make it possible for everyone else to get the podcast for free. It is also why there can be all of the random shows that a few people love on the streaming services, where most people pay for the blockbuster movies and series, but the random shows from all over the world have a potential audience because of all of the subscribers who "overpay" for the major titles.
As I was saying, I think that this change might be very beneficial for Hive, in that it will force an adjustment by the maximizers, but it will also legitimize autovoting further as a supportive function. This should cause some shakeup of sorts, as a lot of the stake that is looking to blindly maximize will have to change strategy, but may also bring more attention to good content, even if it is already rewarded.
There is nothing wrong with bot voting in my opinion, but it shouldn't have much of an advantage if any, over manual curator eyes in a system that is looking to encourage human ownership of finance and experience. I think eight hours might be better than two for the window, just because humans have to sleep also. However, I actually encourage people to find a couple authors they enjoy and who they believe bring value, and become their patrons with a percentage of voting stake, while keeping the majority of stake available for manual post curation and rewarding comments. But, it all comes down to personal choice.
What I am looking forward to is the change in dynamics itself, as while this is seemingly quite a small thing, it will likely affect a much larger percentage of the active stake than many people realize. It will also get rid of the early voting penalty that puts a percentage of Hive, back in the pool, meaning that the posts that do get rewarded, might actually get rewarded more than they would have otherwise, as none of the value is thrown back.
It will be interesting to see how the autos change strategy and whether the same people still get rewarded, because while I think that some do vote for curation reward, I also think a lot of large voters support content that they think is valuable and I think that will continue to be the case, regardless of the curation returns.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Some folks work as promoters. They have big budgets and get paid handsomely for attempting to place quality acts in front of a paying audience, and then the value of their percentage goes up, if they did a good job. Some early auto-votes are just that and if the promoter isn't paying attention, they might be placing junk in front of a paying audience who won't want to pay, and that's how you put yourself out of work or at least lose potential profit. Though I'm not a fan of blind voting, I do know for a fact most receiving auto-votes did something right first, consistently, in order to EARN the promoter's attention. Then it's like a moral obligation rather than a contract. The act either continues to improve and draw a larger crowd, or the act chooses to slack off, take advantage of the situation, then that behavior comes around to bite them in the ass, all while every other promoter noticed, limiting the act's ability to earn and gain traction in the future.
Voting isn't blind if it's automated and the consumer class simply wants to support an act, like you said, much like a subscription. Even if I'm attending a concert, I've paid at the door before experiencing what's inside. I only went there because I heard the act beforehand and they impressed me.
Anyway, auto voting makes a lot of sense when you realize your content is a product and you are a contributing member of the entertainment industry. Auto votes make very little sense if the product is just some human offering shortsighted opinions about the nothingness they discovered while vaguely paying attention to things they saw somewhere in their vicinity.
When I see someone getting a metric shit ton of auto votes and their content is good at the same time, I'm also applauding that act for showing clear signs of integrity. It's not hard for some to make a nice pay day by simply writing, "Blank."
I still don't autovote though. I love simply wandering around and getting paid to be entertained.
Yes, autos don't break the PoB model - voting on crap does. Autos don't have to vote on crap, if they are well set.
I have mentioned the same. I know that I get autos and I am sure not all read every post, but I want to make sure that if they do read, they would vote on the content anyway, either as they enjoy it or they find it valuable enough to support for others to enjoy or use.
I think this comes down to originality. No one can find what I write anywhere else on the internet - only on Hive. A lot of what people tend to write is relatively generic and similar can be found on a myriad sites.
I added a few a couple years back and I have my "baby" account with the Hive Engine tokens trail a few accounts (including min) as I can't keep track of what is what and where with those. It does a pretty good job out there by itself. most of my stake is active though and manual.
I am glad autos exist, as I think for many it simplifies some of their activity without feeling like they are missing out, but I do hope that the change will clean up some of the maximizer activities.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
And that is such a tragedy of wasted potential. If it's new, yeah! Get it out there; but the dinosaur way of blogging, attempting to place magic keywords that have already worked for countless others at the top of a search result so the consumer can spend one minute grabbing their answer, then hitting the back button and leaving the site, forever. They call that a 'view' and for some reason it's "valuable." Meanwhile the rest of the search results are the same article spun a different way. So, lame.
And it's why I'd take the time to write a post like this highlighting the importance of applying personality to the product. People are connecting with this product right now because it's you. Even when writing something that's not really a trade secret, but is, I still remembered to apply my usual chaos. That's how I do it and there's 8000 other ways, since apparently, we're all one in a million, or something, I dunno.
That line was kind of a joke. I just think it's funny how I worded it.
And yes, a change will change the maximizer's behavior, but a maximizer gonna maximize.
Everything is driven by views, regardless of the reality of it. I like that we don't have to fall into that model here, though many people call for it.
Yes - so make make the most valuable way to maximize, the most beneficial for community/growth/purpose/health....
This platform can do better when the consumer is presented with an endless supply of 'impulse buys'. Just like Youtube. Once you get them here, you keep them here. Even when they do stumble into the platform because a search led them here, they have no clue they can earn a bit for leaving comments or supporting work. Most of the content on Youtube isn't viewed because of a search. Shares on social media drove traffic that way, then those people stuck around to see more.
Suggested to them by a bot trying to maximize advertising revenue. And they still stay there....
Most people in a cult have no idea they're in a cult. Robots make excellent cult leaders.
On a sidenote, there's a bit of a debate happening in the "here's" link...
Here's a prime example of promotion and auto-votes gone wrong. Voting completely blind. We're paying $100 for a pamphlet designed to steer traffic away from the platform. Completely backwards. Totally ridiculous.
And also on a side note, it's worth mentioning, none of this really works if we don't have actual consumers browsing content and looking at top slots, scrolling down as they go.
Yeah, I don't get that kind of voting - there is no value in it. I also think that people who have a signature of crypto addresses to send to, shouldn't be voted unless a charity :D
Yes - consumers are needed. Perhaps some marketing will help. However, even if the viewer count is low, I think it is best to have a habit of not voting on shit.
Remember when attracting creators with sizeable outside followings was a way to attract consumers here?
It's funny how that logic slipped through the cracks and now we pay them to send consumers away. That account is one of many that treats this place like a dumping ground and offers no value.
Might be, hopefully it is.
One possible downside is that those maximizing by voting on any old shit at 2-4 mins that hasn't got decent rewards already will have to switch to something else in order to pay for their leased HP. I suspect it's already happening to a small degree, but an increase in alt accounts could be on the cards.
The issue is that some of the largest accounts could be guilty of this, ones that you don't really want to 'out' :)
Yeah, that is a risk, but it is better to have it out in the open I think. There are some quite large voters maximizing out there, so hopefully there will be a little readjustment on the cards. I would rather see great posts get over rewarded, that shit get over rewarded.
Certainly better to have it out in the open, if those involved (e.g. the delegators) are awake and actually care.
Hopefully the best stuff will absolutely moon and finally we'll get somewhere near presenting a respectable landing page.
Would be great to have decent content rewarded and I reckon that the "burn" amount no longer being taken will make a difference too - allocating it to where it was delivered, instead of into the pool for some very large voter to vote on nothing posts for a high curation amount.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Here's hoping!
That is a hefty % of your potential reward going back to the pool, and yeah, if it's going nowhere else but on garbage, a change will be welcome for sure.
Bot votes need to be removed. (Full Stop)
Live human votes or no votes. It's a simple solution to finding more adoption and rewarding ACTIVE accounts on the blockchain. DPoS is already shunned by the crypto community as a sham and joining late is disadvantageous to most (small) users who join. Pay to Play is not how Hive will thrive. That model is more successful elsewhere.
Until hive solves that problem,
SteemHive will continue to have minimal growth and adoption. It's not like people haven't stumbled upon this platform for the last 4+ years...But greed is good for those who have the most Hive Power...
I disagree. I am an active account and perhaps one of the most active, I use autos. I don't think I am killing Hive in doing so.
How is this related to Pay to play? Do you mean because people can buy if they choose and use autos to earn?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
You are more of the exception than the rule. You spend your time as an active account and use auto voting (which I still disagree with) as a way to provide yourself with more time to produce content and reply to comments.
Most who auto vote do not produce content to the same extent as you, nor do they engage with their commenters as much as you do.
A social platform cannot be managed via bots- look at how much everyone hates facebook because of their AI influence (and many many other reasons). Hive has barely 1/1,000,000 the investment in algorithms versus FB and even more basic algorithms, which is not a good thing. People are the value on Hive (until leo finance can prove otherwise) - bots (including voting trails) have only diminished the value of Hive and have only created more problems than they've solved.
Bots are used by virtue of laziness - or monetary incentivization (votes = reward potential). Quality is a secondary (or a much lower) consideration with bots. Which defeats the purpose of a social platform, which is meant to reward the "best" content vs. the "most popular" content.
2 hours makes sense or even longer maybe 12 hours honestly where it's flat. Right now 5 minutes just encourages people to vote quickly and then read in fear of missing out on the best rewards.
I'd also like to see a way to be able to track all tribes, my voting power on each and voting %. On top of this allowing me to select what tribes I wish to vote. Say someone writes a great article but has one tribe in there that shouldn't be. I don't want to just flag it I'd rather be able to upvote it for the tribes it does belong in and remove the vote from the one it does not belong in.
Yep ,it heavily favors the bots too.
In regards to your second part, that would be good, but it isn't the responsibility of the Hive blockchain, it is connected to the scot bot of H-E. I am not sure what their plans are for it, but after a couple years, it seems that no one is interested in refining the voting mechanisms for secondary tokens.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Exactly the reason I have a tribe account for each token.
I assume if we ever got SMT / first layer tokens, the front ends would offer up a slider for each token that was available to vote the post. Could get a bit messy if there were a bunch though!
An excellent idea, but in my opinion it is not at all interesting for developers. And in my opinion, with the current blockchain structure, it is not realizable.
ps No, realizable.
You just need to add the required functional ... It's strange that no one did it ...
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I don't know how the auto-vote system works very well here but since I started publishing with ecency, I feel that my work is already valued! It was a bit frustrating but I already feel that now they value my work! I dare to say that I am one of the users to create a post with more than 3,000 words xD
There aren't many. I keep mine short these days, and they are still "too long" for many people. Mine average about 1200 words I reckon, because I am looking for engagement in the comments too and often, people might read but not talk tha much in the long posts. Getting votes are one thing, building community is another :) As long as you are happy with what you do and your outcomes - go for it :)
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I have a few on auto vote, but, for the most part, I read, manually vote, and move on. It is impossible to do this if you work 10-12 hours a day. Especially if your phone is in a locker and not with you. So, that is my problem, not yours, but, I am looking forward to the two-hour window, I rarely make that five-minute window.
Of course, I don't have the gazillion dollars that I have to farm out, but, someday. Right? In the meantime, I watch and learn.
What a lot of people don't seem to get about autovotes is the distribution. Currently, I have something like a 7 dollar vote. if it was a 70 dollar vote, would people want me voting 10x a day on what I read? What about someone with 2 million HP and a 700 dollar vote? At that point, they will complain and say "That's not fair, the big accounts should distribute" but if they are only "allowed" to vote on what they read and they read the same people daily, it is going to be a lot of 100% votes on a small number of people, as they can only read so much. If they set say, 20% votes on their 10 favourites, they would be more open to pushing the other 8 full votes out to randoms, perhaps through curation initiatives or other ways they discover them.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I guess I thought I understood autovotes. I don't dislike them, I don't have a big enough one to really count. I use autovote on a few people, the rest I manually do because I may do a higher percentage as my vote is smaller. I have often wondered which be more beneficial. A tiny vote that counts for almost nothing, but distributed widely or a few well place good votes? I understand the distribution in theory and I guess I was just looking at it wrong.
I also think that the longer the window is the better. I would also like to see more encouragement to vote on comments like they seem to promote in the lEO community.
I have gone off voting for heavily autovoted authors. (Sorry) I would prefer to vote for smaller/ newer accounts where I know my small vote can help decentralise the reward pool even more which in the long term I believe will be good for Hive. Although I do enjoy reading many of the higher paid out accounts I think they are rewarded well enough. (Again sorry).
What encourages me most is that I am not alone in my concerns regarding the autovotes.
Me too, though it needs to be tempered with DVs. It requires removing the curve "tax" which I think is currently at about 16 Hive to get over, quite a lot. This becomes more relevant the higher price goes, as if you imagine that if Hive was 2 dollars, a payout would be "taxed" all the way up to 24 dollars. At two dollar Hive, I would be happy to give 5 percent votes like now, which will be almost 50 cents. That should be encouraged and I reckon @blocktrades might be open to the idea of removing the curve if there is support to.
This is as it should be. Again, with higher price Hive, I am hoping for trending to have 1000 dollar posts, but the total distribution to be far wider.
It takes time to change cultural norms.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
During the discussion on the roadmap post, it seemed like the general consensus was that the linear convergent curve was more damaging than beneficial, so we're planning to remove it as part of the HF25 code changes.
That is awesome news. I must have missed it =)
I think it will make a difference, especially with increasing prices, s rewarding comments can help a huge amount with activity and engagement. It also aids in distribution to those who don't post much. I have been doing it for years anyway, though it will be nice not to be "punished" for it.
Finally!! ¡Holy Moly!
You type so fast it's incredible. It took me around twenty minutes to formulate my comment and within two minutes you replied. Amazing.
I didn't realise that it was tied to the vote tax. Must do some more reading on how all this works. I would also like to see more use of the downvotes balancing up the reward pool but I think that will take a big change of culture on the chain.
!ENGAGE15
@ammonite didn't you know @tarazkp left to the poor Marcel Fernandes Filho swallowing dust and suffering shame long time ago?
So, don't buy it when he says he type quite slowly. Hahahaha
It takes me so long to write a comment. I started this one yesterday evening and after several drafts, this is the best I can come up with.
If you are a podcast listener Check out Radiolabs episode on The Wubi effect.
!ENGAGE15
ENGAGEtoday.I type quite slowly, but after I post, I try to make sure that I am available for some period of time to get to comments. It isn't always possible with my schedule and family life though.
If you search for "convergent curve" you will find the technical information on it. It was back in Steem days that it was implemented. HF20 perhaps.
Thanks, I'll check that out.
ENGAGEtoday.I personally have nothing against auto voting. Speaking for me, I can only genuinely read a maximum of seven articles on workdays with the time I spend on the platform. So unless I somehow want to increase the time I spend here (which may not be practicable) auto-voting is an option for those who I find their content interesting. Hypothetically speaking of course, as I don't auto-vote...lol
I know there are some people who don't auto vote, but do vote without reading every post - is it much different?
There have also been talks of reducing the maximum number of votes to 5, so that way they are twice as strong and of course can still be split into smaller percentages anyway.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
It will help to distribute the rewards well
May be some people do not read the content well or watching a video just to vote too early
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
it can help, but content creators still need to create decent content in relation to everyone else and work to get it seen. People forget the last part, most never investigate how.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Oh yeh, curation is a thing XD
fyn just upvotes what fyn likes whenever fyn sees it with no further care than that x_x the only problem being the stupid payout period
I may be doomed when this thing kicks in but that's okay XD
I don't think you are doomed :)
vote, have fun. Some people really worry about their curation return, some people and groups spend a lot of time and effort maximizing it. Lame maybe, but it is why it should be looked into and tweaked.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Yep, I concur with you! I'm all for more organic curation and less automated rewards. };)
As for maximizers without proof-of-brain in tha blockchain...
Yeah! I've seen my fair bit of them over the years.
There is actually a fair bit of PoB in autos too - if they aren't doing it for curation alone, people generally auto decent content.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
When I say PoB on "curation" I mean that curation should be always accompanied with some comment or a sign/trace of intelligent life at least. That's what I would really like to see way more often over here!
Not sure about that. People usually read magazines without writing to the journalists, watch movies and listen to podcasts without contacting the performers. It is nice to have people willing to engage and it is a great opportunity for them to interact with more than the content, but I don't think it is mandatory to comment in order to appreciate the work.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I don't buy fully your argument specifically in relation to what happens here in our remunerated "social network" on the blockchain. Actually, the 'subscription' model does not apply much in this case.
Most of all because IRL when you subscribe to a magazine or newspaper or to services to watch movies and listen podcasts you are not expecting to also get paid to consume such content.
In this case, you are well aware that this investment of time and money for consumption in advance, will not be rewarded with any type of financial or monetary ROI. That, in addition to the greater difficulty, if not impossibility of establishing contact with the authors and creators of such content.
That's exactly what differentiates us here from the subscription model that I have reviewed above.
In a truly interactive world, virtual environment and platform in which you are not under any restriction to actually reach, make contact & engage with the authors and content creators of what you consume. And where you are also going to take half the profits of what those authors and content creators have produced by only interacting (upvoting) with their pieces consuming them. You as a paid consumer/curator the least we could hope for is, that you would have commented, interacted lively or given some sign of intelligent life at least first, to really deserve to take half of the income from our works.
Obviously that none of this is mandatory. But it's what I would really qualify as PoB consumption/curation. :)
This is why it is unique and changing the SaaS model. Did you miss the memo? :)
But not everyone thinks about the getting paid to consume and infact, most people likely don't, which is part of the issue in general as to why many don't powerup.
Yes - but do you comment on every YouTube video you watch? It is very easy to do - most will not do it though.
You can hope all you want, but remember that it is just your opinion and might not have anything to do with the entire ecosystem as a whole. Each of us has a narrow view of the world, including your own narrow view.
In my opinion, unless other people are willing to engage with other commentators, I don't want everyone who reads to comment, because I will never be able to answer them all. The amount of time i put into comments is astronomical - generally more than I spend writing by far. Yet, each commentator believes that I owe them my time, regardless of whether they paid for my time or not. On YouTube, posters including those who get paid very well, rarely engage in the comment sections at all - it is just viewers talking to themselves thinking they have relevance. At least here, those who do want a reply, have a chance of getting one.
Over the space of years, I have spent hundreds of hours speaking to you directly on chain - was it worth my time?
Obviously I am not. But basically because there is no benefit whatsoever to either of us if I do. Neither monetary nor of any other kind.
However, the few times that I have done it, it has been because it actually has had a favorable and great intellectual impact that I would like to encourage the author to continue producing it.
Exactly! the well-paid because they don't need to do anything else. Mission accomplished! They covered the viewing fee and received their pennies.
And those who have not been paid for their content, because they know that they will not grant or receive anything else of value if they comment or respond.
About this we have already discussed before a few times. And in my case, I never tire of repeating to you how lucky I have been not to have been a victim of this syndrome. ;)
I hope so. As long as you have not been one more of the frustrated souls who have tried to change me.
As of right now I don't have to worry to much about over paying a post, (glad of that). There are a lot of reasons why I vote, mostly content, some for people, and then for maybe a slight reward advantage, but mostly for people and their content.
I know some people still have issues with some auto voters but I think that is going by the way-side. People are beginning to understand and are trying to be more realistic in their views on voting. It takes time to find content to vote on. Some days it takes a lot of time to find content to vote on, and that is just for me who only needs to find 20 pieces of content or 20 people to vote on a day. I can not for the life of me imagine having to find literally 100's of things to vote on for some accounts just so they don't appear to be maximizers. Auto Voters help in that regard.
One day I will need to use an Auto Voter, but for now it is nice to be able to pick and choose the topics/people I like. The peakd list function helps a lot in that regard, so I suppose I am a manual auto-voter because I can always go to one of my list and toss a few votes on people I have enjoyed in the past and hope stay around.
My brother was talking about this for curangel, which has a dollar limit it will vote to before rejecting the submission. The problem is, the unrewarded posts are often terrible - finding decent content is hard and will only get harder. Finding 100 pieces a day is near impossible.
That is why I try to keep building and adding to my various list. A lot of the people I add just disappear. I follow a few that re-blog some new users, like steevc, edprivit, and angryman along with a few others, and I follow a few contest that attract new users because they are simple and uncomplicated. Scrolling through the new user list is a nightmare.
I really liked your analysis, I agree that the curations are for the quality of the content and it is not robotized.
Not bad, but I still like LEO's way better. Going halfway is not enough IMO. This still punishes human readers who digest content days later. Case in point. Me. I just read your post two days later.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Part of the reason it works on Leo is there is an active invested community, who are also willing to fight abuse. Not the same on Hive, comparing them 1:1 doesn't work at this stage.
Good point. I keep forgetting about the gamification abusers and spammers.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
There are many dynamics in play and changing too many things at once can result in a mess.