In discussing the recent epidemic of self-voting abuse with @anyx, I remembered a possible solution. I first discussed this in 2016, so it's nothing new. Please note that I'm not a developer, designer or economist at all, so I could be way off. But as an active curator I see this as such a debilitating problem that I'm compelled to go way out of my comfort zone.
The perceived problem with the old 40 votes per day voting power target was that the bots had an advantage over human curators. To fix that, the voting power target was reduced to 10 per day. However, this only served to discourage active human curators from curating, and instead encourage casual self-upvoters to stop curating others' posts and save all their voting power for that massive overpowered self-upvote. It's a disaster, and I don't see any evidence to the contrary. The only benefit would be fewer people have VP at 100%, but that seems rather superficial.
So, the objective would be -
- Remove any friction from engaged curation. Curators enjoy voting without stressing about voting power.
- Penalize bots or otherwise excessive curation.
- Control self-upvote abuse.
- Democratize curation.
How many votes do active curators make?
Hint - it's a lot more than 10. Judging by the most influential human curators on SteemDB, the answer is between 50 and 120. Day after day, it's the very same pattern. Looking through other curators I admire, I have come to an average of 75 votes per day. Let's consider this as an average of activity, this would put us at 0.1%. Anyway, the point of this is not to find an actual number, but that by looking at the data it'll be clear to see where the outliers are - those are the bots. In the data there, it seems like beyond 200 they are most certainly bots, or outliers.
Inverting the voting power cost curve
Currently, the voting power cost decreases the lower your VP gets. At 100%, a vote will reduce your VP to 98%. At 50%, it'll reduce just 1% to 49%, and at 0.5%, it'll go down to 0.49%. The end result is you can keep voting as much as you want without any decrease in overall influence.
But what if you invert it? Note, that the following numbers are just placeholders. Up to the 75 votes per day, there'll be a minimal cost to voting. This will mean active curators will be encourage to curate, and experienced curators' votes will matter. Curators can vote freely without constantly stressing over voting power. That drains the whole fun out of curation!
After 75 votes and up to 200 votes, the voting power cost will start accelerating. After 200 votes, it'll tank hard, so the outliers are heavily penalized. And yes, maybe VP could drop all the way down to 0% - someone voting 2,000 times a day is probably not up to any good. But maybe it can flatten back out once it drops to 1%. Not important.
(PS: This may mean bots will want to split up into different accounts, though I'm not certain that would help given linear rewards. Either way, it's one more barrier added compared to currently.)
Capping influence
Currently, the VP spent is tied directly to Rshares generated. So, a 2% VP cost will give 2% Rshares. Of course, with an inverse curve, this will be problematic. So the simple solution would be decoupling the two, and capping Rshares influence. So even if the bots' costs 2% VP, the influence is only 0.25% equivalent or whatever the figure is. Voting strengths will continue as always, so a 10% vote will be 0.025% equivalent. I'm sure there's a more elegant solution here, but this shouldn't be a major issue.
At the beginning end of the curve, spending 0.25% versus 2% doesn't mean a 1/8th reduction, as everyone will also be spending that much. So, the net effect will be zero. The difference is won't be able to ration your VP as significantly for a massive vote. Since the rationing almost always seems to be for self-voting or collusive voting, that's a net positive.
Conclusion
If implemented correctly, this should solve many problems and offer added benefits.
- With engaged curators curating actively, the self-upvotes will be drowned out from the reward pool.
- Self-upvoters themselves will be encouraged to curate other posts instead of their own, as voting for others doesn't have such a high cost.
- They'll also be encouraged to vote for comments due to the lower cost of each vote.
- The rewards will be more distributed and democratic as each vote is worth less. Currently one whale can easily trend an article despite the linear rewards. Of course, this means self-voting and other voting abuse will be less costly.
- Bots and outlier voters will reduced to irrelevance. They'll have to contain their voting to a similar magnitude as human voters.
Please let me know your thoughts on the solution. If you like it, please shout out loud, get witnesses' and developers' attention. Thanks.
PS: You could also Promote this post, so it gets some exposure. I have promoted it with SBD 138 for a start.
I'm sorry, but as long as there are curation rewards, this will never be true of bots. I promise you that no matter how convoluted you make the voting power curve, no matter how nonlinear, no matter how pro-human - because it's math and money driving the show, it will always be possible to automate optimal voting.
Your proposal says something like "75-ish votes per day should be penalty-free, and more than that come with a severe inefficiency penalty." Then the bot optimization strategy is easy: figure out how how big an optimally-sized vote should be, and spread SP out among as many accounts as necessary to make each of those accounts' first 75 votes the right size. Done. Benefit to humans negated, but with the added baggage that you've given me an incentive to split my SP among several accounts, which doesn't help anybody.
In which case, the bot is no longer an outlier. As you know, I have no problem with non-abusive bots. Indeed, around here more humans are abusive than bots.
I'm kinda agin 'em. I do not value the opinion of a bot. I may value the opinion of a person. Regardless of my disdain for the opinions of bots, those opinions devalue my opinions by competing with me, and with other people too.
Bots may have uses, but competing with humans in valuing content is not an appropriate one, imho. Dunno how this might be achieved (I am not a coder), but I reckon it oughta be.
No matter how I see it there will always be ways to game the rules. I would propose Steemit to become more "Facebook" like. Do you see bots on Facebook? Maybe, but not as rampant compared to Steemit. The best way is to remove bots totally, if we want to read higher quality posts on Steemit.
That's more because there's a) no financial incentive, and b) it's a privacy oriented network.
I'm curious. Should we place the emphasis on maximizing financial gains or should we prioritize value creation?
It seems to me that only by creating value first will we be able to reap financial rewards. If Steemit is invested for the long term, it should remove bots that hurts its potential for future growth.
While not the most elegant of solutions, it does present an alternative way to look at the Curation Process. Maybe it would be easier to just not allow people to upvote their own items and instead allow 5 Article Bumps per day per article for each user. That way the self-voting doesn't dilute the product into worthlessness while allowing newer Steemians the possibility of having their posts seen more often than otherwise possible.
I have 245 followers currently and what I find most disconcerting is that I get only the rarest of upvotes. Now that my self-upvotes (which provide nearly all of my rewards for most of my articles) have become less significant, I have less desire to go through the trouble of writing on here. That would be a shame if Steemit began to lose users because of this issue. If my articles could be bumped up without having to be promoted using my earnings (which I've done unsuccessfully), I might have the possibility of having other users participate in them and pssibly have a whale or 2 see them and upvote.
So, as for me, even an inelegant solution is worth looking at as it's something that's being proposed to make the Community better.
There's an important utility to self-upvotes. It allows advertisers to power up and promote their products etc, which could be an important revenue stream for Steem in the future. But yes, it could be limited.
Monetizing articles is definitely a way to make money, but does it kind of go against the normal thought process for most Steemians?
So in summary: self upvotes bump as if they increased the reward, but don't actually increase the reward. They can still come out of the users voting power. Interesting idea.
It's a good one! I missed that detail.
People can just use a second account to up vote their own stuff. There are always workarounds to BARRIERS such as this. I prefer to just not follow people that up vote their own comments.
EDIT: I was fine for the up vote for visibility when it was a few cents... yet people doing it $8, $10 for their comment when there is nothing remotely close to that is clearly not about visibility.
I'm still new here and my vote does not count for much, but i do want to vote more then 10 times a day. That is making the choice of who i up vote very difficult! Good post thank you!
I think some way of making vote diversity count. If all your vote-percent-to-recipient ratio is over a certain amount in a day, their voting power should attract a penalty, too much and it could negatively impact reputation. Unsociable behaviour needs a disincentive.
Good idea! Probably a bit complicated, but I think this can be implemented. Vote power costs are more if you vote on the same people over and over again.
Yes. Maybe also the curation reward is lessened if you've voted on that person before within a certain time frame.
That'll happen automatically, curation rewards decrease with voting power.
I really like your idea.
Under current rules more and more people will start saving all their votes for themselves, ignoring engagement with others.
If I understand it right, in your system you power up your vote by voting on people. Then, you can spend your high power vote on whoever you want, including yourself. But you had to at least vote other people along the way (meaning: actually ENGAGE the platform). Not bad... not bad at all.
That's not really what I meant - you don't gain voting power, it's just that it reduces slowly up to a certain point. Personally, I quite like your idea, but the problem is abusers will be more incentivized to keep voting on their own spam :)
@liberosist. I think my posts seem to be automatically upvoted. It may be a default setting. I will look into it. Haven't been around long enough to give much of an opinion on how to best address these issues. Regardless, I do appreciate this post. Regardless of outcome, it's clear you have only the best interest in mind.
Really simple solution to use your problem as the solution: Create a bot that rewards those who up-vote themselves fairly. Another bot that statistically finds unnatural swarms of circular up-voting and punishes.
Let's make the number of votes per day a witness setting, so we don't have to hardfork to change it. It's already been changed twice now with hardforks.
Good idea! Especially as the community is growing rapidly. When HF19 was proposed, there were 5,000 comments and posts per day. Now there are nearly 100,000.
There is 20x more content to go through, yet the target remains at 10? How does that make sense?
Yeah, there is 20x more content but I think the content is getting worse and worse. It´s becoming more and more Facebook like. People are posting rubbish all the time to get noticed, this makes it really hard for good content creators to get noticed. Especially when they are upvoting themselves...
I think we need to expect that most posts aren't going to be of the same quality that early adopters are capable of. While I detest the spammy posts as much as anyone, they're easy to ignore, and will be easier when communities get implemented.
When Steemit really becomes a place where RL friends and families are using it to keep in touch, a la Fakebook, then those rubbish posts will have place.
I resteemed, the issues in here must be resolved. Also the content should also be rewarded or it will be just like a numbers game only in here.
I am finding it difficult also to get things going, the system is complicated.
Have you checked out the Minnow Support Project? Some great people have undertaken to help folks get things rolling.
Otherwise, the key to getting to people that find what you say compelling is doing exactly what you are doing here: commenting relevantly on their posts in your own voice. In time you will find others that speak your language, and that you also find interesting.
I already had found minnows support, they are awesome. There are also ways and tools here I saw that can greatly help newcomers like me so it's not that hard anymore. We just have to write our world and use this community as it is intended. Thank you.
@cryptopie got you a $0.01 @minnowbooster upgoat, nice! (Image: pixabay.com)
Want a boost? Click here to read more!
@liberosist I think that bots management is the best way to make the human element of Steemit count. If not, it will turn into Instagram which is, in my opinion, the largest collection of bots that if given the ability to "feel", could be the start of SkyNet.
Confession, I used like bots on Instagram lol. Using bots was like the only way to break through to a decent sized following. Likes are near worthless now on Instagram; you need thousands of them. Instagram has become very diluted.
I think you a lot of valid points. Main problem seems to be bot curation. I wouldn't say completely remove that but it has to be limited. Possible solution I see is not letting to vote on same authors content repeatedly maybe like a week limit. Thats what they do, autovote same authors, with no real curation. Recharge should be changed, I still cannot reach back to 100% since hf19. I tied to leave it alone for long time. No success so far.
I think VP recharge was broken for a while. It's suppose to recharge at 20% per day, but I noted a couple days where it recharged an order of magnitude less than that.
Rather than limiting peoples ability to vote for posts they like, even if it is from the same author each day, we need a way to get rid of bots curating, period. I don't want to live in a community where AI votes to promote the content I depend on. The bottom line is that people instill value in content. That value isn't money, but ideas. Bots only farm $.
We need to return curation to curators. Bots are cancer.
I think HF19 has been less than successful but agree the bots have to go.
Personally, I think comments should be weighed more than a simple upvote. Some effort is required for a comment and it too can attract funding.
I also think the resteem would be more logical if there were somewhere for the resteemer to explain why they thought a post deserved to be resteemed.
Great post BTW and well thought out.
I like to vote people i like. Posts i like. The limited vp is sucking the life out of me.
It seems to be treated like sacrilege in this community to voice this opinion but I think steemit would be much better off if every effort was made to eliminate bots. There are bots that do good things but they all seem necessarily simply to counteract other bot usage and the problem with the distribution of wealth here.
If this really works I'm on board but I have no idea if it will. I need to spend more time reading through the counterarguments and see if they make any points.
This might also be sacrilegious but I think it might be worth thinking about making other caps, like a cap on steem power....is there none? If someone invests a billion into steemit could they essentially upvote a post and suck the entire reward pool with their upvotes?
I'm afraid you'll never get rid of bots. It's a transparent platform, so no matter what you do, bots will interact directly with the blockchain. You could make it harder for them, and you can reduce their influence, which is the key message here.
Self voting is one issue. Another is bad curation. Curation is supposed to reward finding good content. But the way it is currently set up it doesn't reward 'finding' anything. If you get in early on a post by a user that regularly gets high rewards you get the same as if you got in early on new talent that hasn't been scoring high yet, but has their first break through. The second example is 'finding good content', the first is just betting on a sure thing. Thus no curators are actually incentivised to look for new talent, but instead follow users that are already discovered. It seems that if curation rewards were somehow weighted in relation to the average reward of the posters last X posts, it would go someway to addressing that...
I agree that the timing of votes is anathema to curation. It doesn't work as the white paper says it would, and, as you point out, is just a means now of manipulating the rewards pool.
I have actually been in a chat room that was created for the purpose of timing posts, so that those there could quickly vote on it, and gain max rewards.
This scam just needs to go away.
Interesting proposal... it might also be more interesting for minnows, given that they don't have the voting power slider till they reach 500SP. I say that because if you are new and find yourself running out of voting power after just 10 votes... you're not exactly encouraging new members to become active curators.
I manually read/vote/comment a good 30-70 posts a day... simply because I enjoy it. On the UPside, the current rewards and voting power curve encouraged a wider range of "grades" on content; but the chronic self-upvoting of comments does seem to be turning into a bit of an epidemic... and the unfortunate side effect is that it does nothing to help build the sense of community Steemit is getting known for.
I'm also not a developer... I'm just a content creator, and I care about highlighting and rewarding content that (in my opinion) adds value to the platform.
Very true, a lot of minnows have complained about it. They are changing the threshold to 125 SP, but even so, not everyone has $250 to throw at an internet experiment, and it's not that easy to make 125 SP for a newbie in today's competitive blogging environment.
Thanks for the input. Yes, I noticed many of my favourite human curators fall in the 50-100 votes range. I bet you would vote more and on comments if you didn't have to worry about vote power.
As a minnow I believe minnows should not worry about the voting power. On my first day, when I know nothing about curation, I simply vote whatever I like. Then, I discovered my VP was very low and I learned that I can get paid by upvoting other people. Now I know some tips to increase curation rewards. But even I apply all these tips, I can only get $0.001 for each upvote on average. Therefore, I won't worry about the rewards, just upvote whatever I like.
In my week here, reading, watching, exposing myself to as much content as I can. Your thoughts and ideas on how to make steemit better are genuinely the best I've seen. Thanks for having integrity and being consistent in pushing the platform forward. Definitely will be resteeming. (I have no monies to promote it haha)
nice keep it : )
I feel ashamed that I have to upvotes myself just so I can gain more steempower so I can upvotes others at a better rate then 0.02 my gole is to upvote at a much higher rate but I feel ashamed trying g to get there for upvote g myself. So I understand where your coming from
While I am no expert, self voting for $.02 is not a practical means of gaining SP. However, engaging with others potentiates finding like minded people, and some of them will have votes worth more than $.02. Additionally, you can throw ten votes a day. If you throw them at yourself, you get $.20. If you throw them at content others have created, and comment relevantly on their posts and comments, you will impact 20 people, who each have 10 votes.
Also, as you keep self voting, you get $.20 a day, every day, and never impact others, make no friends, influence no people, gain no followers. If you vote 10 new people every day, at the end of a week you have introduced yourself to 70 people who have 700 votes to cast.
Self voting is a waste of your SP, and your time on Steemit.
Edit: I only mentioned SP and VP here. The fact is that Steemit isn't about money but ideas, and the people who have them. By self voting you are neglecting the real value in a community. Hint: it isn't in their wallets.
I'm upset that you can vote only for 10 posts or comments per day. And, if the large curators can divide the Power of the Steеm into four parts, or even more, then I can not - and my vote already does not benefit anyone. :(
I believe they are dropping the threshold to gain access to the voting strength slider to 125 SP. After that, you can divide your votes into 100 parts. Still, I feel your pain. 10 posts is basically nothing for a network now doing nearly 100,000 posts and comments.
Sure looks like it could work well. I've noticed that I'm getting a lot pickier about what I vote for each day. Even stuff I'd really LIKE to vote for, by the time I find it, I'm tapped out. Hard to balance that amazing feeling of seeing my vote make a difference - and not being able to vote at all without becoming powerless.
What if you didn't have to worry about voting power, and just vote? Vote 100% for posts you like best, vote less accordingly for lower quality posts.
That would be wonderful, don't you think? I hate feeling stingy... and even worse is knowing that the more we give (votes) the less valuable they become. Not that I'll ever hit the 200 vote point - but 50? 50 would do the trick!
Yes, it could be 30, 50, 100 or 120. The point being, 10 isn't enough for human curators.
I think abusive self-upvoting could probably be dealt with incentivizing downvoting just as upvoting. Actually I like the current 'strong votes' to really give appreciation to the posts I like most. But not having some kind of 'voting power bar' as part of the GUI is a massive flaw as you have no intuition what happens to your voting power when you cast a vote with a certain strength.
This was discussed a while ago too - the notion of downvoting rewards. It was suggested that would incentivize revenge flagging and other downvote abuse.
Ultimately this is an epidemic that is simply not policeable through downvotes. Already there are cases of rampant self-upvotes being reported, but few seem to bother downvoting. With VP being such a luxury item, those who do only do so with 1% strength or so.
I see the benefit in rationing your votes to give out a strong vote to others, but let's face it, most people are rationing that for themselves.
Since the stated purpose for downvotes in the white paper is to deal with self votes in particular, and financial manipulation generally, and it has not worked, I'm all for killing it off - unless VP is based on reputation, rather than SP.
Reputation is community vetting, in a way, and thus high rep votes carry a sort of endorsement from the community, which I think would also create an additional note of censure that would attach to a rep weighted downvote.
It is clear however, that downvoting as conceived by the developers requires people to be far too coordinated and like minded for it to work even a little bit as conceived. In it's present form, is has unforeseen drawbacks in it's employment to censor, and instigate flagwars, while only once have I seen it used by a coordinated group in the way envisioned in the white paper.
In that case the leader of the flag assault made a remorseful post the following day, deeply regretting their actions.
As to people rationing vote for self votes, I only see any justification for that if your vote is worth a significant sum, multiple $, at least. Anything less than that is far more usefully employed engaging in curation, and developing a network. I guess people just haven't figgered that out yet.
For those whose SP holdings are substantial enough to make their vote a reasonable income, it is financially irresponsible to NOT self vote. Curation amounts to giving away their pay, as it takes 100 minnow votes to get $2.00, and most posts don't get that many votes. Many still do curate, of course, including those whose votes are worth $100's.
This shows the altruism Steemit brings out in users, because those votes are all in lieue of generating significant income.
After a certain point, weighting VP by SP strongly motivates against curation, and for self votes.
I have repeatedly argued that weighting votes equally, regardless of SP holdings, would allow whales to curate without neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to manage their wealth, encourage minnows to spread that VP, and grow their networks along with their holdings as others reciprocally voted their posts in return.
All of Steemit, however, depends on curation, and the current VP decay debacle kills the Steemit.
I have argued for eliminating VP decay altogether, but have neglected how that would impact bots. IMHO, your proposal for handling VP decay is the best I've seen, and I endorse it unreservedly.
Thanks very much for making the requisite effort to devise a novel and well considered plan to fix what ails Steemit far more than self votes. VP decay is a swollen, foetid underbelly that is rotting Steemit from within. Your proposal is like a probiotic after a course of Cephalexin - exactly what is needed in the innards where it matters.
Edit: I don't even want a slider atm. I wanna be able to just vote on stuff I like at least 100 times a day, which I did before I read the white paper, and understood that doing so kept my VP from recharging at all.
Interesting ideas. All good. Except then you ruined it with "rewards will be more .... democratic". Why do people think that is a good idea? We are dangerously close to the point that 50% of the voters in the US are willing to vote left just to get more freebies and handouts. And once we get to that tipping point, then the republic is screwed.
STEEM On !!
Dave
I can see why the word "democracy" hit some political nerves. Please don't consider it literally and equate it to the government elections.
Steem is a weighted democracy. All votes here are proportional to the stake of the voter. However, some voters could play games rationing their votes in the current system. By "more democratic" I meant simply that collusive voting will be reduced. So, now you can get to Trending by befriending 2 or 3 whales. If this system is used, you'll have to convince a dozen whales and a bunch of minnows or dolphins that your post is good. That democratizes the voting process in the sense that more peoples' opinion matters.
I agree. Even though it fits within the definition of weighted democracy, there is something not quite right about process where you befriend a couple of whales and every post goes to the moon. That probably rises to the level of collusion, or gets real close to collusion if not all the way there.
Oh, I think we're past 50% being willing. I just think we're fortunate that they're unaware they can do it, or unwilling to work together to do so.
UBI here we come! X(
I think Steemit has grown the way it has by the way it is and im sure the community will shape it accordingly as time goes by, there is always room for improvement but to much at once is never good. but very well thought out article :)
Good Idea.
Thanks for this post. I really like your and Dave B's ideas. resteeming this for my followers.
Peace and happiness from Vietnam!
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around all this. I doubt we necessarily want to read more content. We just want to see the very best content.
I think self-vote are a problem.
... but how can we find out what the best content is if we don't read and compare many articles? :-)
Unfortunately many members don't vote for the best content they can find, but instead they vote for authors from whom they expect high impact upvotes in return for their votes. This is the short version. I described it more thoroughly in my article about self-voting since HF 19.
An example of blatant self-voting of minimalistic own articles (using videos of other people with no own text) you can find here.
Btw.: I always like to read your high quality and very motivating articles about Steemit and its possible future. :)
Being fairly new to Steemit, I'm still not sure how voting power works. However, I do try to upvote those posts that add value and I can see the creator put some work into.
Right now my vote is worth 3 cents but I keep voting. I figure every little bit helps.
Great..
Thanks for this post @liberosist .great work for Steemit
It can't be soon enough for me for Steemit to add a slider bar for us mino's.
I was voting like a mad man, now I don't because I have no clue what's go on with my power?
The Steemit white paper explains how VP recharges.
tl;dr VP recharges 20% per day, but has been broken lately. Basically you can vote 10 times a day, and keep your VP up.
Thanks @valued-customer, that relieves a little bit of stress.
Any idea when it's fixed?
Yesterday it got fixed for me. As I don't know why it broke, or why it isn't now, and whether that applies to us all, or only me, I have no idea. None.
What I know is that as soon as I saw my VP over 90% I went on a mad voting spree, and now need to sit quietly in a corner for a day or so, again.
I am very unhappy with the VP decay system, and it is dramatically preventing me from voting posts I find useful. Since it isn't happening only to me, this is hugely negative on the entire platform, to the point where content is languishing undiscovered in droves, and, particularly new accounts, are strongly discouraged from putting effort into creating.
This is perhaps the most pressing issue for Steemit devs atm. I strongly support @neoxian's idea to make VP decay something that witnesses can determine amongst themselves, so that hard forks are unnecessary to experiment with it.
Great idea and cheering your concern about steemit system. I am a newbie from Japan. I want to read your article with a time.
I really think that the use of boots can be minimised the same way that Google voice minimizes fake accounts, they require 1 working non-VOIP normal phone number per account. By adding a cash to account creation it can be a dis-incentive to making extra accounts. What do you think?
The great thing about Steem is it's an open and transparent blockchain anyone can interact with. The downside is you can't stop bots from interacting with it. But yes, we can try and minimize their influence.
Just out of interest, there must be a separation between content posts and comments. Because when you post content you have the option of how to split reward and if you automatically upvote yourself or not. But we do not have this for comments. So would it be that hard to change the rules and make a larger separation between comments and content? I don't mind people upvoting their content posts, or using rando whale etc ... on their content, especially if it is quality content. But I do not agree with being able to vote or use randowhale etc.. on your own comments. Couldn't we make it a strict rule of no upvoting your own comments but still able to do it for content. Apart from that I do agree with upvoting comments and before the hardfork I used to upvote any comments on my posts, but do not at all now, unless its an amazing comment.
Thanks for your post, I like your ideas of how to help fix the problem we now face after the last hardfork, and totally agree that something needs to be done!!
It's a free open market. Businesses like randowhale will exist as long as there's demand for it. It's up to the community.
Comments are content. They're every bit, if not more, important than posts.
I also did the same before the hardfork, and exactly as you do now.
Great post. I am new here and this is for me Very useful
up-voted, resteemed. I agree with a lot of your points. I admit i self up-vote after a few days but only because in my mind that vote will get me more discoverability? Maybe i'm wrong and that vote does nothing more than pump my ego seeing more than 0 LOL
Yes voting is really important. It's not what you get but you really help others to grow on this wonderful network. :-)
In discussing the recent epidemic of self-voting abuse
no such thing.
the system is slowing aligning itself to work the way it was intended to work.
vote harvesting bots no longer have an advantage.
humans will actually profit from (gasp) CURATION...who'd a thunk.
I don't see the problem....
I love the solution and attention to system design. But I wouldn't mind inverting the curve at a lower number -- the lower the number, the less likely bots will be effective.
I vote much less for posts now than I did before HF19 simply due to how fast it blows through my voting. I vote on comments frequently but almost exclusively with my slider set to 1%. I like encouraging discussion. I still haven't really found anything that works well for me yet in terms of voting on posts. I can tell you that it has made micro-managing my votes a lot more tedious than before. I'd love to do 75 post votes per day. Yet now the only way to do that is to do mental olympics to determine the best % rates to use to make that possible. That makes it a lot more complex. Instead, other than comments (1%) I just don't vote as much.
@liberosist The voting power algorithm is perfect right now and you're never gonna prevent botting. I don't see any benefit to your proposal.
Your proposal doesn't change anything regarding self-voting, i'm actually working on a new idea that might work (but it probably won't haha). I'll let you know when i thought it through and published it.
good idea. thanks for the post