It is sometimes frustrating to see that some accounts get so many upvotes without really interacting with the community as you say.
Especially for those who are new on Hive do engage and wait for an occasional upvote from a curator since they also haven't built a network of people that manually vote on them.
I also sometimes get a bit sad when I see daily auto-uploaded actifit post with < 50 words telling that someone has done grocery shopping and easily earns $15 a day with this while I on the other hand invest far more time into my post, but have to promote it on several discord channels to make the same amount.
But I can't really complain because I see many people with great blogs earn less too.
People with less stake also get less comments.With my @topcomment initiative I try to stimulate engagement on blogs, so people also can get rewarded by making comments.
As @slobberchops already mentioned in his comment on this blog, people with larger stakes often might get replies from people because they can expect an upvote from them.
I think if we distribute rewards more evenly between new and established users, the user retention and growth of Hive will improve significantly.
I think downvoting for a better distribution of rewards could help in this case. But downvotes casted for overrewarded posts often are seen as an attack.
I think it would be good if we could change this somehow.
I think people are often a bit reserved to downvote blogs of large stakeholders because the possible consequenses (retalliation).
A downvote is now often associated with plagiarism, fraud or personal disagreement between users.There are some people (like @smooth) that cast downvotes, but I think it would be good if it would become more normal to downvote.
Would there be a role for curation services maybe? Would downvotes from them, explaining why they do it be more accepted?
They should be less afraid of retalliation since they have a big stake and (at least I think) depend less on income from their own posts.
Do you think OCD (and other curation services) could help here?
I remember there was one curation service that also downvoted posts, but stopped doing that. I can't remember which one and why this was.
Maybe it could help when some curation services work together downvoting posts. That shows it is more widely supported.
Thanks for your blog (which I think is getting a bit too much rewards maybe 😂)!
150 views (on @peakd) and 60+ unique comments? 😅 I'd say compared to many others out there it's still quite on the low side (not that I'm complaining or aiming for higher rewards)
author rewards inflation has to go somewhere, there's no going around it, although it can be tweaked a bit by spending some on @hbd.funder or other initiatives that are generally good for the whole ecosystem without a single entity directly profiting off of it (such as POSH stuff for instance), but there definitely would need more balancing to be done mainly for the bad inactive autovotes and authors taking advantage of it.
As you say downvotes should be more normalized and I think the best start would be to penalize bad autovotes which would effectively reward manual voters more and at the same time penalize lazy authors which would reward every other author more.
I was provoking you a bit. There is always a post that gets more rewards and it's the question which one is more valuable. That's often very subjective too.
There are so many reactions on your post and most of the commenters have the same feeling about overrewarded low quality post that get autovoted by large stakeholders.
Couldn't we collaborate in some way to think of a solution? Maybe we could form a brainstorm group on Discored or something?
We could share ideas on how to deal with this.
One of the ideas I have it to have a max-payout for a post. As a community we could have a consensus what the max payout of a post should be.
If this threshold is reached, the post doesn't receive any votes anymore. This way curarors are forced to diversify their votes.
If the curator stull thinks the post is underrewarded, they can send the author a tip from their own pocket.
I don't known if this would be technically feasable, but this is just one idea. I think there are many more ideas that we could explore.
If we want this to change, we need to take action.
The question is if rewarding the activity to look for posts to downvote similar to how we reward activity to look for posts to upvote is a good idea or not. When it comes to plagiarism and the obvious stuff it's fine of course but when it comes to overrewarded posts it gets a bit muddied and people are always keen to want to abuse such powers. That said we're quite fit to handle such nominations considering it's quite similar to upvoting as well, i.e. is this curator upvoting this author too often for other reasons than our scope one could then look if someone's adjusting someone's rewards for other reasons than being overrewarded/undeserving. It could also cause a lot of drama if nominations for downvotes were to be leaked compared to the other which most wouldn't care about.