😂 very good point @gtg Why post something that you don't believe be good content. Thing is a lot of people don't think its good content and just want the rewards... If you take some of the rewards out of it, as discussed with many, would be both negative and positive. True content quality control can't come from the one creating the content. At the same time this is negative in some respect that people with good content, don't get rewarded, even if they have invested real money. This can deter a lot of good people, no good return on investment will force some people to sell STEEM.. there are truly many ways this could go. I do feel giving back as much as you receive is a good start.
The most recent post by @berniesanders shows some of the abuse of delegated power being used for circle jerk upvotes... even in the comments they have vote trails with a zillion accounts upvoting them.
I read a while back that HF20 was going to address the added-value issue on new accounts to remove the incentive to create a million accounts just to drain the pool using the initial delegated SP we all get. Is that true? It seems like that would stop the wave of spam accounts coming on and starting up these vote circles.
I was also thinking that to find a middle ground on voting, maybe something along the lines of curbing (but not eliminating ) self voting will help. You can 100% upvote on your own posts (not comments) until you hit the "vote slider" threshold, then from that point on your self vote is curbed to 50%. Comments your own and others, all comments, have a max limit of 10 or 20%, something that puts comments in proportion to the author's main post content.
Sure you will have the vote trail armies on comments - BUT - it they are redistricted a lower % it becomes less worth the effort, and secondly - it makes it easier and less wasteful of vote power for those who try so hard to flag/downvote blatant spam posts to take down those accounts. (in theory)
Would anything like that help long term? or am I way off on it all?
You have some good thoughts and have obviously thought about this for some time so thank you for your input. Its definitely interesting concept but I'm just not sure complicating the voting system to this extreme would be beneficial to the community right now. Some have thought to just simply illuminate the self vote on comments all together which is simple enough. Use of voting power is another which Im sure I'm not the first to think up. Each self-vote would drain more Voting Power.. this however wouldn't lead to more votes for others but essentially less if the usr decided to self up vote anyway.
While I agree that it makes sense under the current system, this isn't really a working argument to keep it and it also doesn't adress any of the issues.
While I agree with you @gtg, but perhaps there should be a self voting limit ($30 or so per post) once you reach certain amount of none delegated SP. For example, what's stopping Ned making a post every 5hrs and self voting for $500 each time?
Sake of the platform. Biggest stakeholders have most to lose, if they would be too greedy milking the reward pool, then their stake would lose its value.
And I agree you can self-vote yourself in order for others to know you love your work and that want to share it , helping with visibility and hopefully others will up vote you. I don't want to take away the self-vote but more modify it.
It's one thing to upvote you own content manually but to set bots to upvote your own content, that is greedy and taking an unfair share of the total rewards pool.
To buy your upvotes for your own content, I'm not sure about, but it's your money you are risking....some even don't get a good return...but the businesses runnning the buy your upvote services do I'm sure.
It is mostly whales running those services to 'help' the minnows. Remember they are a business, and the aim of businesses is to profit.
Right on point. That's why you created your content in the first place, because you love the idea & has the desire to make that post. Self-voting basically means you are happy & satisfied on what you have done. :)
Thats all fine and good, you write some good content in your eyes you self vote, most of the time this is without issue , and at 7% not taking much from the overall reward pool. My self up vote isn't even worth that much at $3 or so as well. Im not disagreeing with all of these statements, I was more talking about gaming the system, a potential fully self centered community, very large accounts trending content at will with massive self votes, spam and other negative aspects. I just think a community where people would rather use their VP to reward others for content which would intern reward you.
That's the reason why i don't take a peek at the trending posts nowadays. It's same old, same old. High reputation & buffed up accounts not only self-voting, but voting each other, like a ping-pong game, with us minnows spectating. ;)
Oh thank you for mentioning that. Even though one of my posts made it to trending, I think its a feature steemit could live withot... actually, I think its another thing that encourages behavior not so good for the community.
You seem to have a problem with "high reputation and buffed up accounts", or more clearly the people behind those high reputation, buffed up account, and their "self voting" and "voting each other". First it's self voting and there is abusive self voting, like the "I believe my content is my own (do you believe, or do you know?) so I upvote because if I don't it means others won't like it".
I doubt many would agree with self voting and abusive self voting are the same thing. I doubt that the trending page has people self voting abusively, I doubt it's abusive first and foremost because it's brought forth with the "circle jerk voting", and I still haven't seen abusive self voting AND circle jerk voting AND high reputation accounts. So the problem with you have isn't with trending but with WHO is in trending.
I don't think I addressed that, I simply said I disagree, and you told me good for me, as if I referred to you or your comment/gripes with the community. Good for you, that you don't go into trending.
It seems that the 'trending' posts tag category is so full of whale upvoted posts mostly actually trash now, that I don't bother checking that tag anymore. If more of us just checked our feed and 'new' or 'created' we could find more worthy content to upvote and/or resteem.
If you don't believe in the content you are posting, why post it at all? Can someone belief in the quality of their work be defined by the amount they reward themselves, I don't think so.
My reply was to tumutanzi. I remembered him posting about it the other day so I looked through his post but couldn't find it. So I googled, "tumutanzi @ned 500,000 steem" and it turns out the reason I couldn't find the post is because he's replace all the the English with Chinese.
I don't know if that's the case, but voturbation is abhorrent, there's freaking curation rewards, if you have a large account you make decent returns simply from curating, everyone self votes but it seems this douche is a delegated 500k self voter, the worst kind.
So you are saying that you cannot expect others to like them because you believe they are your works and you must voturbate because others won't like them because voturbate becuase believe. Yeah makes sense to me too, now if only everyone was as selfish as you and valued themselves first and foremost on a platofrm designed to reward curation, it would be bye bye curation.
Exactly, if it doesn't deserve your own upvote, then you shouldn't post that in the first place. :-)
😂 very good point @gtg Why post something that you don't believe be good content. Thing is a lot of people don't think its good content and just want the rewards... If you take some of the rewards out of it, as discussed with many, would be both negative and positive. True content quality control can't come from the one creating the content. At the same time this is negative in some respect that people with good content, don't get rewarded, even if they have invested real money. This can deter a lot of good people, no good return on investment will force some people to sell STEEM.. there are truly many ways this could go. I do feel giving back as much as you receive is a good start.
The most recent post by @berniesanders shows some of the abuse of delegated power being used for circle jerk upvotes... even in the comments they have vote trails with a zillion accounts upvoting them.
I read a while back that HF20 was going to address the added-value issue on new accounts to remove the incentive to create a million accounts just to drain the pool using the initial delegated SP we all get. Is that true? It seems like that would stop the wave of spam accounts coming on and starting up these vote circles.
I was also thinking that to find a middle ground on voting, maybe something along the lines of curbing (but not eliminating ) self voting will help. You can 100% upvote on your own posts (not comments) until you hit the "vote slider" threshold, then from that point on your self vote is curbed to 50%. Comments your own and others, all comments, have a max limit of 10 or 20%, something that puts comments in proportion to the author's main post content.
Sure you will have the vote trail armies on comments - BUT - it they are redistricted a lower % it becomes less worth the effort, and secondly - it makes it easier and less wasteful of vote power for those who try so hard to flag/downvote blatant spam posts to take down those accounts. (in theory)
Would anything like that help long term? or am I way off on it all?
You have some good thoughts and have obviously thought about this for some time so thank you for your input. Its definitely interesting concept but I'm just not sure complicating the voting system to this extreme would be beneficial to the community right now. Some have thought to just simply illuminate the self vote on comments all together which is simple enough. Use of voting power is another which Im sure I'm not the first to think up. Each self-vote would drain more Voting Power.. this however wouldn't lead to more votes for others but essentially less if the usr decided to self up vote anyway.
While I agree that it makes sense under the current system, this isn't really a working argument to keep it and it also doesn't adress any of the issues.
voturbate for the like of others, what's not to love.
While I agree with you @gtg, but perhaps there should be a self voting limit ($30 or so per post) once you reach certain amount of none delegated SP. For example, what's stopping Ned making a post every 5hrs and self voting for $500 each time?
Sake of the platform. Biggest stakeholders have most to lose, if they would be too greedy milking the reward pool, then their stake would lose its value.
And I agree you can self-vote yourself in order for others to know you love your work and that want to share it , helping with visibility and hopefully others will up vote you. I don't want to take away the self-vote but more modify it.
It's one thing to upvote you own content manually but to set bots to upvote your own content, that is greedy and taking an unfair share of the total rewards pool.
To buy your upvotes for your own content, I'm not sure about, but it's your money you are risking....some even don't get a good return...but the businesses runnning the buy your upvote services do I'm sure.
It is mostly whales running those services to 'help' the minnows. Remember they are a business, and the aim of businesses is to profit.
Right on point. That's why you created your content in the first place, because you love the idea & has the desire to make that post. Self-voting basically means you are happy & satisfied on what you have done. :)
Thats all fine and good, you write some good content in your eyes you self vote, most of the time this is without issue , and at 7% not taking much from the overall reward pool. My self up vote isn't even worth that much at $3 or so as well. Im not disagreeing with all of these statements, I was more talking about gaming the system, a potential fully self centered community, very large accounts trending content at will with massive self votes, spam and other negative aspects. I just think a community where people would rather use their VP to reward others for content which would intern reward you.
That's the reason why i don't take a peek at the trending posts nowadays. It's same old, same old. High reputation & buffed up accounts not only self-voting, but voting each other, like a ping-pong game, with us minnows spectating. ;)
Oh thank you for mentioning that. Even though one of my posts made it to trending, I think its a feature steemit could live withot... actually, I think its another thing that encourages behavior not so good for the community.
I disagree, overall hot, trending, promoted do their intended functions quite well and hardly need addressing.
If that's what you "see", good for you.
You seem to have a problem with "high reputation and buffed up accounts", or more clearly the people behind those high reputation, buffed up account, and their "self voting" and "voting each other". First it's self voting and there is abusive self voting, like the "I believe my content is my own (do you believe, or do you know?) so I upvote because if I don't it means others won't like it".
I doubt many would agree with self voting and abusive self voting are the same thing. I doubt that the trending page has people self voting abusively, I doubt it's abusive first and foremost because it's brought forth with the "circle jerk voting", and I still haven't seen abusive self voting AND circle jerk voting AND high reputation accounts. So the problem with you have isn't with trending but with WHO is in trending.
I don't think I addressed that, I simply said I disagree, and you told me good for me, as if I referred to you or your comment/gripes with the community. Good for you, that you don't go into trending.
... I guess you don't need to worry about that problem since you don't seek out to see"is this a problem".
It seems that the 'trending' posts tag category is so full of whale upvoted posts mostly actually trash now, that I don't bother checking that tag anymore. If more of us just checked our feed and 'new' or 'created' we could find more worthy content to upvote and/or resteem.
Yeah, great delusional voturbatory argument, you deserve to voturbate.
Exactly, you invest in your own work!
If you don't believe in the content you are posting, why post it at all? Can someone belief in the quality of their work be defined by the amount they reward themselves, I don't think so.
Tell that to the countless people who post shit content. If they had the Steem Power they would reward themselves all the same haha
actually on that second part what exactly do you mean? prob just reading too many comments today but I can read this two ways.
Didn't @ned delegate 500,000 steem to you? And now you're saying you're using that to upvote your own content to give yourself massive rewards?
That's just wrong, man.
Well @gtg has currently (-77,397.267 STEEM) delegated away from his account not 500,000 towards it....
My reply was to tumutanzi. I remembered him posting about it the other day so I looked through his post but couldn't find it. So I googled, "tumutanzi @ned 500,000 steem" and it turns out the reason I couldn't find the post is because he's replace all the the English with Chinese.
Here's the post in question though:
https://steemit.com/cn/@tumutanzi/why-does-ned-delegate-so-much-steem-power-to-tumutanzi-and-thanks-steemit-ned-tumutanzi-400-steem-power
Here's googles cached version:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RiNuZdKan_cJ:https://steemit.com/cn/%40tumutanzi/why-does-ned-delegate-so-much-steem-power-to-tumutanzi-and-thanks-steemit-ned-tumutanzi-400-steem-power+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b
I don't know if that's the case, but voturbation is abhorrent, there's freaking curation rewards, if you have a large account you make decent returns simply from curating, everyone self votes but it seems this douche is a delegated 500k self voter, the worst kind.
It's definitely the case, he posted about it the other day:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RiNuZdKan_cJ:https://steemit.com/cn/%40tumutanzi/why-does-ned-delegate-so-much-steem-power-to-tumutanzi-and-thanks-steemit-ned-tumutanzi-400-steem-power+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b
So you are saying that you cannot expect others to like them because you believe they are your works and you must voturbate because others won't like them because voturbate becuase believe. Yeah makes sense to me too, now if only everyone was as selfish as you and valued themselves first and foremost on a platofrm designed to reward curation, it would be bye bye curation.