Will you use OCDB to downvote this post? Your posts going forward if they get too much rewards? If not, why not? Will you start setting the limit on your posts so that they don't get overvalued? Will you encourage others to do this so that there doesn't need to be unnecessary downvote drama?
EDIT: OK I actually did find a few posts of yours where OCDB downvoted 2 months and 3 months ago, so I am removing a part of what I originally said, though it still looks to be overvalued compared to the content of the post(not overvalued according to me, but according to what the community might say)
This isn't a confrontational thing of me being upset about anything. I am perfectly calm and relaxed(just woke up from a nap).
I am curious though... OCDB has been downvoting stuff more and more lately that makes a lot less than this post, it stands to reason OCDB should be giving this post a hefty downvote. I don't see any OCDB downvotes on any of your posts in the last 30 days.
My criticism of this is not to point fingers or assign any blame, but to challenge your curation group to brainstorm some ideas set some good standards. I think the most obvious one that most people never use is the use of limiting how much a post can be upvoted for, I never see anyone encouraging others to use that features(forgive me if you do encourage this and other things, I haven't read all of the OCDB posts, I don't think most people even know it exists). People follow those who lead by good example, I would like to see you guys set a good example. I don't see it is necessary for big downvotes to really happen, in fact, I would say that all posts should have an upper limit of 75 USD to 100 USD imposed on them at the blockchain level, so that noody can make 173 USD on a post(at current prices of course).
:)
I do not believe anything can be overvalued. I disagree with the philosophy behind the line of thinking and everything relating to the need to correct something like that.
To use an analogy to help explain what I mean, it is like disliking a video on YouTube solely on the opinion the video received too many likes. Well, technically, a dislike does not displace a like. And that is my concern with how a downvote can minimize the upvotes on Hive.
Yeah, I guess flagging or downvoting can discourage and minimize spam, plagiarism, repetition, low value content, copyright infringement, boring posts, unwanted posts, illegal content, etc. So, long story short, I'm not totally against a desire at policing. But specifically in regards to trying to counter overvalued posts in particular, I find that to be way too hypothetical and possibly a version of robbery.
I guess it all depends on how the rewards pool works and the details therein meaning I understand the logic of trying to vote down posts which may be overvalued. I can sympathize, empathize, realize the point of view people have, but I also find it to be dangerous to try to stop people from making too much money or to stop posts from making more money than they deserve to.
My philosophy would be if you think a post got too much money, then simply upvote other posts, share these other posts in order to get many people to upvote these other posts. In doing so, then you may keep many more people from voting for the overvalued post and voting for other posts should be able to water down the total value or percentage of how much the overvalued post would get during payout 7 days later.
I don't know what linear curve means for Hive, I don't know what kind of curve it currently have, but I have fingers crossed.
Giving this a small downvote since I prefer having comments at the top of this post that are relevant to the post.
Ya
The ocdb downvotes aren't there just because posts reach a too high amount, it's to discourage voting the same people over and over like some have been doing with the keys to a bigger account (rancho) and at the same time landing on the same people farming autovotes with mediocre content getting those bigger votes cause they happen to be trending due to said autovotes. We've mainly ignored users who got the bigger votes for the first time and if it was on decent content or those who don't seem to be fishing for them constantly. When I have the time to start posting more often I'm sure I'm going to downvote myself again due to the autovotes on content I don't feel took a lot of my time or effort but at the same time I haven't been getting those rancho votes that I'm mainly targeting atm. You can also establish that I'm not farming autovotes when my last post was 3 weeks ago.
Is there a goal to make it so rancho gets no rewards at all? I'm curious as to the strategy behind that account.
I previously made a few statements that changing to 50/50 whales would just upvote whoever instead of themselves and make good money. Now under 50/50 we see if you wanted to reduce the money said whale/s are making you would have to then downvote dozens to hundreds of people who have nothing to do with said whale/s. I find that to be a PR problem because now a bunch of people who have never been downvoted are getting hit, in their mind it's a pretty bad experience. I understand the reward pool and all that stuff about disagreement of rewards, but most people do not share that value. One of the biggest downsides to 50/50 is that you have to now downvote a lot of random people instead of the vote abuser who is upvoting himself.
I don't like 50/50 for that reason and many others.
That's not possible unless he's voting for his own account or accounts with no upvotes at all, in that case if the content is decent and the author behind it isn't just farming I wouldn't be for downvoting that. The issue is he's just voting with a big account whatever is on trending at the time and a lot of those accounts are already getting there from unfair autovotes from other big accounts, if people don't like the downvotes but never mind the big autovotes they get then it's a good first learning experience that pending rewards means pending for a reason. There's many who still see downvotes the wrong way and somehow completely forget that on youtube or reddit where downvotes similarly remove some visibility and potential rewards but get loud here just cause the downvotes are public and can be tracked who's casting them but it doesn't make it right that they should be able to complain. I'm all for fair upvotes and at the same time fair downvotes so I do take the time to explain and justify them, like now, but I also respect people who don't want to justify them the same way they're not justifying their upvotes and if they're being used in a bad way it's easy to counter them as there's a lot more upvote mana than downvote one and that's up to all of us to make sure people aren't being targeted by "bad" downvotes such as personal, retaliation, etc.
Good thoughts on this topic. I am manually curating with the informationwar and deepdives curation trail now. I think we might have a total of 2million HP following the trail in total(ppl following on hive.vote and some have their own follow).
Is there a place where all the curation groups talk about curation topics? A discord to chat about this kinda thing? Now that I have more power backing what I upvote I was thinking I need to see what other big curation groups are doing/maybe work together to see what best practices are/strategy/etc.
Appreciate your time :)