The issue with linear curation and going back to 75/25 is that the bid bots will come back.
I think all we need to change is the 5 minute window and perhaps make rewards fixed for the first 24 hours before they taper off; then people can take the time to curate manually and outcompete the bots.
Lets 'welcome' them with flags. :)
Maybe, but I still see no reason to reward early voters higher at all than late curators (at least not as long as the majority of upvotes are auto-votes) ... Why should I upvote a post, when any of the large upvote bots was faster than me? To increase their automatically generated curation rewards? :)
(In some cases I ask the author to write a comment for me to upvote, so I have not to support the curation maximizers by following them.)
I agree with all your points here @jaki01. But changing the system might take years to happen, if it does happen. The resistance will come from people with higher stakes than those in favor. It is still a worthy cause but meanwhile I think the best path to take is the one you mentioned above:
This could be the best course of action because you won't be adding to the rewards of the early voters and you can take your time in curating posts that you really like. And although you will be going over the 5 minute rule, at least the bigger share of the rewards go to the author and not the bots.
This is as far as my understanding of the matter goes. I'm no expert at these matters but upvoting the comment instead of the main post is a good palliative for the moment that things cannot yet change.
Yes, I will do that even more often in future.
Agree on a surface level but we need to provide some incentive to up vote something that is better than for example just this comment. Linear curation rewards encourage just up voting of anything as the rewards are all the same. People will self vote and claim the rewards; there is no disincentive other than vigilante mobs of down voters which makes the platform feel more like a failed police state.
I like to upvote comments because they are essential for real interaction and communication in this community.
In the eyes of many newbies HIVE must look like a real desert, an unpeopled ghost town, inhabited only by bots!
However, what I meant was: when I see that some well known bots have 'curated' a great post which I would like to upvote, I often abstain from that and ask the author to write a comment which I upvote then instead of the post because I don't want to increase the curation rewards of these voting bots.
I disagree! :)
If rewards were the same anyway, then you would be free to upvote quality content! You didn't need to think about your curation rewards anymore but could focus on what you like (and I think the big majority of users would do exactly that)!
The few undiscerning ones who wouldn't care at all could be flagged.
For author rewards the convergent linear rewards curve would still apply ... and if we had '75/25' again, self-votes wouldn't be that beneficial.
In addition one could think at further measures like 'diminishing returns' when upvoting the same (also own) accounts again and again.
Furthermore, I think something similar like "Voting CSI" in SteemWorld could also serve well to detect abuse.