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 :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.