As the old truism goes: "You can't make ALL the people happy, ALL the time."

The heart of this is — as you said — that we are operating with gamified curation. But there's more to it than that, isn't there? We're working withing an overall framework of "Gamified Social Media."

In a game system — no matter how you present the rules — there will always be people who play the game legitimately, as intended, and people whose lives revolve around gaming the game. Change the rules, and the system abusers (for lack of a better term) will develop a new strategy to exploit a loophole.

Let's just consider abusive self-voting: One answer might be to let people be free to self-vote... but where a vote for someone else takes 2% of your voting power, a vote for yourself takes 10% of your voting power. Looks good, but then people just create "alts" to vote for themselves. Problem → Solution → New problem.

With that out of the way, I'm in favor of "as simple as possible without opening the floodgates of abuse." Sure, I "sort of" understand curation (after 2 1/2 years) but this system to a newcomer (Let's say someone whose normal social media experience is Instagram) is like learning a foreign language. Barring changes, how do we EXPLAIN curation to a new generation of Hive users who are perhaps more social and less technical?

I lean towards keeping things as they are, and tweaking bits and pieces as we go along. I am not in favor of exclusively tipping, because a large part of the attraction here is precisely that this is NOT a "pay to play" type system.

=^..^=

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta