I have mostly been a fan of the recent HF changes because they have created massive demand for owning Steem Power, something that has been lacking on here for some time now.
However, there are certainly some major drawbacks to the changes as well, which I won't really go into detail here but I am sure you can all guess what those might be.
In my opinion there are 3 things that could/should be changed within the "rules" of Steemit/Steem that would make this place not only run better, but potentially thrive.
Without further adu, here they are:
1. Limit Self upvotes to 3 per day (or any number between 1 and 5).
There has been a huge debate ever since the most recent changes as to whether self voting should be allowed or not. I personally don't even think that should be a debate, it most certainly should be allowed as it gives great incentive to increasing your own Steem Power on the platform.
However, there must be a limit to it. If every user on here all of the sudden decided it would be in their best interest to only upvote their own comments and posts every day and not vote for any one else, this place would go down the drain in a hurry. To be honest, the current setup incentivizes people to do just that, so we need to make some tweaks.
Limiting self upvotes would limit the amount of spam posts on here and it would limit the number of comment self votes that many on here believe contribute next to nothing besides lining the voter's pockets.
2. Not allow users to vote on the same author on back to back days, must have 48 hours between upvotes.
(This is done to help discourage sock puppet accounts)
Admittedly, this is by far the most controversial. However, it piggy backs off of change number 1. If we just limit self votes without also doing this, then people will be incentivized to created multiple accounts and use all their voting power each day only to vote on all their different sock puppet accounts.
Not allowing users to vote on the same author more than once in a 2 day period will help spread votes around to more users. This is not my ideal change, but to me it is a necessary change to help curb the demand for sock puppet accounts.
In my opinion the first change is mostly useless if you don't also do a change like this one, no matter how controversial it seems at first.
3. Change curation rewards to 40%, so that the new split would be 60% to the author and 40% to the curators.
This one will help incentivize people to actually go out and vote for other people. The first 2 changes were targeted at preventing abuse, but ideally if we incentivize the right things, the abuses will become less and less.
The current curation rewards are too small in my opinion to properly incentivize most people to go out and spend the time using their voting power on other users.
Final thoughts:
Each change by itself probably won't do enough to change the behaviors of users on here, but when you combine all 3 of these major changes I think you could really see this place transform, spread it's wings, and start to take off.
Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below.
Follow me: @jrcornel
Very good ideas!
I like especially your second point as it would not only help against using sock puppet accounts, but also discourage kind of 'vote-for-vote' behavior of certain groups of accounts. I hope it could encourage to seek good content instead of voting for some users because one is just 'accustomed' to do so.
I think step 3 would be enough already. This would incentivice to vote on other comments!
I disagree. Point 3 alone wouldn't stop excessive self-voters like this one for example:
https://steemit.com/@sandrino
Also it wouldn't prevent excessive mutual voting of certain accounts.
I like the 3rd idea but there should be more to this
we lost balance - really
if we could find a solution to bring back balance
otherwise people would just register, but steem (some do) and those who don't
will have to be wished good luck to grow
I miss the old days but we have to live in the moment
if people would just be aware that the reward pool is getting drained every second
they could also self regulate and adjust their voting habits
and just go around other posts too
if we want to grow
we have to find a way or a solution to having a "fairer" reward distribution that is not prone to abuse
I think the ideas of @jrcornel are a very good mix!
Great post indeed. The platform needs some change. A situation where you literally have to beg for upvote from people with big sp is an anomaly.
The issue of producing quality posts makes no sense for a minnow if you have nobody that will push the post up for others to see.
I am not a fresh minnow but this issue is still of great impact on my blog so I can imagine how freshers feel.
Hi @jrcornel thank you for posting this. I like your ideas also, especially the up-voting your own posts 1-3-5 times a day. I think if we limit that it would make fore more engaging conversations and better content. Thank you for sharing your insights with us :) -JoeParys
When you place too many restrictions on a platform, it just causes people to lose interest and eventually find something else
one of the only things holding steemit together is the fact that you can make money on this platform
if people arent allowed to like what they like, upvote themselves as much as they like ( something thats built into the code ), or are told when and how to do something on the network, all thats going to happen is someone else will make a new platform, where people can do these things, and eventually people on steemit... will no longer be on steemit
the only reason we have such a huge number of people who sign up everyday on here is because someone else told them in a forum that they could make money
if reddit or instagram started giving people money for posting content steemit would be a deserted waste land in a week
I agree with @moderninvestor. If there's too many rules, it becomes difficult to use. I'd like to see Steemit stay as free (as in freedom) as possible.
I totally agree. Earning money is the big selling point of steemit. If this is taken away, what's the selling point of steemit?
I agree with you, but don't you think there is something wrong with the current system when users are incentivized to only upvote their own posts and comments every day? If every user on here adopted this mindset things would go downhill in a hurry...
@jrcornel you're right one of those things that has gone wrong with Steemit is making people think that it is their new work from home/work office where they can make money. This has gradually divided the community through segregation and other unnecessary external sites. The other day I tagged KR in one of my post and someone was bold enough to let me know that only posts made for Koreans should be tagged with kr. Yet we are supposed to be networking with eachother socially. I even found another post tainting @craig-grant and @trevonjb. I joined in June and I am disappoited already with the level of fake love, and greedy people regardless of the self upvotes. But it's life, we just have to deal with it.
I sometimes upvote my own comments so that they are seen, but I don't do it all the time. It's very unlikely that every user would decide to only upvote their own posts and comments. A lot of people are here to network with other people, as that may be much more valuable then just getting a few cents by upvoting your own stuff.
In any case, I'm happy to be here. Wish I'd started using Steemit sooner.
The problem isn't with getting a few extra cents here and there. The larger accounts are able to allocate 10's and 100's of dollars per upvote, and if they wanted to they could direct that all towards their own comments and posts, which in the current system would actually give them the most "bang for their buck". Which is exactly why I think things need to be tweaked...
We want a system that incentivizes helping others while also helping yourself.
That's why I think point 3) is the way to go: Increase the curation rewards!
So you say people who are here primarily for the money would all leave? Wouldn't that be just great!
Most truly interesting bloggers I know blog in their free time, for their pleasure and on platforms where they are not financially rewarded for it.
Hmmm, I was going to write that I don't believe anyone should be allowed to upvote themselves - but you raise some very good points. In fact you're spot on and have converted me.
Great suggestions to help steemit thrive! I like how all of these actions would be geared towards incentivizing less abuse and more of the actions that should help steemit thrive. Thanks for the insight :)
I like these ideas.
Here's a couple of related alternative thoughts I had.
1
Reallocate a small portion of the author reward pool and distributing it in proportion to the dispersion of votes that each account has cast, or similar? I think this could have the effect of offsetting some amount of self-voting, sockpuppets and clics, to bring those problems under control.
Perhaps this reward could simply be proportional to the number of accounts each user votes on, so a pure self-voter would get 1, whereas somebody who votes for 100 different accounts gets 100 times more from that reward pool.
@dwinblood pointed out that with services offering instant account creation, this could result in some people creating large numbers of sockpuppets, but I think given the $10 per account fee, it would at least present a barrier to entry.
2
Limit the number of rshares that can be awarded per top level post (to the post and all sub-comments). This would force self-voters to make large numbers of top level posts which are more likely to annoy followers and be flagged for polluting the feeds.
Very good post. It's funny, I did a community building post too! I guess great minds think a like! Even though I don't know you I like your posts and your financial advice thanks
Great suggestions @jrcornel. I agree with all three of these, except I would not put a number limit on self-votes, but I would put a limit on percentage strength at which one could self-vote. I would make it graduated, like the 1st self-vote could be done at 100%, the 2nd at 75%, the 3rd at 50%, the 4th at 25%, and the 5th or more at 10%. Something like this.
Interesting thoughts, I hadn't thought about that. Might be an option as well.
Right now steemit is a complete mess, only a few people are coming daily to the trending page, and the hard working new users are not even getting cents in rewards, we need to get rid of those circle jerk type of posts, where the trending page is only consist of how steemit is great and other bla bla about steemit. we need diversity @jrcornel
I like this idea. It's similar to the penalty people used to get for making more than 4 posts/day. They could make more posts, but the payouts for their first 4 posts would go down dramatically.
I really like your point 2 " Not allow users to vote on the same author on back to back days". This will definitely protect the rewards pool to some extent.
I think we've had too many changes already, and the existing stuff needs to bed down so a proper assessment can be made.
I think Steemit makes changes based on a few vocal people shouting about what they see as problems without proper evaluation.
I agree, and to some extent you are right. However, making too many changes previously doesn't mean they shouldn't go about making the "right" changes now... (according to me of course) :)
It's kind of like trying to tax the rich - just when you think you have them cornered, their high-priced lawyers just figure out another way around the rules.
We shouldn't be afraid of change, but there are no easy answers to any of this. I think some "tweaks" here and there, towards those 3 points you have described, are probably advisable, but not wholesale changes.
It is a had thing for a minnow to earn here at steemit. The fat gets fatter and the poor gets miniscule rewards so they post more with a less quality or shit content.
@jrcornel genuine change always starts from within, we can't expect others to change if we don't do it by example.
Very interested suggestions. I would go a little further and have new steemit users have unlimited upvotes etc. and have it go down overtime. This would encourage new users while implementing your suggested upgrades.
Great post.
All great ideas... should limit self voting on posts/comments to 5 a day.
On the second one, it should be 24 hours as many of the top people post at least one good blog a day.
I also like the curation idea, the percentage should be around 30% ... going to 40% is to drastic.
All and all... all good things to implement 🙌🏼
i appreciate your post sir. i am new in steemit community i read your post and i got a feeling that it would be for the well ness of whole steemit community.
Make it so you must upvote to leave a comment. To reduce the no sense "great post!" Follow 4 follow bullshit.
Well I for one like to vote on most of the post that are made by some of the people I follow. If there was a 48 hour delay, it would mean that it would be best not to post more than once every two days if you wanted to get votes from your loyal followers, or people who continually vote on your posts.
I see the problem with multiple accounts, but there should be some other way around the problem, if there is a problem. I don't know who uses those. Maybe the people who post plagiarized stuff all the time? Hard to spot, so I don't know how common it is.
Admittedly, it is my least favorite change as well and one I would love there to be another solution to. I am open to any and all suggestions that would accomplish that same goal without making that change. I personally haven't figure out what that might be just yet though...
My solution would be to differentiate between more and less effort. I wrote a post about it yesterday. I think it would help at least. Because then the other accounts would need to either write more as well or it would take them longer to accomplish a level that mattered. If your interested to know more you can check it out, but basically the idea would be to separate tweet like posts and blog posts. Reward them differently based on length of post (doesn't guarantee quality, but is a start I guess).
haha yes u're right :p
Great thoughts. Lets see what the Bobs do about it. Calling HQ*
@jrcornel - I am a newcomer so I do not know much about earlier HFs but my observations during the last one month show that even some whales are resorting to self voting and even bragging about it. I guess it is everyone's own decision on how to use their hard earned steem power but, to build the community, the measures suggested by you would be vital. Hope they become a reality soon. I am working to try and build some steempower so that my vote is meaningful for someone. Hope some day I achieve my objective.
I believe you have already seen some of my **'Photospeak' series with my memories from Africa - with just a photo with minimal words - Letting the picture speak for itself mostly. I request you to look at the latest ones too if possible when you have time. It is a great pat on the back for me to see you visit my blogs. Thanks
My main concern with idea #3 is that it would reduce the amount of money going to low-SP accounts - aren't curation rewards weighted based on SP?
What I have noticed in my short time here is the huge number of spam comments, I think something needs to be done about that. You can instantly tell the difference between those who bothered to even skim the blog post and who just posted to try and draw attention to their own posts. I think three self upvotes is a pretty fair amount too, not sure about limiting how often you could vote on other's posts though.
I have a feeling the keen make just have 2 'sock-puppet' accounts and switch between them?
3-5 self-votes, with no up-voting your own comments? Was thinking it would flood steem with #shitposts so would need to be coupled with a vote limit on your blogs - 3 votes would tie these folk down a little (including me because i will up-vote my own 0/1/2 blogs)
60/40 split is a negative for smaller accounts in my opinion. Curation earns smaller accounts very little and taking 15% off a whale vote is more hurtful to the little guys.
Just my opinion, i think these proposed changes are close to the mark.
Great post, @jrcornel. I totally agree, especially when you say something needs to be done to counteract the growing issue of "sock puppet accounts". People are always trying to game the system and take shortcuts to success.
HF20 may be the answer.
Awesome
Sounds like some good ideas. I'm a newbie here, and am still trying to figure out how everything works with curation and posting rewards etc. I have come across at least one account where the person is following no one and has a handful of followers but is making a lot of money per post! Maybe that person is best friends with a couple of whales, and that is all there is to it, but each post seems to get a ton of votes and comments. I wish it was that easy for me to be found! Lol!
By the way, what is a sock puppet account?
It would be someone making another account that they also control. A way to get around only voting for your own account would be to make multiple accounts and just vote for those ones.
Ah, so maybe that's what I came across?
Completely agree with you. Those 3 change will help a lot.
Resteemed, upvoted & followed.
Some solid idea, the change in % reward to curators would definitely give more incentive to people to upvote and comment.
The limit on self-voting could be good as in my opinion posting more than 4 times a day, atleast quality posts seems very difficult and there is a diminishing quality. So 4 votes could work great.
So many possibilities for Steemit still.
nice post
if you like my post please follow upvote comment and resteem https://steemit.com/life/@neerajsharma007/travel-with-me-visit-shimla
Um, please do go into detail, I really want to know what you're talking about! I think I know, but then again, the only thing I'm sure I know, is that I know nothing!
OK, onto your changes, self-voting, I guess so, I mean I'm only worth $0.21 or so, so I've given up on voting for my own content, as it makes no difference and I'm just taking a wee bit away from curators.
Though I can see how the temptation to vote for yourself all day long if your vote is worth $100 or something, so yeah, good change.
Number 2, I'm not so sure; I see a lot of good people that post a lot, and I like to vote for all or most of their content, it would be a shame to restrict that. Simply because I would end up forgetting about certain people, or at the very least, it would create a backlog of stuff I needed to vote for.
Number 3 is a good idea, like you say, voting rewards are small, and this might actually up the amount of people voting.
All in all, good proposals I think, though we need to tweak number 2 :-)
Cg
Great suggestions. I'm not 'for' or 'against' them, preferring to see what the community likes best, but it's a worthwhile contribution to an important discussion.
I like number 2, this could help shake things up on the trending page.
I miss the 4 post rule, would cut down on the people spamming copy/paste articles just to upvote them.
I do too, but putting a limit on the number of self votes per day would effectively do the same thing. People likely would stop spamming posts if they couldn't upvote them...
lets see what users with high SP think about these suggestions, obviously it works better for newbies like me
I support point 1 with a limit of 5 self upvotes a day.
So the author can make 5 posts a day on full voting power and the rest 5 goes to the community, assuming 10 votes at full voting power a day limit.
And full voting power refill should happen in 24 hours, if that is possible.
interesting.
I like the heart of your idea, but as can be seen with pretty much every other social platform, the pieces just get moved around.
The Fake Votes Will Just Move Elsewhere
If you limit self-votes, then people will move onto creating sock puppet accounts, as you've suggested in your post.
If you limit the number of times people can vote within a time-window for a certain author, then they'll just create more sock puppet accounts and alternate them.
If you figure out someway to curtail that behavior, then they'll just pay other members to upvote them, or create upvote sharing communities (which exist for pretty much every social platform).
What Other Social Platforms Do
This is exactly why most social platforms often require phone, photo and ID verification. There are even services that exist where they provide a phone number for you to use for the verification of a fake account! They're attempting to stop these acts, but it's a game of cat and mouse.
Why I Think Steemit is Already Winning the War
Granted, I'm very new here, but this is my perspective on this: I think Steemit is getting it right in that they're trying to incentivize the creation of quality content, rather than spending all of their efforts on trying to shut down people who put lots of resources into gaming the system.
At the end of the day, whales aren't going to vote on their crappy posts. They can game until they're blue in the face, but they won't walk away with any meaningful amount of money. After a while of trying, I'm sure many will just give up.
Why are Spammers Here if Steemit's System is So Good?
Part of the problem is that a lot of the scammers seem to treat Steemit like a lot of the other social networks, where the votes are almost all equally valued. On Facebook, my like is just as valuable as any other person's like.
That's what makes gaming Facebook with a sock puppet account so powerful. Steemit's system has eliminated that problem, and I don't think it will take spammers long to figure that out.
Good points. I guess the harder it becomes to do and the less incentivized it becomes, the less of an issue abuse becomes...
Great point. I totally agree with you, there must be restrictions and something that steem is missing is notification when someone posts a new article.
My upvotes have been going down to the point that I don't want to upvote anymore. I don't know how to make it work for me at this point.
Great ideas..thanks! Not sure what you mean by 'sock puppets' though. Im still pretty new here.
I completely agree with # 1, also self upvoting comments should not be allowed.
#2 is not so clear, suppose there is an author who puts out great material every day, he would be losing out big time with this option.
#3 I don't agree at all, it reduces the profit for the author, who is after all, the source of all comments, and of course like now people will just upvote trending posts because they will make more money, reducing even more what minnows get.
Good idea! Upped and resteem
Why would anybody just upvote themselves and not upvote anybody else ever! that so silly... It's more likely someone would leave a comment, not upvote themselves as well not upvote anybody else on a post, kind of like what I just did here ....Many changes are in the mix I'm sure.
Because if your vote was worth $100 per vote, would you use that vote to vote on others and earn a couple bucks off of it, or would you use that vote 10 times per day on yourself to earn $1k in rewards per day just by clicking a button? (this is not directed at you directly but more of a question about what would people do in general given this setup)
Great post. Voting on your own comments kinda sucks.
But all did that in here!.
Including #jirnocel!
It is like :
Do not upvote yourself and I will upvote mine, because I know what I am thinking of , or the reason " I just wanted to increase viewership a little ".
Any ways, those are good points, but I bet this platform is not going to make it, if only Whales get the featured and hot sections .
First off I did not upvote for you in respect to item 2
Item 1 no contest, voting for yourself is weird (do we need rules to not be weird?)
That said I follow your posts because you write about things that interest me. Voting for the content lifts it up the rankings so that others get a chance to see it.
Item 3 is too subtle a change for me to see much difference. I am not technically a minnow but 60/40 50/50 75/25 is just pennies each way so not my real motivation.
Keep up the writing. I still have some voting power to share with others not just you.