HIVE has a lot of incentive structures. The average person does not think about incentive structures, they usually just react to them.
I would argue that HIVE's incentive structures come together like a well sculpted masterpiece. I use "masterpiece" due to lack of a better term. A masterpiece is generally considered complete, whereas HIVE is never "complete;" HIVE will always change. HIVE as it stands today has no good comparable in my opinion and is unfathomably unique. HIVE is simply breath taking.
One thing I do as a whale is, I downvote content (for many different reasons). I also downvote comments, which are often times the best content. Comments rarely have enough rewards for my downvote to do anything practical in terms of influencing the reward pool. But, I actually think downvoting some comments is very important. There are certain things people say, which to me, have clear negative downstream consequences for all Hivians.
One very powerful but underestimated feature of HIVE is we use it to communicate. When you say something on chain, it is documented forever and anyone can look at what you have said in the past.
The things you say on HIVE can create incentive structures and that reality is beautiful.
A current incentive structure that has been created is, we need a protector to protect people from downvotes. People act like they need someone who will go above and beyond to reach the top levels of power on HIVE to stop this "attack." And some people will take you up on that. They shouldn't, but anyone can come to HIVE and no one can stop them.
When I downvote a comment, it is usually because a downvote is getting framed as an "attack." I want to discourage this behavior because this narrative creates issues for all Hivians.
When you call a downvote an "attack" you have created an incentive for someone to be the hero. The people who will take you up on that tend to be very creative and are good at creating narratives in their head to drive them forward. When people frame a downvote as an "attack," it creates a scenario where someone who wants to be a protector but is not good at reading the room does weird stuff.
When people frame a downvote as an "attack," this hurts all Hivians.
I do not like downvoting primarily because it is subjective. People who do anti abuse have different "rules" and different things they look for. The below are not my rules, but these are common reasons someone might get downvoted by another user.
Examples of why someone may get downvoted (again this is not my list but a generic list):
• Spam
• Scams
• Plagiarism
• Inappropriate content
• Overrewarded posts
• High KE
• Harassment
• Posting too much
• Posting with multiple accounts
• Disputes
These are all inherently subjective. Even plagiarism which seems straight forward is actually not. For example, plagiarism actually means very different things in different cultures. What counts as plagiarism is heavily influenced by what a culture believes are the property rights of the individual. The standard for plagiarism in countries with high protections for property rights is very high. As an example, if you are at UNI in the West, you are expected to cite ideas. If you write a paper, and it is all coming from "your own head," a professor will give you a 0 every time. We learn most things from other people and ideas are very rarely our own. A professor wants you to be "honest" based on the standard of their culture. They want you to cite where your ideas came from. This is not the standard globally but very common in western countries.
HIVE does not have a centralized anti abuse authority. Anyone can downvote. That being said, not everyone should downvote because it is an advanced feature which comes with a lot of nuance.
I hope one day I can downvote someone and it will not be framed as an "attack." It is not an attack, it is a disagreement of rewards. Rewards are not guaranteed money. Rewards are a giveaway from the ecosystem to you. If you get rewards, it is because that content was deemed worthy of rewards at that specific point in time. But HIVE changes and standards change. Who downvotes changes and how downvotes work could always change. Maybe we just decide to get rid of downvotes all together? I think it would be a bad idea but, if we do that I will adapt.
Please. When you do not get the rewards you want, think about how you want to be remembered on chain. Think about what you are posting which can be seen by your descendants for eternity. Think about who will come along and see your frustration and use it to become your protector.
No one deserves to be harassed in life or on HIVE. Being harassed is terrible and I see a lot of people people being harassed on HIVE today and they do not know why. I can tell you why. It is because people have created an incentive structure. People strongly implied they want someone to protect them from downvotes. I think they were hoping someone would power up and get rid of downvoting. But that isn't who they got.
The harassment we experience today on HIVE is not the fault of the downvoter. It is the fault of everyone who calls downvotes an "attack" which encourages this harassment.
I would strongly recommend all the people who claim a downvote is an "attack" to stop. I am asking you to do this, not for me but, for all Hivians.
Cheers,
Hurt
Created with Copilot AI
First, hello and Merry Christmas.
I believe that the existence of negative votes doesn't imply decentralization if the majority of network members don't use them.
If in a country only one person votes and chooses themselves, I don't think that country can be considered democratic because there are free elections and everyone can vote. The president of that country only represents the will of one person. That population doesn't assume the responsibility of choosing.
I used to think differently. I believed that if the network had approved a proposal for Hivewatchers to set their own criteria, investigate, judge, and punish if necessary, only Hivewatchers should carry out those tasks. I changed my mind because that would create a centralized network.
You mentioned several reasons why you would give negative votes. They are acceptable, they are reasonable. I also agree that they are your criteria and that they can change over time.
So the negative vote you cast does have a basis that goes beyond simply saying "I don't like it."
It's not mandatory to explain why you gave a negative vote. Otherwise, Marky should propose opening a customer service office. But if you kindly respond to the person who received the negative vote, I think it's appropriate to state the real reason and not resort to a "low-quality" response, which is what causes you to consider it a low-quality post. Although, I repeat, responding is not mandatory.
If you are kind enough to explain why you gave a negative vote in a particular case, based on your subjective experience, the explanation takes on an educational role and adds value. We learn both ways online: through hard knocks or through both education and hard knocks. The author also evolves.
This is comedy gold 🤣 Only a Hivian would understand but still hilarious 🤣
Anyways, I agree with you on a lot of your current perspective.
Having different people who have different approaches creates a lot of value.
Marky is very technical and operates zero at a high level which works for him. In a lot of ways he is the final line of defense and I think Hive Analytics not getting funded is a mistake because funding Hive Analytics gives Marky an incentive to stay on HIVE and keep building random dope shit like he does.
Hivewatchers includes multiple people and a lot of things they operate support their antiabuse initiatives. (such as spaminator, and their discord resolution process, and other things I am sure I am leaving out).
Azircon has is own way of using downvotes and a lot of what he does dissuades extractors and scams from ramping up.
I am sensitive and do not mind sharing how I feel. I operate downvotes as a human and am not consistent in the same way zero is for example. I take days off and I will step away from time to time to do real life things. I prefer to handle downvotes in a personal way that matches my personality. Unfortunately I do downvote a lot of spam and AI content and there really is nothing to talk about there. I also do look at KE because to me it is an easy way to see how much someone wants to stay invested. People regularly say they need the rewards for food or electricity but that has 2 issues. (1) It is impossible for me to validate that and anyone can say they need upvotes for food. (2) Charity should run through the DHF. The DHF is a fund so we can fund charity if we want. The reward pool is not a "fund," it is a pool of rewards with a purpose. If we fund charity with the reward pool it is chaotic and not elegant in any way. There is no practical way to track how much charity we are supporting through the reward pool right now and we cannot practically validate if it is all real charity. I think the reward pool should be for authors that want to build a stake on HIVE not a pool of funds to just be dumped for fiat. Obv that is my opinion and if a larger stakeholder or a group of large stakeholders tries to run a charity through the reward pool I would be limited in what I could do.
My process works sometimes but not always. Hivewatchers, Marky, Azircon, and many others being there for when my discourse doesn't work makes a lot of sense. I also can downvote someone without them getting on a list which I do get a lot of positive feedback for. I personally refuse to handle downvote disputes in discord and only want to talk on chain for a variety of reasons. Mostly because I think having those discussion on Hive is more valuable than in discord. Also, not handling disputes in discord helps me avoid creating a feeling that people can lobby me in private. If someone has a problem with my downvote I would love to talk about it on chain even if these conversations are very draining.
I am not a huge fan of Hive Watchers using discord but at the end of the day it is not my lane to tell them what to do. I can only share my perspective. I did have a conversation them on chain about it and ended in a positive way. Even if they keep using discord I was very happy with how they handled the feedback and how they reacted.
Very common for people to show disapproval for Hivewatcher's, Marky's, and Azircon's process. But when you look, a lot of these people disapprove of my process. So really some people just don't like downvotes. Unless we get rid of downvotes at the protocol level there is not much to say there. Only a small group of people using downvotes does increase centralization which is not good for the ecosystem.
I can't help but think a lot of the disdain people have for downvotes revolves around lack of education. I am always surprised how many people have no idea how the reward pool works.
I am getting less surprised each day though 🤣
"Mostly because I think having those discussion on Hive is more valuable than in discord."
I won't use discord, if someone has a beef with me, they know where to find me. @hurtlocker, I don't know how the reward pool works. Thought it was you post you get rewarded by fellow posters. What gets my gall are the whales that take away up votes with their down voters while not contributing any content. They just use their money to play god .
The reward pool is not infinite. If we did not have downvotes people on average would get a lot less in my opinion.
That is speculation obviously but there would be no way to stop self voting or multiple accounts so that activity would ramp up.
Get your point with self voting but who does it hurt? "bot" accounts are just as bad.
I do not really care about self voting as much as other people. The problem with self voting is people are double dipping in the reward pool. Getting extra author rewards and getting curation rewards for your own post. Which is why I burned this post because I figured someone would complain. And someone did complain even though I do not get author rewards from the post 😅
To me self voting is only an issue if it is on posts that are not very "good." But good is subjective so it opens people up to downvotes. I "usually" avoid downvoting based on self voting because not everyone cares.
You should always explain why you downvote someone’s post the first time. It’s educational and helps the community grow and become more thoughtful. When you don’t do this, you create toxic relationships, demotivate authors, and ultimately damage the community.
Sorry I forgot to say this - Merry Christmas to you too!
If we consider negative votes as attacks, should we then view positive votes as a favor? I don't think that's how it should be. Both are realities of Hive. According to some, if the content is high-quality, it gets upvotes, and if it's low-quality, it gets downvotes. I received downvotes for a few of the reasons you listed above, and as long as I could rationalize it in my mind, I didn't even think about it. Because then I would have to think about it every time someone upvoted one of my posts 😂
Yea this is a really good way to put it lol. Like no one cares if they get an upvote but if they get a downvote it is like the end of the world or something.
Not everyone freaks out. I think most people don't even say anything. It is just the people that are the loudest that get the most attention and make it seem like a way bigger deal than it is.
You shouldn't take this personally. A whale with 1 million Hive Power isn't concerned with the few Hive that are “yours.” Their sole purpose is to ensure the platform progresses as it should. I haven't seen any benefit to making a lot of noise up until now. Many people who make so much noise could find out why they received a downvote by visiting the whale's profile or doing a little research on the platform. Or you could just politely ask them and explain that you won't do it again or that you were misunderstood.
I do not agree I "shouldn’t” take it personally. I don't "have" to take it personally but it would change me as a person to go that route.
I am sensitive and so I do take things personally. I think most people do take it personally and just developed tough skin as a coping mechanism. I am not going to let someone harass me to change who I am and change how I cope.
@kgakakillerg thinks it’s ok to harass me and treat me and many other people this way. I am not going to fight him. I will disagree with him on rewards and keep trying to encourage him to leave real comments rather than spam.
@kgakakillerg literally calls me racist 🤣. You know that’s not true obviously but not everyone does so when he says that it does hurt my feelings.
Look at my interactions with @kgakakillerg . I try to talk to him. I spent Christmas Eve trying to talk to him. I think he needs a hug. Even if I'm being "ridiculous" in some people’s mind, I'm going to be myself.
Thank you for the feedback. I will consider not taking it personally. If there is a way for me to not take it personally without changing myself I haven't figured out how to do it yet and I'm up for feedback on how to get there.
You need to develop a tough skin for the things people say to you. Everyone here has to do this. Without censorship, someone could call you racist or curse at you and the things you love most. Some people don't even think about what they say. Hurting someone's feelings, slandering them, or similar things are insignificant to them. This doesn't make you a bad person, but it makes them a bad person.
I only experienced something like this once on Hive. I was moderating the Hive Gaming community for a while, and I saw someone sharing pictures of his kitchen on Hive. I warned him in the comments and tried to guide him in the right direction. I told him that Hive Gaming was for “games.” But first, he cursed at me. Then he threatened me. Later, he started saying harsh things about the major earthquake in Turkey. It was a difficult time for me because I wasn't married to my current wife at the time, and she was in the earthquake zone. I was following her situation moment by moment, so it was a sensitive issue for me. I muted the person making these comments and downvoted all his posts. Up until that point, I hadn't taken it personally. It was like a child crying because their toy was taken away.
Just because I’m sensitive doesn’t mean I can’t take it. 🙂
Too much tough skin and not enough feeling on HIVE seems to not be working. Just my opinion.
We could avoid much downvote drama by splitting the downvote into curator and author votes.
IF curators could choose which to punish they could punish 'bad' authors without punishing the equally 'bad' curators for voting rewards to them, and vice versa.
There are no bad posts, only bad curation.™
This feature would have avoided much of the current mess surrounding downvoting as when the vote can't be split 'good' authors got downvoted because 'bad' curators were denied rewards.
I ran it past a whale and he was concerned with malicious use, but we have to groom this crowd somehow.
Without customs and traditions this crowd will be a mob.
IF this feature had been available when the flagwars were happening far fewer authors would have been collateral damage.
Tanking the platform's reputation in the market with it.
I don't think it is that simple but I think this is 90% correct.
I do think what you are saying would be a more elegant approach. I am mostly worried it would not work exactly as we hope and create issues we do not expect.
That being said, this would get whale fights away from authors that "don't deserve it" which I think would be a good idea.
This would be a good way for manual curators who do not like auto voting to just focus on the autovotes versus downvoting the whole account.
One idea: add an optional downvote rationale feature (shown only to the author) to promote a learning mindset rather than defensiveness. This small step has the potential to make curation a much more educational resource 🤝🌱
My biggest issue with adding something like this is, it creates an expectation people will use it.
People can get downvoted and no one has to give a reason. Most people don't because giving a reason usually spirals into complete nonsense where people just try to play a battle of wits vs actually have a discussion.
You're right that reasons often turn into wit battles instead of real dialogue😂, crypto X (Twitter) knows this all too well. Yet, an optional downvote rationale feature (private note) could attract the thoughtful Curators and help authors adopt a learning mindset, without pressuring anyone. It's a low-risk way to make downvotes more educational 🤝😊
Crypto Twitter is a madhouse lol.
I am not opposed to new ideas. I think we could use some more creativity around here.
Just wanted to say a con I could think of (:
Downvotes are very well and good if it for perceived abuse of rewards. Except when it is because someone does not like you, that just smacks of bullying, but everyone can do what they want with their stake.
Even if downvotes can be used as a bullying tacit, the only reason I think it is “ok” SOMETIMES, is at least people can get their frustrations out of their system in a transparent way on chain.
I do my best not to do this but I will admit I’ve made mistakes in the past and I try not to do it.
I do downvote comments that I believe are harmful to the well being of the ecosystem. HIVE is social so what we say on chain does matter. A harmful comment is based on my interpretation so not everyone will agree with me when I do this. HIVE is global so if we are not having disagreements on chain that is weird.
If someone thinks they are being bullied, downvoting is a constructive way for them to “fight” back in my opinion.
My primarily goal is to “protect” the reward pool but I will make mistakes.
Just one of the major cons of having a decentralized anti abuse structure that is run indirectly by different people all over the world. There is rarely a consistent standard shared by all people who do antiabsuse.
I am not the only person who started doing anti abuse independently lately. I just get a lot of attention for a variety of reasons. Stake weight being a big factor. Many other users with small stake have been ramping up their own version of anti abuse.
From what I have seen on chain, independent anti abuse actors are probably in the hundreds now.
Everyone makes mistakes and that is life, as is people not admitting they make mistakes from time to time lol!
As a general rule I don't think there is much abuse of rewards. It is primarily a few bad actors running around the place. The Social aspect of Hive is why I am here, and for the most part it is a great place to be,
Not saying you are wrong. But why do you think this?
I still don't understand this whole "being a whale" thing, but I think those in power also have a responsibility to know how they should look or behave in a given environment, not to make decisions or offer opinions based solely on their own judgment, but rather on the collective good.
The issue of plagiarism is complex. If someone edits a video and adds their own reaction, it ceases to belong to the original owner and becomes a new video. The same goes for novels that draw inspiration from others to develop new ideas.
This is not true at all. If you upload a video in its entirety, without meaningful or highly transformative commentary. You would be doing copyright infringement. And it doesn't ceases to belong to the original owner. That is not how intellectual property works.
I agree with you on this.
But this is a prime example of what I was referring to.
Cultural norms plays a huge role in what people think is ok to use or not ok.
HIVE should probably try to have a standard on plagiarism. Will we ever have consensus? No
But if someone copied my post and then wrote a commentary about it I would be inclined to downvote it.
Mainly because the real answer on HIVE would be to leave a comment under my post vs copy the content.
No one has done this to me yet but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens one day.
I agree. But when it comes to law, "I though it was ok" is not really a good defense. In fact, it is a terrible defense lol
I was just correcting it from a law standpoint.
100%. People get sued or demonetized on YouTube all the time for doing it so it is clearly not “ok” 🤣
I appreciate you coming in and sharing your perspective.
It makes these conversations more valuable in my opinion.
This is an easy thing to write down but impossible to follow through on. HIVE is global. There is literally no way for me to know what is actually the "collective good."
The best I can do is try to do what is best for the collective good while being honest that I am a person so my interpretation will be subjective
I myself doesn't like downvote but it looks like it is needed to stop the abuse otherwise it gets even worse..
I do not recommend doing anti abuse. It's not for everyone and gets pretty dark sometimes.
The lengths some people go to farm the reward pool is shocking.
Downvotes are there to be used (there's nothing wrong with that), @hurtlocker. I just think they should be used with a more plausible justification than "I didn't like what you posted" without even a single comment. It's not about giving an explanation for the downvote, it's about showing the fundamental reason behind that action.
Therefore, I think downvotes could be viewed much more favorably by those who consider them as something "purely offensive".
You are being reasonable. I think the issue is when I am trying to be reasonable but then the other person who got downvoted just gets mad and would rather have a battle of wits. I am not a huge fan of battle of wits; just not productive imo.
I will keep working towards downvoting while trying to educate people on the reason; in a way that is sustainable for me.
The reason many people downvote and do not give a reason is the conversations are rarely productive.
the truth is, it hurts! to be downvoted specially if you were being targeted by whales collision. some posts are being just implicated by the higher ups heated argument or hate to each other. well this is just small matter compared to what you are pointing out that downvotes should not be labelled negatively or an attacker generally. But why not let the accounts with negative reputations get some harder punishments because they keep providing false accusations and telling that accounts that use to downvotes are being the bad guys here on hive? I feel it is strange, that you as an account user here on hive with low reputation have the guts to point out the bad guys or the good guys here where in your account that got the low reputation is the true problem. IDK just saying.
Downvotes suck. It is a reality.
But they are not an “attack.” That’s my main point.
We need some way on chain to settle disagreements about where the reward pool gets allocated. I do think about this a lot and I just think downvotes is the most practical solution.
I am not even complaining about me being harassed. Would I like it to stop? Absolutely.
But that’s not the problem. The problem is people who have never downvoted anyone get harassed.
The narrative around downvotes being an attack or being immoral fuels that fire.
How i wish the message will reach more hive users. But most of the users here enjoy the platform as it is and not caring much about what is happening and needed by hive itself. its like there is a cow meat and was being consumed by ants. Or just being a beehive that was being ransack by bees for their own benefits..
Yea. I mean early bitcoin and eth mining was like this.
People mined as much as they could and sold most of it.
Now Wall Street owns most bitcoin in some capacity because most of the original bitcoiners sold it to Wall Street 🤣
I do not really like downvotes but I see it as a necessary evil.
Simply because in economics, the rational man is expected to be profit maximising and thus, there will always be people trying to game the system. That's what downvotes are for and how I will wield mine.
Go ahead and self upvote (within reason) or upvote controversial content - that's all fine by my own standards. But when it comes to bot farms/bad actors out to maximise extraction from the ecosystem, I'm adding my (albeit small) downvote into the mix.
It is absolutely a necessary tool for responding to spam and other blatant abuses. Like any other feature here, including comment spam and plagiarized posts, it can be abused, but misuse by some does not negate the purpose for everyone else.
I think even referring to a downvote as “evil” is way out of line.
You are being rational and just speaking your mind with emotion.
But someone sees “attack” or “evil” and then they use it to justify terrible on chain actions.
I’m not even sure downvotes is necessary but it’s a functionality and not using it because of the way people have framed downvotes is a mistake in my opinion.
Thanks for the last part about downvoting extractors. That's usually where I stand with some exceptions.
My rule for plagiarism is simple: if you didn't write it yourself, credit the author and link to the source, if possible. If it's a quote, fine. If the main body of the text isn't yours, and you aren't adding commentary or otherwise substantially transforming it, decline payout.
As for spam, you've already met the kind of copy/paste nonsense I downvote most.
I think that is a good rule for plagiarism. I mean citing sources is not that hard lol
Takes like 10 seconds... 🤣
HI can you explain why you downvoted my post?
KE mostly.
Looks like you are getting downvoted by other people too and that is likely the reason but I’m not 100% sure.
Yeah it's been going on for years for no other reason than I deleted a post, I expected it to be down voted he now thinks I earn too much...
I don’t think you earn too much. I think your KE is very high though and downvoting people who sell the majority of their hive is legitimate in my opinion.
I wish more people take the time to understand KE and what it means.
A lot of people have sold all their rewards and start getting downvoted and they have “no idea” what’s happening.
It’s not hard to figure out but it can be confusing so I appreciate your frustration.
But that is why I like these conversations. They are educational and it helps me know who is a real person vs who is automated account.
Thanks again for stopping by. Feel free to keep the conversation going. I am a bit busy today but I’ll try to respond when I get time.
Happy holidays and sorry we are not talking about a more positive topic.
But we can talk about negative things in a positive way and you seem to be willing to be a part of that process.
We need more people like you that want to talk even if we have a disagreement about rewards.
I thank you for your kind words, I've also donated a lot of what I've earned to people who need it. I'm trying my best I've tried talking to my downvoters but get no reply. I can't from Steemit to Hive, I never gad any problems over there just seems someone doesn't like me but won't talk to me so we can sort it out
I appreciate your advice especially with it being Christmas, I do not expect a reply today, enjoy what is left of your day and hopefully talk soon
Merry Christmas 🎄
Merry Christmas! I told people I would be around for the holidays and I will be.
Not a lot I can do to show I care. But being here during the holidays does help validate that to some extent.
Sorry this is happening to you but most people don’t give a reason.
If you look at what I deal with regularly it makes sense why people who downvote don’t respond.
It gets wild and totally unhinged sometimes 😅
Thank you for being reasonable in your response. I really do appreciate it!
Deemed by whom?
@antisocialist I am going to upvote this one again so people can at least see the thread. 😅
What is this screenshot supposed to be revealing?
It is meant to reveal the subjective nature of your position. It appears to me that you set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner of what you deem to be an acceptable allotment of the reward pool. It seems to imply that your privilege of greater stake gives your opinion a greater moral high ground.
There have been past down voting wars over the very issue of self voting. Perhaps they pre-dated your arrival. It only goes to show the subjectivity of the voting system on this broken governance known as DPoS.
I wrote a blog post. It will be subjective because I am human.
Please clearly explain what your screenshot is supposed to be evidence for.
It shows evidence of self voting. Self voting has traditionally been a community faux pas dating back to early STEEM INC days.
We are not on Steem we are on hive.
I have posted many times to the effect of I do not care about Steem and reading about it is a waste of time.
On HIVE, is self voting a burn post a faux pas? I can remove it if it is.
I don’t understand how I benefit by self voting a burn post.
Community standards are not for me to define. When the community last spoke on self voting as well as the voting bots, they were won by the faction that held self voting to be a faux pas. At least that was my take.
This thread has moved some way from my original point. It may be time to leave it alone. My intention was not to judge you personally. If you feel that has been the case then you have my apologies of breaking the wise refrain to judge not, lest ye be judged.
Wishing you and yours a happy holiday.
Like this comment is so bizarre. You are judging me while trying to say I’m the judge 🤣
Deemed by the ecosystem
Been a bit thin around here, doing the "Christmas thing" so I'll just start with saying Merry Christmas, and hope you had a good one!
I'll get back to something I have soapboxed on in the past — and which is likely unchangeable, at this point — which is that we have built a de-facto community culture based on the notion that we are somehow entitled to a chunk of the rewards pool, rather than viewing it as a bonus for sharing worthy content.
To me, rewards on Hive remains a bit little tipping at a restaurant (at least here in the US!) where what you end up with is closely linked to what you provide... but you're not entitled to a good tip, and you're certainly not entitled to a $20 tip for handing someone a cup of coffee!
The only times I can recall (and this was a long time ago, on the old chain) downvotes feeling like an attack was when I got inadvertently caught in the crossfire of several whales having interpersonal squabbles... as in
While we're all free to do what we want, that reeks of junior high school bully antics or dictatorial Sub-Redditors shadowbanning someone because of who's on their friends list.
But it's pretty rare.
Since Hive is a continuously eveolving ecosystem, I'm hoping someone further fleshes out the K-E to include &(at least for curation purposes) some kind multiplier/divisor that takes into account the quality (or not) of contributions each content creator adds.
It's not impossible. I don't know if you were part of them, but if we go back to Asher's (@abh12345) old "Curation and Engagement Leagues" — which were remarkably successful in helping support genuine quality on Hive, and previously Steemit — he developed a fairly elaborate algorithm that ranked content on quality, one-word comments quite differently from paragraph long comments, caught repetition and plagiarism, self-voting and more... if that somehow could be integrated with K-E, it might give a more meaningful picture of relative value.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't think it's downvotes that are bad for Hive, it's our non-stop bickering over them that's an issue.
Inilah sebabnya Gairah Pasar $Hive menurun drastis sekali. Hari ini menjadi 0.09.
Dan Para Pengguna terus menerus mendapatkan kerugian pemegang HIVE.
HIVE is plummeting because people sell it like it will give them a disease if they hold it too long.
Congratulations @hurtlocker! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 84000 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 10000 upvotes.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPIn my case down votes were an attack on certain posts. When you get down voted and don't know why that is infuriating. It stifles you to continue creating posts that others have given you upvotes. I see where down voting can seem like a corrective tool but has driven the best creators out of this wonderful social media //