I upvoted, but my concern with a pay it forward tag is it resembles the "follow me back" phenomenon on Twitter. I'm not part of team follow back because I only follow people I plan to interact with and build relationship with. In my opinion, content quality should be the primary reason to upvote something. If people upvote because of some psychological effect like reciprocity, then they many to be curating the best content on Steemit. If the content is good, it deserves a vote. That's a big if though.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I agree with you luke one of the main focus areas of this though is crosslinking between posts if something is not of good quality not even I would vote for it :)
Cross linking is done all the time in the comments when it makes sense. If someone talks about determinism, I have a post on that I can link to. If someone's into the morality of A.I., I'll link to that. Being involved in the comments and leaving relevant links people will enjoy reading has nothing to do with a generic hashtag which has no meaning other than 'Hey, I did something for you, so you should do something for me."
I think it's about the potential of finding actual followers. Unlike the followback on Twitter, people here can actually read your stuff instead of just following you automatically. Among those bunch of followers you could get with the #payitforward tag, there could be some people who actually may be interested in your posts - the odds are high here.
But how is that different than just clicking on someone's name if they made an interesting comment, and previewing their blog for stuff worth voting on? I do that all the time. Adding an artificial tag, to me, adds potential for low quality content and more vote begging. The idea of "payitforward" is built off of reciprocity:
That means, "Hey, I voted for you, you should vote for me." If you read books like Predictable Irrational, and Thinking, Fast and Slow, there's evidence to show these types of things actually adjust how we view something. We might think it's better than it actually is, simply because we're hard-wired to follow reciprocity. I'd prefer to work towards a meritocracy, not use psychological tricks.
Great points. My concerns are the same. Also we are kinda seeing this mob mentality of blindly upvoting known whales.
Indeed. When people vote up something because they think it will go viral and not because it's really good content, that's an unfortunately symptom of potential future problems.
Those are some really great points, actually.
^ I can't get myself to vote on what I see as poor quality content, even if they upvoted mine, because of a tag.
Who judges whats good or bad if that really even exist? I feel everyone perceives things differently calling something or someone good or bad is subjective.
In this context, the reader who is giving their vote. They are the ones who subjectively decide if it is "good" or "bad." Beyond that, the community develops standards over time as an emergent property of all the individuals voting. I could create two posts and show them too 100 people on here and predict, with quite a bit of accuracy how all those 100 people would vote if asked which post was better than the other. They would go so far, I'd wager, to call one "good" and one "bad." As subjective as those normative claims are, they still develop real meaning when played out enough times among enough people.
I judge what I see as good or bad quality, and you judge what you see as the same.
When it comes to morality, it's about principles, and universality. Most people see you as bad, if you hurt others, while they see you as good, if you help out instead.