There are so many reasons but the bots are not one of my issues. I would like Steemit.com be the focus of the team. That is my main gripe.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There are so many reasons but the bots are not one of my issues. I would like Steemit.com be the focus of the team. That is my main gripe.
I have been writing loads of excellent content for half a year on Steemit and I can't get any decent upvote headway on my articles without using MinnowBooster. The platform is so overloaded with crappy posts and poor segregation of the posts that I don't think people ever find the good content. This is a significant challenge with the platform. Steemit also does not provide a way to differentiate the accounts I follow and make sure my real favorites get identified for valuation to a much greater degree. Some people that I follow are awesome and always do great content that I want to have a special category for. These people are the ones that should get major support. Then there are those that just post BS everyday with no effort put into it whatsoever. This should be flag-able and cause these people to lose value over time.
Without some real incentive changes, the platform is going to get taken over by BS and then it will just be replaced with a new platform at some point. I hope that's not the case, but this is the direction it appears to be going. Proper incentivation rules and capabilities on Steemit is the core of what will make or break this platform since this is how the Proof of Work / Stake is applied to those using it. If this is wrong, the platform will fill up with crap. You'll end up with a Steemit neo-feudalism model instead - basically just big whales and plankton. Sure, this is a bit off topic from the above article, but if you want Steem to be a big boy crypto and the Steemit to blow the doors off Facebook and others, this is what it will take.
From what I read on the intro-FAQ, you can flag posts/comments, and that is equivalent to a downvote.
However, I do think you're onto the problem with your organization comment though. As a brand new user I went through all the tags on the trending/new/hot/promoted and found a few things but nothing overwhelming. (I'm sure it exists---I just couldn't easily find those posts & users).
I wonder if each tag should highlight some high reputation accounts that frequently post to it? Though then you funnel power and attention to a few individuals so that's not so great. Maybe a "classics" category in addition to the trending/new/hot/promoted that highlight "top x of all time"?
However it is technically done, I think the real trick is to create a way to better track and value the people that are consistently good and flag those that are consistently crap. If you can then filter against this by categories that you are interested in, then even better.
Additionally, I find the current rating system insufficient because it is binary and doesn't really encourage downvoting except in case of something egregious. We need a way to identify crap spamming posts that doesn't necessarily take "votes" away but warns people that it has little to no content value.
Lastly, if there was non-binary voting that was a 1-5 vote, you could also set how much value you want to give or vote. This would allow more value provision. Currently you can just set vote percentage if you have enough Steem. Frankly this is just silly because the key thing is to rank value, not just count on numbers of people upvoting it.
I think user rank and the decrease in vote power was supposed to fulfill that function in a mechanical way (without allowing gaming of the system). Somehow, that has either been broken or is not functioning as well as it could.
A possible adjustment along your lines could be a (or 2 kinds of votes) a "standard" upvote (unlimited) and a "money" upvote, of which you get 5 a day, on a recharging basis. (I essentially wonder if people are not voting enough for the curate function to work). This way you get 2 dimensions: popular posts and valuable posts.
I tend not to vote up accounts that don't use real names. That is just how I play.
I'm not sure what that has to do with my points relayed above other than you not upvoting me for retaining my privacy. Did you have other comments relevant to the above that you'd like to contribute?
I hate to pop into this thread just as I’m going to bed, but I’m so relieved to see this kind of critical discussion going on somewhere. I keep oscillating as to how I feel about the content issue, particularly finding it. I’ve been searching for way too long this evening for a good convo, and now that I have it’s too late to write too much!
Some advice; stop using minnow booster.
That goes for any other pay-for-vote services. Steemit used to work because the whales had incentive to vote to earn curation rewards. As long as people such as yourself continue to offer these whales a chance to sell their votes while they can still earn curation rewards, there won't be much of a reason for them to vote naturally.
If whales would vote for real content rather rather than some "I'm new to Steemit" selfie for $200, then sure. Otherwise, I waste all my time on Steemit for nothing. At least MinnowBooster allows me to magnify my SBD and add some Steem to my wallet. I'm honestly getting tired of producing excellent content to be ignored. I have a select few committed followers which is great, but most upvotes are very minimal. If this problem gets solved somehow, then sure, I'll absolutely stop using MinnowBooster.. why would I need it then? Unfortunately, Steemit is currently a neo-feudal estate that doesn't build its middle class. This can only end in tears for everyone if the incentives don't change.