I agree too. I think it's ridiculous that autovoting is allowed at all (but apparently it cannot be stopped) so why encourage it with this five minute rule.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree too. I think it's ridiculous that autovoting is allowed at all (but apparently it cannot be stopped) so why encourage it with this five minute rule.
How does the 5 minute rule encourage auto voting?
The 5 minute window is a "reverse auction." It's meant to somewhat discourage auto voting. Any votes made on a post in the first five minutes lose part of their curation rewards. I'm not sure if it's exactly linear... but as an example, let's assume you were the only person to vote on a post and your vote is worth .20
If you vote at 5 minutes, you get a .10 curation reward. If you vote at 1 minute you get a .02 cent curation reward and .08 is returned back to the broader rewards pool.
It doesn’t help auto voting... in fact it keeps auto voters from all voting immediately as a post is published. Instead voters “bid” (thus the reverse auction) by voting earlier than the five minutes, gambling that the curation reward percent they are foregoing, will be less than the increase they’ll see from voters coming in after them.
The 5 minute rule is not the culprit in encouraging auto voting. It’s a mitigating factor. The mechanic where early voters earn a percentage of subsequent voters curation rewards is the root of auto votes.
The problem is that as a manual curator, who really tries to evaluate a post before upvoting it, you will be always behind the huge army of automated profit maximizers (even in the very rare cases that you found potential interesting posts shortly after they had been published). That's simply a fact, and if you don't believe it, ask users like @acidyo who have tried both methods and then compared the generated curation rewards (and by the way no auto-upvoter upvotes a minute after post release).
I disagree. Having a larger 'curation window' the probability would be much higher that a manual curator noticed a post before the time of maximal curation reward had been reached. This alone would be an advantage compared to a very small curation window. Furthermore, as already mentioned, it's nearly not possible to find, read and evaluate a post within the first five minutes after its appearance.
Here I agree. And that's why I suggest that curation rewards should be independent of the date of the upvotes and upvotes of other users.
I really wonder how easy it would be to implement a curation window depending on word size of post, this would of course not work well for videos and those 5 page footers with donation addresses some people like to make but yeah. Or give authors the option to set the window before posting.
But why a window at all?
I often notice great posts a day or even later after they have been published, but it's me who takes the time to read, evaluate, comment them and then decide if/how strong I upvoted them (that's real curation work), whereas many other upvoters don't even know that they have upvoted the post, but nevertheless get more curation rewards only because their auto-upvote programs noticed the post faster than my slow human eye. :)
You may also read what I wrote concerning my insect community.
For now I adopted the following method: when I see a great post with many auto-votes, especially by bots like for example @upmewhale or @appreciator (yes, sometimes they accidentally also upvote great stuff), I place a comment in which I ask the author to write a comment. Then I upvote this comment to support the author without increaasing the curation rewards of the curation maximizers (/vote sellers etc.).
without a window the maximizers would have it even easier by voting on popular authors at the same block/ 0-3 seconds. and yes, they some times vote up posts if they have very little rewards (close to 0) as that's what gets them a nice ROI, so best would be if you could downvote their main posts a bit and then upvote a comment, but of course you're going to need considerable stake for that to be worth it as it's not easy to get past the curve tax
With my idea, described in the post, it wouldn't be an advantage anymore to upvote popular authors!
One could freely upvote whatever one likes because with a linear 'curation curve' there was no need anymore to care about the date of an upvote or the upvotes of other users!
As the curve for author rewards would still be convergent linear, it would still be worth it to create great 'quality content'.
will it disencentivize curators to look for new authors and content though? it could lead to people just voting the authors they're comfortable with and not look for anything new for higher rewards.
that's the problem with these big accounts maximizing now too, they're just focused on ROI so they don't share rewards with curators to go out and actually look for new authors and content but settle on voting the 3rd or 4th post of accounts that stop receiving autovotes after the 2nd post or so (usual hive.voter rules) to then vote up whatever content that is to receive highest ROI for least effort.
PS. Still manually curating here for 4+ years, only tested the automated version on shteem
Exactly!