Increased my steem-ua 😎delegation...

in #ua2 years ago (edited)

Decided to increase it... to reflect my latest increased activity on STEEM this year and also motivate others on doing the same, or at least generate some discussion/awareness about it.

Do you trust on current reputation system?

To be honest, for me it is just a weighted number of how many SP voted for you so far. It does not have nay other intelligence. This is why we should think about it at least and find new ways to "classify" reputation.

Just as an example, a few weeks ago, I have done a test and payed like ~8 STEEM or something on paid votes, to understand how easy it would be, at the level I am, to raise my reputation number (aka score). And my conclusion was what I already knew. Very easy! With ~8 STEEM I was able to jump almost 1 point, which is quite a lot if you consider normal curation voting at the average user daily interactivity.

So, when you see anyone today above >50 reputation, it can mean a lot... or nothing at all. I can even find some above >60 that probably have just started in 2019, but have very little "responses" on this blockchain.

Maybe it all will change with the SMTs

Honestly I hope so. STEEM has a lot of users and improving the rigor of it's characteristics might not just easier, but also more valuable when compared with "starting from zero" approach.

There are lots of experiments on this community and variety of developed tools and applications that really stepped up this blockchain. You might find all sort of complains about this and that, but fact is, most of us are still here, and if we compare in percentage with other Blockchains, I am not so sure if you can have even double digit unit percentages.

There is a lot of expectation with upgrades on STEEM usually. And historically it has not been a swift ride when those happen for the average user. So, what's about to happen with SMTs might even shape some of this non-well taken feedback. Let's see. One thing is for sure, I will be here!

From 100SP to 500SP

As I said, as an incentive to all let's step up the game and jump over the "average". If you all do the same, it has a huge impact on small delegations and new comers.


=) Done


Hello @forkyw.
I'm glad that I saw your post. I'm going to do exactly the same.
I'm delegating to @steem-ua for over 6 months, currently over 100 SP and honestly I was considering to cancel delegation - that's why I visited @steem-ua account and that's how I found your post they re-steemed.
I'm starting a new project that I somewhat mentioned in my latest post. I'm not posting much these days, but increasing delegation to 505 SP is a way to motivate myself to be more active.
I'm going to kill the middle man. I will post more about it soon.

Thx for the positivity and your delegation of 500 SP!

Awesome seeing my message reached out. Quite happy when little small people like me can do even little things like this. Cheers

..sounds great..still curious..up...follow you..

I delegated 250 a few days ago. Is there anything else I need to do?

Posted using Partiko iOS

Thx for your delegation, works all by itself i.e. fully automatically!

Cool, that’s awesome to know, I like it even more now that I know it runs itself (:

Posted using Partiko iOS

That's the idea. And if gets enough traction and works better than the current implemented one (which already works in my view), maybe it can be successfully migrated into the one future (HF) HardFork.

Hey, @forykw.

The stake weighted system for reputation ranking would work, if it weren't for human nature. And since I don't know how you overcome that, without some pretty motivating incentives, we're always going to see bought reputations, especially when people are less likely to pay bidbots to up their ranking as they are to do it increase rewards.

So, as long as people can upvote themselves, buy votes, or form a circle of votes, they can effect their own rankings far quicker than doing it the intended way will be.

However, I'm not convinced that the steem-ua way of measuring uers authority, which includes both a measuring of followers and gives weight to witnesses, is any better. The follower metric is broken in and of itself. People have followed to be followed, and are following so many others that the can't possibly see everything that comes through their feed, to the point that they ignore it.

And of course, a very small few in comparison to the total active user base are currently witnesses, so throwing that in not only ensures witnesses will be higher ranked, but it changes what the reputation rank was meant to be—a way to more easily find valuable and trusted content.

Which is the third metric. Create good content, get active people to follow, fire up a witness server, and you've got it made! Well, except, content is not king here, the upvote is, and so people aren't incentivized to curate as much as they are to find different ways to passively grow their stake. As long as that's the case, I don't think there's going to be a way to adequately measure value or trust.

Thanks for your view.

I used to think somehow the same "bright" way you are seeing things here, in the past, and then, year after year on the blockchain, I got faced with the reality that I would never see. This is a dream come true, but its not all about dreams coming perfect (or sometimes nearly far from it).

Without proper financial support, it's very hard to make things VERY right the first time, especially with a technology where the first purpose is to "experiment" and has the "embedded" idea of being constantly on "beta" stage.

My point is, I do agree that is important to state when things are not proper and what's not working or we think it does not work. Although, I feel the best juice of these experiments that can be taken into "consideration" is the things that do work! And this is the reason why sometimes I have this wish of "seeing more" about it or "accelerate" the progress of the experiment (if that does not change the path).

The current method of "reputation" is not even one to me. So, I am not considering it anymore for that purpose. On the ua side, what I like is the fact that we are "trying" something new. Does not mean straight away it will work, and I am also not saying it will work or not. Just that it is something different being attempted with the aim to address a reputation problem, and that for itself has some value on this platform (because is of interest of everyone).

Around this subject there is also other complexities around the equation... which are for example, questions like... "What should be reputation of a STEEM user?" or "What a user consider being highly reputable?". All very important to clarify otherwise nothing can't be really developed on top of the rationalism.

It's also important to think and realise that these things will always have to fight exploiting and gaming scenarios. But, it's also important to quantify how much of these we see... and in my view, that can also be seen as an improvement worth considering.

Finally, the reason I think the current weighted system does not work in my view is due the fact that when someone has high/low reputation, all is being considered is the accumulated voting for that user... and not the temporal relationship of that weighted value. Being considered "high reputation" forever for me is not a valuable credible input.

What I think it would work (my own view), is a system that has a depreciation factor along side with a dependency of what is "being considered" an high value reputation event. With the combination of these two, gaming and buying votes will also happen, but because the behaviour of people change and adapt, so the scoring of that representation would change. Making it very hard for static "exploitation". Yes, AI might be able to find a way, but before we reach that arena, I think the added variability, introduced with time would really make things very different.

What you think?

I'm afraid I don't know how to solve the issue, but I do know where I think I want things to go. Maybe knowing where we wan to be and working backwards can help. At any rate, the idea is to be able to look at the reputation of someone and determine whether or not they are a user who is adding value to the social media side of the platform through their posts, and I would add, comment and curation. There are other activities on the blockchain, but the reputation rating was supposed to be set aside for those who actually participate on the blockchain and can be considered a reliable source of information, value, etc. I think you need to include curation and commenting too, but again, I don't know how that happens.

Anything else, such as witnesses working on projects that are blockchain related, or community devs providing other tools or apps, but not specific to the post side of things, maybe they need their own recognition of some kind, but it would be nice for those who are putting in the time on chain to be distinguished from those who are not.

I think the upvote is over used. It should serve the function of curating, and that's it. I don't know what else to do, but having virtually everything tied to upvoting isn't the answer.

As it is, I would rather we scrapped it. I'm not into flagging that much, so not having a reputation would be fine, because then people could still function instead of being shunned into negative territory, and would only lose potential rewards. There needs to be a different way to deal with spam, and so far, the best way is having Steemit Inc remove their delegations. When they pop up again, take it away again.

Thanks. Valuable opinion. Will take it into my considerations. Cheers

Posted using Partiko iOS

Thanks for using eSteem!
Your post has been voted as a part of eSteem encouragement program. Keep up the good work! Install Android, iOS Mobile app or Windows, Mac, Linux Surfer app, if you haven't already!
Learn more:
Join our discord:

This post had received 29.57% upvote from @steemitportugal account!
Vote for @steemitportugal to Witness. Your vote is very important to us!
Visit our WebSite (tutorials,news...)
Thank you very much.
Click here to vote

..thank you for this thoughts..will check it out..up..follow you..

Thanks mate!

Each day it passes I agree more and more with the fact that posts after 7 days should still get a sort of reward... Maybe alike the downvoting pool, there should be a pool for +7 days posts. This is just a reflection because you found this post that is very old and you upvoted it 50%... of which you will get no rewards. Just FYI.

..still the whole upvoting and curating thing is still a Mysterium to me..any idea where I can get clear information how to upvote and handle the upvote power right?...thank you for this discussion..

Thank you very much!...will find the best solution...should I upvote this answer?...

You can if you wish. If the question is, if you will get rewards from the above comment. Then the answer is yes, because the comment (or posts) need 7 days to curate. After that, then it will not count anymore for rewards.

..still getting more and more insecure, so that at the end I m blockaded to upvote at the way..yesterday evening i had few 0.0anything to claim. now the rewards to claim disappeared..why??