Separate downvoting power pool concept visualized.
I think I was one of the first to bring up this concept to solve the higher cost of negative curation problem Aka. Downvoting/flagging being more expensive than upvotes.
It has since then been discussed a lot as one of the preferred way to achieve more balanced cost between Up and Down-Votes curation so I want to explain visually what I had in mind.
Reddit is one the most similar website to Steemit and a good example to learn from. A Study made on Reddit voting behaviors showed that about 10% of all votes were downvotes. Since Reddit has no direct monetary incentives and that the up and downvotes are anonymized it is good starting point for choosing a UP:DOWN ratio. In that case 9:1 resulting in 10 independent flagging pool)
Starting from an example of a user with 94.6% of his voting power left.
(check yours at https://steemd.com/@USERNAME)
Same original situation under the new proposed system
...
...
then
A future upgrade could allow for delegating the voting pools independently. So users who do not want to downvote could decide to delegate their "downpower" to one of the more organized initiatives like @Steemcleaners
Is this really a valid assumption? Using data from a non-monetized and anonymous platform as a model of what to do on a monetized not-anonymous platform seems like a leap of faith.
Having more flags would automatically take attention away from the few who do, making flagging more anonymized. Since most people think flagging take away money instead of redistributing it's better to rely on a system with no monetization to see what a normal behavior is.
9:1 is a suggestion 1:20 could be used at first.
Explanation for high upvote
The fact that it´d cost less to flag could very well be a reason for many users to make use of it more often, which again would decrease the fear among Minnows & Dolphins as well to flag bigger accounts with crappy content.
The Downside could be though that we´ll see new flag wars being started which could reach epic proportions due to the cheaper availability. So I think it´s a good idea in general but shouldn´t lead to very low costs of flagging after all. A higher ratio might therefore be the better choice to go with in the beginning.
Amazing Idea of the post
Very good excilent information for us
Plz check my post
https://steemit.com/photography/@hkniazi/i-am-visiting-international-restaurant-kashmir-hotel-and-restaurant-a4f6ed7d0497d
There are for sure some necessary changes of the current flag system. I have flagged the posts of @steem-network for example with all my voting power (over 20 flags for their spam comments and posts) and of course it would be much profitable for me not to fight spam and actually uovote something (not even my posts) and earn some good curation rewards. I guess in this way people will be encouraged to fight spam and junk content more often than they currently do.
but i think we should clean spam and junk. because they are changes steemit sestem. every steemit user should learn about steem. but i want tell it that transisto isone of the best worker for steem. he want to support that steem worker who wanna work on steem with steemit system. i think before few days he posted like that.
Do you want to get rewarded for good flags? I got something for you. I think this project has massive potential to help promote policing of the blockchain. Your feedback would be appreciated.
https://steemit.com/flagging/@steemflagrewards/steem-flag-rewards-progress-report
Sorry for piggybacking but I do feel that this is relevant to the problem you stated. I want to make it more profitable for you to fight spam. :)
I like the unique concept and thought process! My concern with this model is don't you think it might lead to increased incentive to downvote? It seems like maybe having a designated downvote pool might lead people to feel obligated to use them up. Right now I kind of like that every downvote = potential money lost for the downvoter. That seems really interesting to me.
More downvote is the main purpose. Nobody is upset at having 50 thumbs down on his youtube video when it also gets 500 thumbsup. And this is the most sane and efficient way to curate.
Explanation for high upvote
I love you too much
But doesn't it also make it easier for those with that choose to abuse their power, to do just that. As you said, no big deal for 50 down with 500 up, if they are each costing you the exact same amount. But if 400 of that 500 have almost no power, and just a few of those 50 have a lot of power, making it quicker for them to power back up and repeat the process doesn't seem like a good idea. Makes it too easy for vigilante groups to go after even more people.
Wow! I hadn't considered that... Super interesting!
Agreed, people may downvote more if they can, but I am ok with that. It is like basketball with offense and defense. I don't like it when somebody blocks my shot in basketball. That is like a downvote. Maybe, I'll try to jump higher next time.
Yes that is the best !
Good idea but maybe down vote power should not grow at 20% per day.
It would grow at the same pace as the voting power but would have the ability to deplete 10 times faster. (The first SP to go down when flagging.)
Explanation for high upvote : https://steemit.com/steem/@transisto/temporarily-pausing-my-anti-abuse-efforts-while-sbd-is-off-the-chart
I love you too much
Also somehow if the system could factor in voter reputation while calculating payouts it will level out the field a little bit more.
That may work. I don't downvote but if that helps weed out spam and trolls and if that encourages people to make better content and stuff, then maybe we should try this.
I will agree with you @hackerwhacker
Agreed, perhaps, it may be better to separate the upvoting and downvoting pools, and Steemians can vote on that, discuss on that, and it may help to an extent, but will that lead to Steem Utopia? Can a website be perfect even as people are not perfect, equal, or the same? Negativity is something people focus on even as they love better things more or so they say. Some people will choose to downvote a lot more. And capitalism is not equal. Some will do very well and some will not. Trying to level the playing field is something Obama did or tried to do. That is socialism, communism. If something is very popular, then that will get a lot of upvotes. And some things will get a lot of downvotes. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I do not want to lessen the lost any more than I would want to reduce the win. Maybe, I will win big and maybe I will lose big. I accept those risks and that is life and that is what I like about life and everything. Oatmeal.
I m backing you in this regard because all the fingers are not the same... negativity is all over .. some body can misuse it .
Yeah like right now, my REP went 57 to 55 today and ohhhhhh nooooo because I was ohhhhh too friendly and that is illegal I guess.
I know flagging is pretty intense as an issue, but I think having two pools can help empower flagging abuse.
I think people perceive most flagging as abuse because only largest and enlightened stakeholder have seen the incentive to fight self-vote abuse by flagging. These people have a limited amount of time and attention to police the whole system fairly and evenly and I'm sure most would prefer not have to do that.
Explanation for high upvote
I kissed you too much
That is a sensational idea.
The present drawback to the system is that downvotes zap your VP the same as upvotes. Since people are limited to 10 per day at 100%, the incentive is not there to assisting in the policing of the site. This is especially true for the more active poster and upvoters. VP gets whittled down quickly.
If I am reading your chart correctly, each person would get 5 downvotes...would they be at 100% power or is that 5 at a reduced amount?
If someone doesn't downvote anything for 5 days his DVP (downvote power) would for sure be at 100%, 5 downvotes at 100% strength later and his DVP would be at 0% but VP (Voting power) completely unaffected.
Explanation for high upvote
I am very impressed your all post
So, if I follow along, under this system, one is basically given 1 downvote a day at 100% strength before eating into the next day's downvoting power....
Which brings up the question does one still have the ability to adjust the voting weight AND does the downvote (100% let's say) carry the same $ amount as the upvote (if a 100% upvote is worth $10 then a 100% downvote is the same)?
Upvote and downvote are represented at + 100.00 or -100.00 at the blockchain level. So you can lookup the resulting vote % to answer your question.
I'll come up with an alternative way to calculate it so a 100% flag at 100% take the same amount of rshare as a 100% upvote gives.
Explanation for high upvote
How would this work with all the bots?
You'd be more likely to see bots selling flags.
Explanation for high upvote
I think there are already a few doing that!
There are none that are being used. because there is no way to make any money out of it.
Explanation for high upvote
Interesting idea, and one that I could definitely get behind. It would certainly solve a large portion of the grief currently going on within the platform. I feel like people will say that 10% flagging power is too little though. At the same time, other people will not appreciate their upvote being diminished by 10% due to the forced delegation to flagging power.
Perhaps like you said, there could be a slider, where you can choose to delegate between 0% to 20% of your power to flagging, or something along those lines. It will certainly limit the flags so that they aren't excessive, while at the same time allowing those who only want to spend their power on upvoting content to do so without having to divert some of their voting power elsewhere.
Upvote power would not be diminished, if everyone has the same ratio everyone's power is the same. It just become more efficient for people to curate if they down-vote about once every 10 up-votes.
Explanation for high upvote
Ok, please bear with me while I run a couple scenarios by you to try and understand a bit better.
So let's say at the moment Person A had the ability to upvote a post $1 at 100% upvote power. When implementing the 90/10 upvote/downvote ratio, will they maintain that $1 upvote power and have a $0.10 downvote power? Or will they now have a $0.90 upvote power and a $0.10 downvote power?
The other way I could have understood it would be like this:
Person B has the ability to upvote a post $1 at 100% upvote power. After implementing the 90/10 change, they still have the ability to upvote a post $1 at their max voting power, but they will now run out of voting power 5 votes sooner (90% becomes the "new 100%"). Likewise, they can downvote $1 at max downvote power, but this diminishes rapidly as each vote would take away 20% of their flagging power.
If one of these is what you were talking about, please confirm. If I am completely mistaken in my understanding, please let me know that as well.
More options are better. That is what I liked about MySpace.
Delegating downvotes would allow a few “famous” Steem users to consolidate even more power. I’ve had downvote bots target one of my comments and it’s a hole only the most powerful users could dig themselves out of. Making downvoting easier/more powerful would lead to more downvoting and further make arguing with certain users an impossibility.