SteemWorld Update / New Tool Available / Abuse Finder
There is a new tool called 'Abuse Finder' to be found in the Homescreen on SteemWorld (also directly reachable via steemworld.org/abuse-finder).
The tool is partially still in development (especially the downvote features), but it can already be used to detect potential rewardpool abusers. The default values in the search criteria form may change in future and, of course, the found accounts in the summary list may not always only show real abusers.
Nobody should be downvoted blindly based on the results of this tool and I encourage everyone to check the abuser's posts first.
Content Type defines if the tool should search for comments or root posts.
Number Of Posts To Check defines the number of posts to be checked (ordered by payout amount descending). Currently 1000 seems to work good for both comments and root posts.
Total Payout Threshold defines how high the total pending payout of all active posts (per author) needs to be to add the author to the Potential Abusers list. Current default value for comments is 25 and for root posts 250. These settings will not always work perfectly and need to be changed from time to time.
By clicking on Find Abusers the tool begins to search for posts and filter the found results based on the given search criteria. A table with the detected Potential Abusers will be displayed.
Current results for comments:
Current results for root posts:
Below the Potential Abusers list there will be a table with all found posts (ordered by payout amount descending) displayed:
Downvoting posts directly in the tool is not implemented yet (buttons are disabled), but I'm working on it ;)
Have fun and Steem on!
If you like what I do and you want me to be your Steem witness,
please vote for @steemchiller on steemit.com/~witnesses or steemworld.org/witnesses.
This is a very good system.
Some users are using STEEMIT to mining STEEM.
I think this is a big problem and must be solved.
It would be best if the community could solve this problem, but there is a limit due to the high Steempower of users doing abusing.
I hope Steemit sees and solves this problem.
The abusers list already changed hugely in the last few days (total payouts were much higher in some cases), because there are already a few whales like @bullionstackers, @steemzzang, @donekim, @virus707, @cjsdns, @photoholic, @steem-agora and more working hard on decreasing the abusers payouts with downvotes.
People who don't like downvotes must know that their own payouts will automatically go up when the abusers payouts go down, because that's how Steem's rewardpool works.
Together we will make it ;)
Exactly! I always try to explain that ...
@jaki01 @steemchiller
I am agree 100% with this things. But I don't agree the concept of free downvotes or say there should not be different voting power for upvote and downvote. The voting power should be same, wherever you want use it, if you like use as upvote or downvote. Not agree with individual voting power concept, which is currently running in our system.
We already agreed to disagree concerning that. And that's fine. I won't downvote you (or anybody else) for disagreement on opinion. :-)
I repeat my point of view for the other readers: if downvotes 'cost' too much, people will ask themselves "Why should I pay to downvote spam/plagiarism/farming while others are busy earning money?" :)
Yes, we both understand the things.
First things is, No one is paying for downvotes in both condition. It is that not earning, which they can earn.
If we have given power to others without their some loss, they will use that power in wrong things also. If they have to fear of loose something then they care about the power, when they use it. They use it when necessary (no other way is there).
That is difference in free and having some charge. Free things they use without concern about that.
Unfortunatelly @mehta - the end result would be that hardly anyone would downvote any content. That's simple as that.
@crypto.piotr
That is not possible because i received many downvotes at the time when no free downvotes are there. And many more downvoting accounts are their like steemcleaner etc at that time.
If committee will be their to take care of flag complaint, it will worked where actually it require.
Why should I flag a plagiarist spending my own voting power while for example you use your voting power to earn curation reward?
Look, nobody would do anything against abuse in this scenario (which we had before on STEEM).
Your concern is that aggressive whales may flag more if flags are 'free'. Therefore I suggested the implementation of an elected committee to counter abusive flags.
I like the your post regarding downvote link given in above comment.
But i again say that you can think it other way. Make a committee of respected users elected by community and equipped with sufficient SP to flag the post those are abusing (milking/farming purposes) the system. Not for as you mentioned.
Keep the one voting power for upvote/downvote and if any steemians feels that someone is abusing the system then inform to committee and committee analysis and take decision and according to decision they can downvote that user posts/comments.
Think it other way. Why everyone downvote, when we can have a committee for it.
In your suggestion first everyone downvotes others and then committee will correct. It means first we do wrong thing then we correct.
In my suggestion in first time we do correct thing.
hi @jaki01
Very good point.
What would you say about an idea to build some blacklist and ensure that users who would end up on this blacklist wouldn't be able to upvote (their upvote wouldn't provide any rewards and it's value would be zero).
That would obviously have to be programmed by STINC, who would have to adjust their API.
Yours, Piotr
I think I would prefer to counter upvotes respectively flags of these accounts automatically to neutralize them.
Then no intervention on blockchain level would be necessary, and the decision could be easily reversed again.
hi @mehta
What would you say about an idea to build some blacklist and ensure that users who would end up on this blacklist wouldn't be able to upvote (their upvote wouldn't provide any rewards and it's value would be zero).
That would obviously have to be programmed by STINC, who would have to adjust their API.
Yours, Piotr
Hello @crypto.piotr
Where i said this? I don't want any blacklist and also don't want to upvote value zero for that type of account. I never says that. I don't understand from where you conclude this.
I just say that voting power should be same for upvote/downvote, No different voting power for upvote and downvote. It means no free downvotes, like we have earlier.
Sorry for such a late reply
I'm confused. I asked about your opinion on that idea. I didn't say that "you said it".
Yours, Piotr
Our team doesn't have enough SP, but we support it with Korean Witness.
The SP of Korea Community is not enough to solve all the abusing.
More people need to participate in Downvote or Steemit's help.
Many people are negative about Downvote. I don't think it's a good system either.
However, we need a replaceable system to remove Downvote.
I'm very perplexed about why the korean community would downvote at all. My impression was that the proxy.token was representative for a large portion of the Korean community and they pushed hard to eliminate downvoting. So I would have expected them to shun such an action.
Maybe I was mistaken and proxy.token doesn't represent as much of the Korean community as I thought. Or maybe they just changed their mind. Or maybe this bunch of witnesses is the same as the old bunch of witnesses. They seem to be doing the same things (freezing accounts, frequently trending posts, trying to help clean up the place, etc.). Only time will tell, but up to this point, history seems to be repeating itself.
There is a difference between real authors and people who just post senseless comments to upvote them and sell the rewards on external markets. Most people don't like to downvote normal content and I still believe that, once the current storms are over, we won't need free downvotes anymore.
Maybe we can create a community account for fighting abuse in future, which does not belong to one person/group and can only downvote based on fixed consensus rules. The majority of stakeholders would need to agree, before the account is able to start downvoting an author. Maybe an account that can not be powered down like the @steem.dao account. It could even be paid (directly powered up) by the SPS.
Dear @steemchiller
Well, in that case why wouldn't we convince STINC to allow to blacklist particular users from being able to receive curation rewards - also based on fixed consensus rules.
I think that would be the best solution. We cannot keep downvoting same people hoping that they will not get bored abusing the pool. We would end up getting bored and tired of it first.
Cheers, Piotr
Our team and several Witness keep thinking about how to solve this.
Our team agrees with the blacklist system and believes that a community voting system like SPS is needed.
Sorry for such a late reply. I only had a chance to read your comment a moment ago
Thx for your comment. I love to see how responsive you are :))
Downvote reduces rewards, which can be confusing if someone don't understand the system.
This is a negative factor in using Steemit.
Steemit is not just for those who understand blockchain. So our team thinks we need a different solution.
Here are some interesting thoughts on the topic by @remlaps:
https://steemit.com/hive-101145/@remlaps/re-steemchiller-q91w4e
As I wrote recently:
If interested you may read my post about the downvote topic.
thx for sharing, will check it out right away
hi @roadofrich, @moeknows
I agree with you. Perhaps you could check my comment to @jaki01 (I don't want to copy+paste it to many times) in this topic.
Yours, Piotr
Are those users organized and working together @steemchiller?
What the h... - wow!
This is a very useful and at the same time quite powerful tool. Thank you!
Very useful tool!
Yes, definitely very useful tools. @steemchiller making very useful tools every time. Love the steemworld.org
steemd.com has a handy list of abusers. Seems you're #1 on it though, why's that?
I want to be able to recommend Steem with a clear conscience, I wrote that in my February post Steem - ein Loch ist im Eimer.
The Abuse Finder is a great step in this direction!
Gut gemacht. Dieses Tool hätte ich gern schon vor gut einem Jahr gebrauchen können.
Erstaunlich welche Accounts dort an der Spitze stehen. Einige haben vor gar nicht all zu langer Zeit, sowas verabscheut und bekämpft.
Soll man diese Doppelmoral gut heißen und auf der einen Blockchain farmen und auf der Anderen gegen dieses vorgehen?
Ist es auf einer kaputten zentralen Plattform legetim und auf der anderen Schwester-Blockchain zu verpönen?
Sollte man solchen Witnesses noch vertrauen können, nur weil sie uns versichern es auf Hive nicht zu tun?
Ist mir Scheißegal welche Konsequenzen es für mich hat, ich werde meine Schlüsse daraus ziehen und dementsprechend handeln.
Meine Antworten auf deine (rhetorischen?) Fragen:
Und ich weiß nicht, ob allen "Rächern" klar ist, was ich ganz am Anfang einem eher kleinen "Melker" sagte: Sie nehmen ihren Namen mit! Das Verhalten bleibt immer im Hinterkopf hängen.
Daraus habe ich bereits Schlüsse samt Konsequenzen gezogen. Und das fühlt sich gut für mich an. Dass es vermutlich niemanden schert, ist auch mir egal.
I thought Justin wanted to remove downvotes. Isn't that part of the plan?
Justin doesn't care. It is the people who are now downvoting who wanted to remove them. The irony is real.
https://steemit.com/@steemchiller/q96f7s
$82.93 seems low to be #1.
https://steemit.com/payout
Interesting. Thanks for mentioning this! I will try to find out why there are not all posts from trending being included.
Why is no one downvoting haejin?
I guess, because he is not powering down. There are people in the list who are just here for milking the system and selling their earned STEEM afterwards on external markets. Those are the first ones that need to be cared about.
I guess because of fear of retaliation! He is without any doubt one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) abuser of the platform.
In my opinion, you have both a valid point.
That's one of the reasons why we launched an initiative that you can found here.
Having an independent entity that focuses solely on tackling abuse is something that we should really be thinking about.
I like your idea.
In my opinion, in addition there has also to be done anything against personal 'flag wars', otherwise you won't be able to convince people who fear these kinds of flags. In the past many users have left STEEM because they were harassed by certain whales. You already know my idea of implementing a committee.
If your "independent entity" could solve that problem, too, I would be even happier. :)
Definitely, a committee is really necessary. What I like about having an Independent entity to fight abuse is that it will operate and act as a [Nuclear Deterrent Mechanism].
People with power will be more inclined to move on and avoid abusing their power.
What if the entity starts abusing its power? It will be pointless, the account Will have a lot of limitations, and the community will have the final decision on whether the account should be terminated or not.
Sure, why not ... however, there could also be guidelines / rules / limitations for a 'committee account'.
I wish it would be possible to DELEGATE downvoting resource credits.
Let's say that I would be willing to downvote some abusers, but I would be worried to get hurt. I could delegate my downvoting power to someone larger (like yourself) knowing that you will take that risk on your shoulders.
Cheers
I remember that several delegators got hit before just because they delegated SP to curation projects that fought abuse.
I was thinking about doing such a thing with
ecosynthesizer. To use the SP of users to fight abuse, along with providing a passive income to our delegators, and curation.It is a risk that I may take since the current situation is truly alarming. We hope to receive more support for our project [Steem Sentinel], but in the meantime, we must do what we can with what we have right now.
Sorry for such a late reply. I only had a chance to read your comment a moment ago
Thx for your comment. I love to see how responsive you are :))
An independent entity is only independent until it isn't anymore. This has already been done. It was kind of effective. But I don't think it is the answer.
The idea of [
isn't anymore] should only be based on a community consensus. To mitigate potential abuse by such entity, more measures can be implemented as mentioned here:https://steemit.com/steem/@symbionts/q93b9z
I am gathering more information on this subject from the community, and it would be great if you could share your thoughts on what you think could be the solution.
"intuitive " ?
ps. thx for sharing link to this post. Indeed interesting concept.
You are probably right. People are probably afraid that he will downvote them.
Exactly.
I wouldn't want to start a fight with haejin if you don't have solid SP which would back you up. Simple as that. I've seen him clashing with others and he has some solid resources backing him up.
I manage @project.hope with it's 200k SP, however I would still be worried to downvote this user.
You nailed it. I wonder if anyone would ever stand against him since old witnesses are gone. They surely didn't like this user.
In this case a user elected committee, backed by STEEM power from Steemit, Inc. might be a possible solution.
What's wrong with that? It's their steem to do as they want no?
Hi @d0zer
It's quite simple. You don't want to start a fight with haejin if you don't have solid SP which would back you up. Simple as that. I've seen him clashing with others and he has some solid resources backing him up.
Crystalliu just keeps abusing Steem. Lol
Good point! Such cases won't be detected by this tool. I will think about a solution. We will need an overview that shows all accounts ordered by posting frequency descending.