You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Introducing FlagTrail - Steemauto for Flagging Abuse
Thank you for your contribution. It will be really helpful for the communities to counter the abuse. The code looks great as usual and would love to see it improve as going forward.
Your contribution has been evaluated according to Utopian policies and guidelines, as well as a predefined set of questions pertaining to the category.
To view those questions and the relevant answers related to your post, click here.
Need help? Write a ticket on https://support.utopian.io/.
Chat with us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]
If u donno how to review, then stop doing it. Or u r just doing it for those rewards.
I noticed most of the time you are reviewing this guy's contribution and always giving an inappropriate low score. Tell me the fucking reason.
I know how to do my job, and have you seen the answers given, if not then instead of commenting here go and check. If a contributor wants to know the reason can ask.
You're a moderator and find this review to be sorely lacking. You mention loving to see it improve but without any specifics? How would you like to see it improve? Is that not the job of a moderator.
If you are going to score something, at least give the courtesy of how @reazuliqbal could have done better.
It would be a crying shame if this post pays out without a vote while your mediocre review receives more STU.
I firmly disagree with your review. This doesn't just add "some value" to the ecosystem.
Toxicity Edited Out
Hello @imacryptorick. The contribution may have been overlooked as clearly there was demand for it and it has been upvoted right now. This doesn't justify such approach and such bad words used in this comment. I completely disagree with the language used here and the behaviour against the moderator who has been warned to provide more info next time as soon as the issue was brought up. Please refrain from using this approach in the future. Thanks
I very much agree that the tonality and use of words from @imacryptorick was very out of line. But as I know him, he's very passionate about Steem and as an investor of course also interested in the success of Steem. And since utopian-io is such an important part of the Steem ecosystem, I'm pretty sure that's why he got so emotional.
Now with that said, I do think this problem is not only about this specific post & review, but a general one. When reviewers have between 1/4 and 3/4 of the rewards the reviewed post received, meaning actually the written code gets, then depending on the amount of code written, this could be quite unfair.
How long does it take to review the code of this post? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? Probably 5 or 10 minutes, but since there is no proof the moderator actually looked at it for so long, with 2 lines of commentary, I'd say that the spend time for writing the code and creating the post takes much more than that.
Now, I do want to say that I'm grateful for the system in place and that the current rewards are better than nothing, but when the actual reviews are so highly overvalued and based on so many soft-factors, I can understand when people get frustrated - including myself:
https://steemit.com/steemapps/@therealwolf/re-helo-re-therealwolf-the-final-update-for-steem-apps-in-2018-update-3-20181231t233552910z
Please take this comment as constructive feedback, because I love what you're doing @elear and I'm sure Utopian 2.0 will be amazing - however, many developers, including myself don't feel valued enough and I simply want to shine a light on that.
Possible solutions would be to reduce weight of soft-factors and add another factor if it's relevant/valuable for the Steem ecosystem.
The reward given for a review is not in their control, so it's not really fair to criticise them for that. Also, what do you mean by soft-factors? I'm assuming you are talking about the comments and commit messages questions? If so, then they already have a really low weight, and the most emphasis is put on the amount of work, significance / impact of the update on the project and the quality of the code.
As for the quality of the review comment. We used to justify every single decision we made, e.g. about the quality of the code and give examples on how it could be improved, but some people got really offended by this and complained. Because of this we have been trying to find a middle ground, which we are obviously still searching for as you can see. While I agree that @codingdefined could've maybe added a bit more justification for the given score, the contributor could've also simply asked him to expand on it. Instead we got this shit storm, which really doesn't benefit anyone to be honest.
The reason I overreacted is because abuse has the largest impact on
1: STEEM price.
2: our ability to retain users.
3: fair rewards, and the general lack of proof-of-brain on the platform.
Any abuse curbing effort is like a blood transfusion to a fatal car accident survivor. It's something that every STEEM hodler should enthusiastically support.
Proof-of-brain can't exist alongside rampant abuse. And with rampant abuse Steem doesn't even deserve to be even #51 on coinmarketcap.
What this mod did is like igniting a rain forest on fire when the poles are about to melt.
Even if it was not intentional, its a terrible thing to do, and I still would've downvoted his comment, because denying an extremely important, utopian guidelines abiding, open source project for the Steem ecosystem is not something anyone one of us should want.
Since he received feedback, and I hope that he'll be able to do his job properly from now on, I'm removing my downvote.
I just want to see this ecosystem prosper. Even if that means I need not to be nice sometimes.
@elear
While I agree that @codingdefined could've maybe added a bit more justification for the given score, the contributor could've also simply asked him to expand on it. I'm 100% sure that wouldn't have been a problem. If the contributor still disagreed with the review, he could've even asked for another person to review it. Instead you all came in here like a mob and insulted him, so I would suggest you take a long look in the mirror and reflect on that.
He also didn't "deny" anything, he simply assigned a score, and the way the utopian-io bot works is that it prioritises contributions with the highest scores first.
That basically means, if a contribution gets a somewhat lower than average score, and a lot of other contributions get an exceptionally high score , the lower scored contribution can get 0.00$ rewards from utopian, if it won't reach its place in the queue before the 7 day mark.
Isn't it a serious bug in the system? Some can put a decent amount of work into a contribution, even if the medium\below average score is justified, it still would mean that those users ge a 🖕big from @utopian-io, because higher scored contributions were prioritized up to the point where the payment window for the lower scored contribution is shut forever.
I don't know whether its obvious or not, but under those circumstances, a user who isn't sure that they'll get a high score in the review, will risk putting all that work without getting the expected reward. Some might contribute regardless, meaning they would contribute even if utopian didn't exist.
But some are doing it, at least partially, for the 30$-70$ reward (or whatever the range is for rewards is these days), those users might choose to do something more financially productive, like adding more shifts to their day-job, or just enjoy their free time playing the Xbox or something, if they feel that the game is rigged (or just simply to unpredictable) they won't participate, and the whole Steem ecosystem loses.
Also, some may disagree with me, but in business, certainty is one the most important a start-up should offer. Right after having a viable product.
I hope utopian can address that, so users won't have to feel like they're gambling when contributing, and may have a fair knowledge about what they're about to earn as long as they follow the rules.
It has been said many times that upvotes from Utopian aren't guaranteed. As @knowledges has already mentioned the idea behind Utopian is incentivising people to contribute to open source projects, which thousands of people already do without receiving any kind of compensation. People shouldn't be contributing / creating an open source because they think they will receive a reward by submitting it to Utopian. I feel like you are completing missing this point and are seeing it as some kind of compensation towards the contributor, which it was never meant to be.
Either way you think about it, it's still impossible to reward everyone (especially with the current price of Steem). Because of this @elear decided to split the reward pool amongst categories (so each contribution is only competing with contributions in the same category) and prioritise contributions with a high score (which generally means a quality contribution). This way it is made sure that at least the best of the best is rewarded, and the others still have a chance of being rewarded.
As for your concerns whether or not people will use Utopian when the next version comes out if the bot keeps this behaviour (which I disagree with): I have complete confidence that @elear knows what he is doing, and I'm sure he has plenty of great ideas to keep users interested, like the new bounty system they are implementing.
I'm not going to discuss utopian's future plans and their viability over Steempeak comments.
^100% this. I hate feeling like I'm gambling when I pour my heart, soul and most importantly my valuable time into a post.
My day job pays me well enough and I could just be focusing on that instead of dealing with hypercritical mods.
Some may have awesome tech skills but doesn't mean they are competent at properly appraising the value of a contribution to our chain, first and foremost, and then the open source ecosystem in a broader sense.
I got un-voted by one of their higher ups which I suspect was due to a damn typo even though I did work and spent time investigating in a bug-hunting contribution which revealed a certain plug-in was finally disabled on the StINC API nodes. I knew it was coming but I learned it finally happened while putting time into troubleshooting the flag rewards bot.
That node is still a default node in Beem so maybe others would run into the same issue and would follow the trail after searching for the error and details I recorded on the blockchain. It could be helpful to someone.
I'm not asking them for participation trophies but if that higher-ups unvote was due to my typo it kind of says something about how exceedingly critical some of them are.
P.S. I know Utopian votes aren't guaranteed but damn the splitting of hairs and throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That shit has got to stop. /rant
One of the main goal of the open source world is to give project users the chance to contribute to the project they love. Even before the birth of Utopian.io, open source exists and people have been contributing to it free without prioritising the "reward." Although the reward sometimes motivate people to contribute to one's project. Utopian serve as a gate way to empower (not "pay") these contributors by rewarding them for their quality effort. If you truely love and appreciate the term open source, you would not even care about the reward. I understand that utopian reward is one of the key factor that motivates some users to contribute but we've mentioned it many times that these rewards are not guaranteed. There wont be hard feelings if the reason why you contribute is not soley tied to the reward.
I suggest saying 'Rewards are guaranteed for most of good contributions' instead!
why we are delegating sp to the utopian? we want to reward contributors
Then it seems the "rewards aren't guaranteed" policy isn't broadcasted enough.
Users who assume they'll receive them, even if they would've contributed regardless will feel cheated.
It's not a good feeling to have if you want them using utopian V2.
It's actually a terrible policy to have if you want them to use Utopian V2.
I hope you change it, because it seriously lowers your chances of becoming profitable.
Thank you for your review, @codingdefined! Keep up the good work!