You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why I am negative to "WhaleShares" and believe it will be another "RewardPool-RAPE" for #STEEM.
@ned but linear rewards is only a very small step in the right direction, unless i'm misunderstanding the article. It's of course still better than it is now so that's good! Anyway, the rewards are only 1 of a few other basic problems with the algorithms. They all need to be tweaked so they all work together, right now content isn't curated properly, people don't get penalized for curating improperly (upvoting bad content, downvoting good content and sheep behavior for example), the reputation system is just a popularity system and it makes very little sense to allow voting from the first second of publication without giving the curators the opportunity to read the content at their own speed.
great concerns Calamus! I'm with you. One question though, how exactly would one "penalize for curating improperly"...seems like it would be a tricky thing to implement. If you upvote someone that doesn't reach a certain threshold of additional upvotes, then it's judged to be 'bad content'?
If upvotes are the mechanism through which we can algorithmically judge the 'quality' of content, how does one measure good or bad quality in any other way? Seems like a good problem to me. Also... I think there's a real question at hand here...If there is value in upvotes, how can we possibly prevent people from acting as dollar maximizers? I'm not sure we can. Ultimately, we all have some aspect of power from our own votes and words...