Thoughts on Autovoting
Please do not upvote this post. This is a test to see how many votes I can receive from bots.
Autovoting is the process of upvoting content based solely on the author or other voters. Statistically good posters will continue to produce good content and the best way to get a cut of it is to vote for them "sight unseen". If it turns out the content is rubbish, then you can remove your vote or downvote them later.
This process can create a self fulfilling prophesy. Everyone piles on the upvote bandwagon because there is a high probability that everyone else will pile on. This type of behavior can undermine the curation system while simultaneously discouraging outsiders.
More on this later... I don't want to add content worth voting up.
This is just another proof about how the majority of people that should help the most on finding orignal content and curate posts are actually inclined only to maximize their curation rewards no matter what and without taking the time to actually read and evaluate the content. (I am talking about whales and even witnesses-whales)
Some people seems to not understand that the best thing for the growth of this platform is not about bring in new users from reddit/twitter/whatever and then show them how basically all the rewards end up in whales and other 5ish persons'pocket, but instead to bring some new users and show them how their original content are appreciated and rewarded by the community.
Sadly this seems to be a selfish game for some, fortunatelly not too difficult to fix.
The first step could probably be to stop using the auto-vote-bot and instead, if you really want to have an advantage to find new good and original posts, use a notification-bot, then go to actually read the notificated post, without forgetting about all the other original-content-creators that are not in your magic list of notifications.
I am using Clayop's notification bot (telegram) and in the last 20 minutes you have caused 49 alerts, including a few comments also. this comment will make the 50th alert
This is a responsible way to vote, assuming you actually read the article. Voting on something I asked not to be voted on is either a sign of disrespect or an indication that despite your manual intervention you were behaving with the intellect of a bot.
Either way this post shows how the existing rules can be bent and may need to be tweaked to discourage this behavior.
I definitely did not mean any disrespect; your request was to not upvote the post so you could judge the autobot's. i figured down voting is not going to be the action of a bot and made my manual vote known in that method; if you had mentioned to not vote on the post at all then i would have respected your wishes and abstained and just left a comment instead.
Apologies if i have screwed up your calculation; it was not my intent
I didn't take it as disrespect. I should have used general terms rather than referring to you personally. A downvote in this case is the proper "upvote".
This is getting a bit confusing now. Was downboting not wanted? Is that the case?
I'm also using Noteefi to quickly upvoting a post if it is interesting. Nice job @clayop
yeah its a great app, i only monitor a couple of accounts as each time a comment or vote occurs you get a notification; but its great to subscribe to channels so you don't miss things you like
gave you a downvote instead :)
Same here :)
The devs vote primarily for STEEM hype, creating another sort of self fulfilling prophesy, so fix your own behaviors before trying to correct those of others. Look at all the big winners on trending page and you will see the correlation very clearly.
Steem is a big game and the objective is to win in any way possible. If the incentive system is broken, that's not the players' faults. The voting system should be completely blind. I'll make a proposal and we'll see if it gets upvoted.
How do you make it blind? Make it so no one knows how anyone else voted? But it's on the blockchain.
Ring cryptography ?
I describe a system whereby you can have blind voting without ring signatures here.
$666... That can't be a coincidence...
LOL!
Like
xD failure , must be added to remove the vote :P
now they think I'm a bot !! xDD
Adding the ability to change a vote would be a good solution. If your bot voted for something in error, you should be able to change it later.
In that case maybe I should have down voted? But then it's not really in my self interest to do that and I expect even though you say you don't want up votes that you'll get them anyway.
Interesting. I'd like to see the autovoting issue being resolved ASAP