Would it not be useful to have two upvoting options? One for rewards and one for "likes"?
Maybe? This raises some complicated issues like what does it mean if someone votes to reward but dislikes. Is this some sort of attack? One of the reasons Steem features posts with higher rewards in terms of visiblity is so people have the opportunity to scrutinize the post and rewards before payout, possibly downvoting if the reward is undeserved or outright abuse (for the same reason, when a post gets votes close to payout time, the time is extended). Perhaps disliking a post would make it less visbile, subverting this protection?
Of course there are many details that would have to be worked out with such an idea. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, just asking questions and thinking it is undeveloped and would need a lot more work to define and analyze before seriously considering it.
Here an suggestion to evolve the post visibility, what wecould do about the voting i posted bellow in the comment:
Fair visibility for all posts
Currently posts are not only rewarded exponentially, but also they get a lot more votes if they become visible on the trending page. So even with linear vote-counting, they are rewarded exponentially, because they attract more voters through being visible.
It would be much more fair if the posts which are displayed on the main site as default are drawn in a lottery like style. Every time you reload the page the displayed posts on the top site could be drawn through a lottery. The more votes they have already the higher the chance to be selected. This would give all participants a fair chance to be listed at the top and therefore attract more votes.
@arcurus I like that idea! It would prominently display some posts that haven't received a lot of voting interest yet, but might if featured. Good thinking.
@arcurus I also agree.
I think the scrutiny of high-value posts to identify subjectively undeserved rewards is an important part of curation that is very hard to get right and people fortunately/unfortunately have been erring on the side of caution.
I agree, vote should reward. If you don't feel it is worth the vote, you can comment. It promotes the posts visibility still and helps in a back end way. Flagging should have a tiered options as to reason (all with same penalty) but clarity as to why it was downvoted. Also, what would you think of whales using algo to designate small small amounts f voting power based on historical upvotes lining up with point of views per whale? I am sure there's logistics I have not realized or thought through as yet on that... but it's a thought
Agreed needs fleshing out and seeing what are the potential pitfalls.
I can see that being a viable option actually. There are posts that you can disagree with vehemently, but still feel that the person deserves a reward because their opinion can be just as valid as yours, but you don't agree with it. So you reward them for the effort and opinion while at the same time let them know that you don't automatically agree with it, JUST because you rewarded it.
I may be in the minority on feeling this way, but I've seen quite a few posts that I think should be rewarded, but I don't think they are my cup of tea and want to still give them support. Like there is some user, whose name I can't recall, that has some rather creative opinions and posts. They make me cringe at times, because it's not something that I like, but I think that others should be exposed to this users meanderings, so I would like to reward, and thumbs down. Considering the thumbs down is only an indicator of ones approval and doesn't need to affect visibility, I'm not sure how it can be gamed or thought of as an attack. If it were to affect visibility then there might be a problem. Hrmm, just thought of something else, but this comment is already too long.
I'll see if I can find more posts talking about the voting system and try to find an elegant and simple solution. Though, I really hate to be spending our time discussing something that isn't listened to by the devs or that is already being worked on by them. I'm not the guy out there that loves to talk about what player should be drafted as if they were a GM of a team. If we have no say, then we might as well go on our way.
Thanks for being out here in the wild so much sharing your ideas, Smooth. It's appreciated.