Hey everyone!
Flags have started becoming more used as of late, and not just on plagiarism/abuse/etc. I've been observing some of them lately and how others have handled them, in some cases it has left me really disappointed, so I wanted to chime in my thoughts and opinions around them.
There are some bigger users who are using their flags to combat abuse of delegations primarely through self-voting low quality content just to be able to pay for said delegation. I fully agree with those and I will support said users sacrificing their potential curation rewards to better distribute the reward pool to everyone else not involved in the abuse.
Then there are some bigger users who also have a history of fighting all sorts of abuse but they also flag content where they don't agree with the rewards it has received. This is the more controversial one lately even though "disagreement on rewards" is the first reason when placing a flag.
This is what I've noticed happening so far and being the popular route authors receiving flags take.
Big user A flags author B because he believes the rewards on her posts aren't warranted. Often these users write a comment explaining the reason to the flag, some times they may not do so. This might be the first flag author B has ever received, instead of taking a minute to process it, they lash out and go on a venting spree about this so called "unfair" flag. Often attacking user A and disregarding any logic or past history of that user and his flag activity. Either being mad about the amount of $ they lost through the rewards, or having received the flag in the first place which they take offensively. This usually heats up and makes user A want to flag said author even more which becomes more emotional and defeats the purpose of the first flag completely. It spins out of control.
In a perfect world, this would happen instead.
User A flags author B and explains that he doesn't see how the content of the post justifies the rewards it gets. Author B should accept this, after all this user is sacrificing curation rewards (increasing his stake in the currency) for redistributing the reward pool onto the rest of the platform with stake that the user himself has purchased and has the right to do so. Author B should not feel as if he was targeted specifically or take it personally and especially not lash out because of it or feel as if the user is "stealing" rewards from him. After all post payouts are called potential until they are paid out, we even have a timer in place specifically to allow for flags to be cast on posts before they are paid out if some users feel the rewards are too high. Author B should accept the flag and see if he can improve on what he is doing as to not get flagged again in the future, even if chances of the flags reoccurring are low they could either give it a thought or just ignore it and move on doing what they already have been doing in the past. Not bicker and whine about a flag and threaten to leave the platform or call "censorship" or similar stuff I've been hearing in the past.
Here is why I believe these actions go down the way they do.
Authors, specifically those being on autovotes from others, get attached to the rewards and take them for granted. The $ amount next to the upvotes makes it seem even more like they are losing out after receiving a few flags and they take it personally and overreact to them. The autovotes give them the feeling of "having made it" on the platform and receiving flags threatens to remove their active income in the future. They often mention the $ amount they lose through flags or how "little" the amount they earn on posts is anyway, not realizing that half of it is in stake of the currency and the future potential of it. It's even more disappointing seeing authors that have been around for a long time mention this, surely they have been posting when the price of Steem was under 10 cents meaning that their 20$ post rewards back then are worth at least 100$ today, yet always somehow fail to mention that gain and only discuss the current loss.
Authors have gotten so used to almost no one flagging for disagreement of rewards that they get startled by them and see them as an attack. An often reoccurring statement is "go and flag those actually abusing the reward pool through plagiarism and self-votes" even though that is being handled daily and Steemcleaners who has received a massive delegation to help with that is doing their job.
I'm hoping that this will be the start of making flags seem more normal. You have to remember this is a free market, if someone goes and flags something its in his best interest to do so for the greater good of the platform, similar to how some curators try and distribute the stake as wide as possible, they indirectly do that through flags. One of Steems strengths is to have a healthy distribution compared to other cryptocurrencies out there. I also hope the way flags are perceived by authors changes over time, instead of whining over them the way they might do today, they should just accept them and move on. Not take it personally, not take it as a reason to write a ton of posts trying to shame said flagger, not take it as a reason to feel attacked so that they start powering down and leaving the platform. That's the reaction that has disappointed me the most.
I might have left a lot of examples and scenarios missing from the post, but I was hoping it will lead to some healthy discussion where we can continue to add upon it.
Let me know your views on this and how you feel about flags for disagreement of rewards in the comments.
Thanks for reading.
This is a great post from the right angle. What bothers me the most about this is not just the witch hunt mentality, which reminds me of Monty Python. It's how people are treating each other. Group think takes over and a bandwagon effect of negative treatment snowballs. I'm not experienced enough to be able to weigh in on what's best, but I do want to say something that's been really bothering me about this...
Regardless of flags or disagreement, it's absurdly disappointing to see certain individuals believe their wealth and power on a digital platform gives them the right to be excessively verbally and emotionally abusive to anyone they so choose. There is simply no excuse. It's terrible. If you take away this platform and see any of these people in public, if they'd ever show their real face instead of an avatar, I'd imagine they'd be taught quite a lesson by a lot of people. It really disturbs me to see people confuse freedom of speech with the right to put people down, refer to them with vulgar terms, threaten, give ultimatums, etc..
I really hope they can see the bigger picture and realize that people are people, regardless of reward pools. I believe there is plenty of validation for the efforts and mission by some of these people, but how they treat others and put them down publicly to shame them is unacceptable. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way, but something needs to be said. Man to man.
I experienced this in a chat room recently, was not attractive.
I really agree with the rest you said, thanks for your input!
OK
You really need to stop sniping top comments with replies for visibility.
Reply to the post like everyone else.
Cant stop my laugh :D
Well I thought you are talking to this Mr. Ok :D
He edited it after.
Thank you for sharing this important counterpoint to the prevalent perspective. While not everyone agrees with the downvoting for this reason, it is important to remember a few things:
Now I realize that people may take issue with any of these points, but the incentives are carefully structured. I would hope that people disagreeing with the outcomes will think about how the incentives lead to specific outcomes and how they can use their own SP to improve the ecosystem, instead of knee-jerk reactions and complaining.
I have seen many posts complaining about spam, with spam in the comments to that post that don't have downvotes from the post authors. If you hate spam, downvote it. If you reward spam (or ignore it) there will be more of it.
Well said. And I would add to that, just because someone has the right within the system to do something - because it is encoded in the software which is supported by witness consensus - doesn't mean it is a good right, and certainly not that everyone will like it.
In my opinion any rule book that equates wealth to power and has an extremely unbalanced distribution of wealth will result in a system that prioritizes wealth and preservation of wealth over life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. IMO Steemit fails badly there both in existing wealth distribution and equating wealth to curating power. Why not use reputation instead which can be earned and removed by the community?
Well said. Nothing that doesn't violate the NAP should receive negative treatment. I've posted over 15 comments on the matter on today alone. My standing is that nobody has the right to decide what anybody deserve and only has the right to act against a person who violate the NAP.
I can go to an country with an absolute monarchy. Get a diplomatic immunity and shoot a person in the head. The physics will work. The gun will work. No physical or legal laws will be broken. But that doesn't make it right. It just simply works within a system.
I wrote some posts about 8-9 months ago with a solution for how to mostly eliminate the need for 'disagreement over reward' downvotes:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@demotruk/flagging-over-rewards-is-necessary-but-also-toxic
https://steemit.com/steemit/@demotruk/up-and-down-votes-are-a-big-part-of-the-problem-on-steemit
Yeah I'm starting to think downvotes would be a lot better for the health of the platform. We can have the flags for the usual abuse, but having 10 votes a day to downvote with as well and maybe even receive curation rewards on them depending on how many others flag after you would do good.
Thankfully we are still in beta. :P
I wouldn't be so sure this will last. @relativityboy commented on a recently ticket I opened on GitHub that
Exciting!
I prefer the 'downvote' conceptually over 'flag', but I still think about 90% of the time neither would be necessary if we introduced payout recommendations.
Why not both down vote and flag? I think it would be good to partially separate them out, where a down vote affects payout but not visibility or rep, and flag does everything it does now.
Perhaps put this in a post, open the discussion, and give feedback to the devs?
Really this would be a major upgrade, but it would also help separate payout from flagging where I notice where even non-negative accounts at 1-10 routinely disappear from Steemit.
The situation yesterday caused a lot of heads to spin, feeling - as you say - as an attack. Having talked things through with Transisto at The Writers Block throughout the night, into early this morning - in a mostly calm and measured way - a lot of what he said and put to us made a lot of sense and I do agree he is looking out for the platform as a whole and the reward pool. Unfortunately emotions get the best of people, especially where potential monetary rewards are concerned.
The key here I believe is open lines of communication and I applaud Transisto for coming to our group and expressing his viewpoint.
Yeah, this is the biggest reason to it most of the time.
It's not just about the money, it's about someone having the ability to publicly trample you and degrade your hard work. How would you respond if a particularly rich client or investor came up to you in front of your co-workers and said "you're getting paid too much for your work, and I am going to talk to your boss about it"? Would your response be based on monetary interests alone?
I'd probably discuss with him as to what made him say that and why he thinks that way. I wouldn't go ahead and leave 10 notes saying I'm quitting.
To have a discussion, there needs to be a platform to do so. Steemit doesn't quite offer one. The way I see it, Michelle's only way to communicate with transisto after he flagged her posts was to post on the blockchain and share her feelings. She was offended from the action she felt was humiliating to her and I don't blame her. I reacted the same way a week ago. Granted, one post was enough for me to vent, but Michelle can write 5,000 words a day while I (unfortunately) cannot. Writers. We type a lot.
Besides, it's easy to say you'd try and have a discussion, but imagine some self-entitled creep screaming at you in front of your coworkers that he would PAY to ensure everyone sees you're worth less than people think you do. And then imagine that you have no way to answer him aside from, well, angry notes.
What? How are comments not the best place to do so, like we are doing right now?
Then write in the comments that don't get automatically upvoted by bots.
As I see it this "self-entitled creep" removed some of the rewards and left a comment, I'm surprised not more "co-workers" defended him seeing as he was doing the right thing and re-distributed rewards of recycled posts he thought were making too much for the interaction and views they were getting. The way she acted on it was to handle it in "overtime" where she got paid to vent over 1 flag and make up for the rewards she lost while threatening to quit her job.
"What? How are comments not the best place to do so, like we are doing right now?"
Technically, there's little difference between posts and comments on the blockchain. I do however think she should have refused payout on those posts. I should have done so with mine, too.
"Then write in the comments that don't get automatically upvoted by bots."
When bernie decided to bury me, he downbotted all my comments too. So... that can go either way but I do agree that as soon as conversation was started, there was really no need for more public posts that are not in some way a contribution to the discussion on the topic of reward pool distribution. It sounds like transisto was willing to talk, but I think the talking should have happened before flagging took place.
I would very much like to point out that I did not mean to call any actual person or user a self-entitled creep, but rather an imaginary rich customer. Also, I think that metaphor for away from us.
Bottom line is - the flagging / downvoting mechanism is broken and unclear to your average steemian, and so flagging can feel like public flogging and not just in the financial sense.
My caveat is as discussed the other day with you that some content providers add value in many hidden (and unpaid) areas also.
For example a developer may get high rewards for a low quality post but spends a huge amount of time developing or helping out in various offsite platforms too. Should this be considered?
Yes, it should be considered and that could be one of the best reasons to discuss the flag with the flagger in a civilized manner in the comments. The flaggers are human also and might understand that the author is being rewarded for more than just the content he is providing unbeknownst to him.
@tarazkp I'm not techie at all...but I do value the time someone gives to make things better :) Best wishes.
I think you just described the purpose of @utopian-io - rewarding developers for contributing stuff that isn't just a post.
Agreed, just commented on a similar post. Think all of us need to try to act as adults - the flag is not simply an instruments that says: "You are Shit" - it is required in a lot cases here. And I learned to understand the view of the different personalities here on Steemit, i wrote a long post months ago about this. We have:
1 - Investor
2 - Engagers
3 - Content Creators
4 - Spammers / Scammers
Totally different people - it took me long to understand why flags can be good, I know it now.
Great post. I hope people will understand flags better in the future and not see them as a threat to their work here on the platform but instead as constructive criticism.
The problem is though, if the flag is not explained or with a crazy logic behind it.
Like "You don't support flat earth theory, you don't deserve this big payout" which is basically a disagreement on rewards. And will most likely not construct anyone on any level :D
There's some good thoughts here, and to some extent I recognize myself and my own reaction to my first flag in your descriptions.
I think you can see it both ways, there's good arguments on both sides.
I think whatever power you give the flagger, it will be abused. Like with government and surveillance. It's human nature. I think there's no way on earth flagging will be fair even half the time! Which, if true, means it mathematically cancels out its own usefulness (but I'm here talking about manual personal flagging, not steamcleaners, and also posts, not comments).
And, again, mathematically, or logically, flagging a worthless post has the same effect as rewarding a worthy one. Plus, when you remove rewards and redistribute them, you don't know where they're gonna end up: maybe they will end up on another post you hate equally! Whereas rewarding a post you like guarantees you agree with the distribution.
So you have a vote, and you can use it either to remove money - and have it end up who knows where, and create some bad vibes in the process - or use it to reward a post you like.
So I think flagging should be used rarely. Unless we're talking about the comment section of your own post, in which case I agree flagging is very useful to combat spam.
When it comes to posts, I think flagging should be contained within proper bodies with clear and fair rules, like steemcleaners, and whoever's itching to flag improper posts should just delegate his voting power to these bodies.
I disagree with regards to flagging to reduce potential post rewards. As you mentioned, there are numerous examples of posts earning a vastly disproportionate payout, and we know what they are: spam, bot abuse, plagiarism, and the like. However, when it comes to genuine disagreement over the reward v. the content of the post, a flag in this regard negates the stake used by other users to reward the author. Functionally, I know that's not how it works, but ultimately that's what it comes down to. User A upvotes a post and brings it $12, let's say. User B comes by, takes a look, and flags it, reducing the net effect of that $12 down to $3. In effect, User B is telling User A, "no no, you made a mistake. Here, let me fix it for you."
It can be called reward pool reallocation or any other term, but that's essentially what it boils down to: "I know better than you what deserves these rewards, so let me fix your mistake."
My suspicion with regards to the whitepaper is that the intent was to guide users to downvote blatantly cheap posts to fight upvoting collusion, i.e. three-line posts upvoted by a group of people to guarantee curation rewards. I could be wrong, and @ned should clarify the intent of that particular guidance, but that's my impression after being here for more than a year.
This is the reason I call out on disagreement on rewards as commie BS. Nobody has the right to interfere with another persons rewards that were gained without breaking the NAP. Reward pool rape is a manufactured crime and Reward re-distribution is simply just communism. Since when did the blockchain space went adopting from Marx and Mao?
Re-distribution is an infringement on a persons property and his/her sweat of the brow.
Agreed. Unless there's some sort of unjustifiable gaming of the system, there is no ethical reason to "balance" reward payouts on good content. It's arbitrary and arrogant.
I see you have a banner now supporting Genesis mining.
They have a lot of problems, payouts are really late, the last daily payout I got was the 15th of Nov...etc.
Be careful with that, you might get heat from ppl for suggesting that site..
Oh really? I haven't actually checked up on it in a while, will do so, thanks for the info!
Hi @acidyo, i think that disagreement on posts content (or reward) doesn't need a flag but only a comment in which users explain why disagrees with it.
I think it's more important to use flag (aka downvote) against spammers and plagiarists in order to clear away this shameful sore.
It became my philosophy of life here in steemit community.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@miti/my-commitment-to-making-steemit-a-place-free-from-spammers
They are being used against spammers and plagiarists also, but authors have gotten comfortable not seeing them being used for disagreement of rewards and hence why the overreact to them now.
I know... I have idea what you're talking about. But a flag is viewed as a personal attack, a disgrace to wipe out... not everyone is mature enough to understand the meaning of that flag.
That's why I believe it should be used more often to make it seem more normal.
Or change the way it works.
"Or change the way it works."
I completely agree on this point.
This was well explained here,people should not take flagging as a personal attack.
Most times we differ on views and someone flags you because they think the reward is not appropriate,it is good for the flaggers also to give a clear reason for the flag!
The flags should not surprise an old user as you say because the old users know the rules....
We should not take flagging personal,it is just a way of keeping the community great and growing.
I remain Jarau Moses from Uganda...promo-uganda leader.
Flagged...
No just kidding.
I used few flags lately but only in plagarism. Everyone should to a little research before raising a falg ;)
Great post. I think more conversations like this will help align people's expectations in a healthy way about how the STEEM blockchain actually functions.
I suppose that people who are invested in the platform have a larger right to shape the platform the way they want, and if they don't want original content to be paid appropriately, then that's their perogative. But it's a shame that they feel that way- original content is what will make steemit better than Facebook and Reddit. steemcleaners does a great job, and they work hard, but they can always use more help, especially from larger users whose flags are more effective. It seems a shame that they are policing the rewards that authors are getting for fiction.
I agree that original content is important and deserves its rewards, but its not always about just that. The interaction, the traffic and content written specifically for the platform can also be much more important than just original content. In one of the cases I was thinking of when writing this that author was recycling content it had written years ago and was already earning on it through other means. I'm not saying the author deserves a flag for that but its something to take into account if you're taking everything else into account as well.
The reactions to the flags have been some of the worst I've seen lately.
I completely agree with this. I was just saying here that the roles of content creator and content consumer are dynamic and that anyone who leaves a well thought out comment is both simultaneously.
Steemit is not the traditional industry that separates "entertainer" and "entertained" but rather a platform that relies on active engagement developing organically.
The flag is a symbol of a country, it is very difficult for a country to gain independence, possessions, and even death to seize independence.
let's support the symbol or flag to be used as a positive thing.
all of us are concerned if the state symbol is used as a tool for personal gain. thank you for sharing useful information
I considered making my own post on this, but I think I'm perhaps not ready. I feel as if I'm still deciding.
Currently my vote means nothing. My posts are mostly extremely low earning. This means I face far larger repercussions should someone choose to retaliate. A whale can downvote my posts and comments into non-existence. Well, a sad little censored collapsed grey post. But I still have decided to do it occasionally.
I think my vote being worth nothing might actually be a good thing. It has next to no effect on people. I've even decided that when it is worth something, I'll dial it back for downvotes, unless it's something egregious. It's more of a message than a slap in the face.
I'm still figuring it out though. It's actually really hard to resist downvoting for personal disagreements once you start downvoting. It's hard to resist downvoting when you start, period. I think I'm going to try to resist more though, because it is labeled in the UI as a flag, and many get really hurt by it.
I noticed some of your flags yesterday and it made me want to check out your content. I understand how difficult it is to be new to the platform, it wasn't as difficult when I joined due to the amount of active users, but you have to imagine that its not much different than other platforms out there. You have to put in a lot of time and work to even get noticed let alone start making rewards.
It isn't much different, except in people's viewpoints on how it should be.
Everyone's pushing for higher and higher quality content, like a professional paper or something. I don't think that's bad necessarily, except when we force our own standards on others. I'm trying not to do that. I've upvoted posts by non-native speakers, because I recognized the hard work, and appreciated it. I'm trying to push myself as well. I'm also posting just normal blogs as well.
I posted a few youtube animated songs that for some reason I have been addicted to for the last few days, and it was hard as hell to let myself post content that didn't really require any effort. I don't expect it to earn more than a few cents, and would feel bad if it somehow got more. It's bog standard for other blogging platforms though. You make blogs about things you like, things you're thinking about, your life, and sometimes, a song you like.
In truth, many times we shouldn't be flagging the content, but have a way to flag the voters. Like "Hey, you shouldn't be giving this such a high reward." Then they'd get an alert, and be allowed to adjust the vote, which you should be allowed to do.
I think all the whales should start flagging, flagging, flagging!
Enough with the (circle-jerk) upvoting! Just flag until you feel better! We can tell you guys are all angry and upset up there in whaleville, so flag away!
Steemit is too easy now anyway and new minnows succeed too readily. It would actually be much better if everyone with over about 50K in sp would just flag, flag flag all day long.
Don't like the message - Flag!
Don't like the canva poster? Flag!
Don't like the profile pic? Flag!
Think the person made too much money? Flag!
The world will soon beat down the door to join in the fun. Just like they already are - only more of them - oh wait...
Stop voting and start flagging. This will make steemit the type of place everyone will flock to now. Actively search for what you hate and downvote that sucker!
The steemit world will be an even more welcoming place than it already is by the time you big fish are done with your nonsense.
This is the thrill of censorship and the reason most of us came here - to see it in action.
Never did I think fb would start to look in comparison but y'all are really pressing my buttons today...
Didn't you even try to make friends at your Fest?
Lul. U mad bruh?
lol - you rich people are on my last nerve today :)
Hahaha "you rich people". I am neither rich nor a whale. I just think its funny how entitled people are to their
hard earnedfree moneyI'm not looking at the money side - but the useless effort side. After 5 months here now - I still cannot invite my content creating friends. The 3 who did try all left and hate me now.
Then the people at the top of this house of cards, who could make things better, spend their days on haterade and circle-jerking. It makes me question my own motives, but I am still hanging onto the Alexa ranking for all its worth. Luckily my analytics show good traffic to my other sites - coming from my posts here, so I'm staying for now.
If I wake up one day and steemit is gone completely - I will not be surprised.
Lol why would your friends hate you? Ive had friends quit cuz they didnt like it, but none of them hate me. Id take a look in the mirror or at your "friends" if they supposedly hate you.
The entire point of flagging is to STOP the circle jerk. I honestly think you may not fully understand the steem rewardpool and our economy. Thats okay not to know, but keep that in mind before you make a fool of yourself and go off ranting next time
My "friends" are author and video content creating connections who feel they wasted time and effort and I can't say I blame them. I'm in Thailand as far as I can be from "people" so no mirror is necessary.
I am sure that I - like 99% of all steemers - do not understand the reward pool or its economy. This info is in "papers" of various colors that only a few can comprehend. The money of steemit is a mystery for the ages.
"Making a fool of myself" is the way I do business. You have not even begun to hear me rant because I keep it on the down low for the internet.
Nothing I say or do negates the fact that the whole time I have been here the predominant features of whales is that they:
I'm not saying this is wrong or right - just how it looks from down here and it ain't pretty or getting better.
Don't worry about us minnows. We are still very grateful for the leavings.
You're 4 months late.... bruh
Also did you assume their gender?!?!
Turbotriggerred.
Bruh is my prefferred non gender conforming pronoun. You are microaggressing against my feelings.
/ joke
I like turtles.
I SMELL LIKE BEEEEEF
what in the fuck
That was an entertaining read.
lol - I think I need a nap now!
This would in fact help distribution to minnows a lot more, same way during the "flagging experiment" minnows were making a lot more when the big upvotes were being countered by automatic flags.
I'm guessing you meant this to the majority, but since you seemed to make it personal at the end of your comment I just wanted to drop in this statistic that shows where most of my votes go. These are my outgoing votes for the last 4 months.
Yes, as the #1 reason to flag is disagreement of rewards, that's naturally what they should be doing, and more of it so it becomes a norm and people don't get as easily offended by only a few doing it and direct their anger at them.
If most whales started flagging, minnows would probably be making 1000% more curation rewards.
Flags are not censorship, the posts don't get deleted from the blockchain ever.
:(
I'm glad you vote for the little guys - thank you! I do see you on the posts of little guys more than most and I know that takes effort. We appreciate you from down here more than you can imagine.
All I know is that it is very dismal down in minnowland where few make rep 45 and fewer go beyond that. We rarely hear from whales at all - but when we do - they are fighting again.
Censorship make not make an individual post go away, but if the person leaves the platform, the censorship worked.
I don't get your math (or understand much about the money here) but if flagging each other would make the rewards trickle down farther - you have my full permission to keep battling it out.
Steemit equals Fight Club. And you are all the same person maybe???
Them fighting means that they care about the future of the platform, even more so than those just placing autovotes and rewarding the same authors constantly without caring what is going on. Especially if they flag they are sacrificing curation rewards so that the daily distribution of rewards goes to everyone else instead, such as minnows.
That's not censorship, if they leave because of a few flags that have removed some of their pending payouts, that's their problem. Flags are there for a reason even though those reasons can consist of many different things.
I haven't seen many minnows who write quality content and low rewards get flagged for disagreement of rewards, have you?
All flags I've seen so far from the usual suspects casting them have been on users already in the top earning lists, and the way they have reacted to a few dollars being removed from their posts has been nothing less than disgusting.
Think of the reward pool as a pie, if your mother tells you you can't have 2 pieces and instead shares that piece among all 8 of you without getting a piece for herself.
Are you accusing me of being someone else on the platform doing the flags?
No, no. lol. I am not accusing any of you of anything - especially not you. I'm an accountant anyway and do not make accusations at all.
I'm just saying a good half of the bigs are anons so isn't that the theme of fight club? Not knowing who you are?
No I am not seeing flagging of little guys - although if more flagging occurred on the bot comments and "nices" that might help.
The people I ran into being flagged in the last couple of days did not seem to be the "usual suspect" types, but I will yield to your better knowledge on that.
Like jerrybanfield told me and like I did not listen to today - "ignore the whales and the administration and just post your content." I'm going back to it and let you all fight it out until someone falls.
I'm in the weight loss and social media marketing niches and steemit has pulled me into all other kinds of distractions. Today being a great example.
I still love michelle's writing and her awesome example and tutorials for authors like me. I'm really disappointed in this turn of events. If she's scheming the rewards - which I have no idea - it's not like she's the only one.
Like I said - knock yourselves out - collectively! We'll get Brad Pitt and make a movie.
With the "usual suspects" I meant the usual bigger accounts that do the flagging.
Exactly, he didn't cry or whine about a few flags or quit the platform cause of it.
Being on autovotes doesn't mean she's undeserving of the votes she gets and I'm sure it took a lot of work to get there, same with my account. But her reaction to 1 flag which later lead to more flags was what was the most disappointing to me, especially from a user that has been here as long as most of us oldtimers.
I might have to recommend people to re-read the whitepaper every now and then.
I've been following jerry for a long time on a few platforms and he definitely rolls with the punches. He is a roll model for me just like michelle is.
Note to self - If I ever succeed enough to get a flag here - do not react in a way to cause more flags. Lord, give me strength.
And as to white papers or blue ones or smt ones. Ergh...
My first fiction post ever, back when I was a tiny minnow, got whale slapped by blocktrades. So there are minnows who get attention from whales. I know of several others who also had variously sized whale slaps on quality posts.
Then I had some posts get OCDed and I got acidyo love.
So don't say whales only fight or don't interact with minnows.
You are right - I'm too much in the all or nothing in these comments. Of course there is good in all groups and I get that good attention too at times fropm big fish. That's why I'm here - for the interaction at all levels. How sad for that to happen when you were new here! Good for you to keep going when that happened. What was your crime or is that too personal?
Golden reply. This alone earned you a follow from me. You are not alone.
I feel like support in a positive way is okay but using it for the wrong reasons can not really be justified
Not sure I understand what you meant here.
Why does everyone always think an explanation for a flag is required?
THUNDERDOME FTW
Dont u want to know why they flag u?
Dont u want to know why they upvote u?
Dont u want to know why they ignore u completely?
@acidyo Great post. Just like life, is human nature to try and fit in. Or at least feel needed. In this particular platform the "groupie" ..that's what I call it. Of whales who stay together and follow the same people is crazy and frustrating. It feels a bit of a struggle to fit it. I really do enjoy here, but knowing that one liners or a simple cut and paste post gets a good chunk of the rewards pool make things frustrating. But such is life. Best wishes :)
I had been flagged after I made a post in which I uncover some ugly truth about one whale (travel with me). Whale's fans could flag you because you say something about love of their live. Don't go this way.
ok
No turkish flag trigggggggggggggered
I thought the one in the right down corner was. :P
Almost is it tunusia ? :D
impotent post...
LOL
An useful information @acidyo. So great.
Policing of any content is not a good idea, minnows are unaware of the platform and in some case may purchase the votes, additionally they are unaware of the kind of content that people like on Steemit, on one had steemit is promoting itself as lotteries on posts with $$$$ everywhere to bring in users but the reality is how do we discover new and good content, understanding the platform its issues and now flagging, we are decentralized so let it remain that way, why are some people trying to form the core and create it a central entity. The universe grew unchecked and its marvelous, i hope this example helps some.
What's decentralized about vote selling services compared to those that don't use them?
You're taking a point out of the context. Its my opinion and i don't mind you disagreeing with it. The fact that they "vote selling services" exists should be sufficient.
interesting stuff on flagging. Does the author gets notified when his/her post is flagged or one just need to keep an eye on the reward to detect flagging?
I dont see the flag of my country : Morocco:(
May be disagreement is on the right thing or not sometime but the point is flagging is good way to express it .off course not because its depend on case to case.
And the other side
The author should not take it as a disrespect and show the anger,just move on if you have guts or ability then the time will taught him the lesson.
This is what i get but if i am wrong ,please please correct me
Very interesting to read your take on this
I am just a tiny fish in a big pond but it’s great see see your thoughts on this gives me another pers
Flags are only good when there is no toilet paper.
Who decides when a post has made enough or what it deserves. If a voter thinks the post is worth a good % surely its up to the voters what they think not one person who downvotes it. I am just curious who decides this. When a post has a lot of voters who enjoyed the post then surely that post is worth what its getting. How can one persons thoughts outweigh all those voters. Just curious :)
I can give you an example @karenb54 and you tell me whether a person can decide or not.
Let's presume you have a big family - 10 kids, father, mother and a husband.
Today you made a dinner for your family using a new original recipe. Once they finished their meal you asked each of them what do they think of your meal. Let's presume that kids and your father really liked a dish, mother did not say anything, but your husband told you that he won't give you any money if you continue cooking something like that. So you see some people from your family supported you, but some not and their votes in a family differ. You cannot expect that everyone will always like your recipe. This is how Steemit family works now. So at this point people can decide how much you earn in accordance with their voting power. Some people who liked your content can upvote it and some who did not can downvote.
I understand that but why is it that if a post has load of voters who loved the post then the one with most power decided they dont why should 1 vote over rule 100s of votes?
Regarding 1 vote over 100s , I agree it is not fair, but this is how the system works now. Yesterday I addressed this issue in my comment in this article https://steemit.com/roadmap2018/@steemitblog/steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested#@hoodaim/re-steemitblog-steemit-roadmap-2018-community-input-requested-20171117t205926649z
My personal opinion is that money that are given to author should be one thing, reputation should totally changed and have more impact so the vote of minnows without money would be worth something.
However, we have what we have now and can only propose new solutions.
P.S. I have not seen many cases where 1 whale downvoted 100s of votes, usually it was the case where 1 whale downvotes another whale and actually those small votes stay at place.
Because its a stakeweighted system where a vote depending on the amount of SP they hold is worth more. On Reddit for instance it doesn't matter how much comment or link karma you have, 1 vote is still 1 vote. This leaves abuse to botvoting posts onto the top of trending or hot even if the content is garbage because someone has bought those votes. Here bigger users can remove some attention and rewards from the posts if they so see fit, while sacrificing curation rewards in the meantime.
Well, actually I wrote a post today on this topic, you might check it out and comment what you think. Generally speaking, I think that ranking algorithm should be more sophisticated and depend on many facts.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@hoodaim/conflict-of-interests-upvotes-vs-flagging-is-there-a-solution
What about autovotes that vote the same amount on no matter what you post? Do you think all those autovoting constantly check on the posts to make sure its deserving of the reward they cast on it?
Why can someone who is also invested in the platform not change the reward he thinks the post deserves compared to the ones that vote it up thinking it deserves it?
This i know is a big problem, i have questioned this myself in past posts. I have members autovoting me, i dont earn alot but would prefer them to read my posts as i could have possibly wrote a brilliant one that gets the same vote as my crap ones.
Exactly. The entitlement and self-defensive nature authors get from receiving their first flags is a problem often caused by reoccurring autovotes and them getting used to being rewarded each and every time.
I would rather be read by a person and voted on the strength of my post and not keep seeing the same names and same voting power. I write a lot abot my life, I get the same vote for a post from my heart and a meme post. That I agree is wrong.
Yeah I know that feeling... That's why I hope a lot more curators will stay manual in the future.
I have to admit posting more about my life is put off by the voting, as you can see by my account I gain very little but its still a massive help, I am put off writing more meaningful posts as I know it wont get read.
You make a lot of good points. I think it would make sense to be able to rate on a scale instead of just upvoting. So instead of "flagging" you could vote 1-10, and if you voted 1, you'd be saying "no this content is actually not that good". It could be separate from flagging, which could be reserved for abuse issues.
There would be a lot of other advantages to this as well. I think I saw this posted somewhere on Steemit but I don't remember where.
But Most of the time I see Jealousy, Greediness And arrogance on those flags. You should warn at least once, so that author can change his behavior if he is doing it unknowingly or unaware of what are the consequences
It gets on my nerve when they don't leave any reason or the reason that can satisfy you.
Please don't flag me here.
I totally agree with you. Some people are just too greedy. Flagging to some seemed to be very inappropriate now. I have been seeing good quality lost being flagged.
Hey, I have a song for this Vote me down, but I won't fall. I am titaniuuuum. I am not even trolling at all.
Thanks. I feel the same.
And Liked your song. You should try to complete it. :)
I will definitely finish that song to unreasonable flaggers and downvoters
lol
There is a "Dark" kind of Whale out here set to put a check valve on how some whales and other circumventers drain the reward pool. It is force to reckon and everyone should watchout not to abuse the system because there is always someone who will cry out "stop the madness","Stop the rape","Uphold the #steemitjustice "
Help everyone, spread the love.
Obviously it's a nice post by knowing the thoughts of youts in on flag for disagreement is so owsome you are such a interesting person...
I'm interested to see how all this pans out. Since this platform is decentralized I can see huge flag wars taking place. It will almost become like guild wars in big MMORPGs an unfortunately, in this case, the losers will be impacted in terms of dollars and not just imaginary money and time.
I think you are completly right, but I still have the fear that if flags become to popular it can also be abused. For example: A guy could find a art post amazing and there was many hours of work invested in the pice of art and then some one cames and flag it because he thinks that just a picture don't deserve as much.
i know an example when a person gave flags to ALL posts of a man just because she was offended by him (as she thoight) and her SP was much greater than his and you can imagine what it was...(
flags are used to feel power and make quarrels, the reason you gave in the post are unknown to them as far as I see...
it's a pity people dont respect the rules of the platform where they try to have bussiness or friendship
Hmmm, I've seen one person say this quote to me repeatedly.
Are you calling me a plagiarist? :P
it's so close to the exact words, I might have to.
Don't cheetah me bro!
I have a share of experience of being flagged multiple times and this has saddened me. I was new at that time when my post got curated. Blocktrades was also there. My post almost got the 300USD mark but then some minnows kept flagging me until it was less than 200USD. I felt bad somehow not because I lost few bucks, but because my post got less exposure as my very aim for that post is for a creative café owned by a local owner be known. Somehow, I sought for revenge because it seemed out of line. I even had a 30SBD post but it kept being downvoted. I do not use bots now and I do not even belong to any sorft of delegation. It stressed me out so I just thought, oh well insecurity rots the bones and thought that it is the way how the system works here. Too bad I am just a mere struggling writer trapped in some blls*try of those who either think my post is spam or who happens to love downvoting my post.
ok
You have been flagged, likely because you are attempting to take advantage of the reward pool. Please see my daily post for more detailed reasoning. Thank you.
@yougotflagged you were flagged by a worthless gang of trolls, so, I gave you an upvote to counteract it! Enjoy!!
Great pos,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.
I hope people will understand flags better in the future and not see them as a threat to their work here on the platform but instead as constructive criticism.............
thanks for sharing.............////////////
An interesting post.
Flagging ( ie punitive action), is not a free market action. ergo it is NOT a free market.
A free market dynamic is not one of punitive action, but one of affirmative action.
Good value gets rewarded, bad value goes by the wayside organically - not through punitive actions of others. ( and no bots)
The principle is not a grey area.
Bots need to be eradicated - and let the free market decide what is warranted as value - IF you want a free market..
Brilliantly covered it :)
Great article @acidyo.. Thanks for sharing.. 😉♨
Congratulations @acidyo!
Your post was mentioned in the hit parade in the following category:
This is really given me more insight to how steemit is ,i'm a new here but this is really helpful @acidyo.please upvote and follow,thanks
It seems that this is the current issue on everyone's mind. I just wrote a post about a potential idea to help the flags and upvotes be used more effectively. People need to realize, (I didn't until recently) that the flag is simply a downvote, it isn't saying that you have bad content, it is just saying that someone thinks you don't deserve as much.