How very truth. I see many talented people in here who fail to engage with others, without understanding they're shooting themselves in the foot precisely because of that lack of interaction.
For me, no one had to told me that. As I think it's pretty obvious that I cannot expect to receive something back, if I don't do anything for others myself.
From the start, I have done exactly what I used to do in other Social Networks and that seems to be working for me.
However, I quickly realised that I needed to stop picking fights with whales, no matter what I think about them.
While in other sites, a flag doesn't bother much, there are some whales in here that won't simply flag a comment in which you disagree with them. No, that's not enough for them. They flag every post and every comment you did for the past seven days, just because they can.
Oh well, if that's how they behave, better to stay away from them. As such, I never visited the Trending Tab again. I pretend it doesn't exist. 😛
Well, this post of @meno deserves to be on Trending, the #1 even, organically
I found it without going there. 😉
This would naturally get there, if there wasn't so much paid crap. Right?
We need to find a way to clean that trash. But as I said, I am not picking up fights with whales anymore. Been there, done that.
"Fighting", as a "concept", most of the times only results in people losing both / all.
One way to possibly slow down that type of posting is to fix the downvote. Bots do not like to lose money. So if when a person wanted to down vote a post do to excessive rewards, the down vote needs to go against the curation portion of the reward. The Author would still get his 75%, (or50%), but in a disagreement with rewards the curators would get zero. How many bots and vote sellers are going to cater to a serial buyer in that environment. Who would be curating steepshot photo post with no meaning/words of why the photo.
A content creator who does not use bots has no control over who votes on their post, so a reward dispute flag should not harm the poster, just the voter. If the post is downvoted for any other reason, then the rep hit/reward hit on the creator is fine.
This is... an interesting idea, though it would be rather frustrating for curators to lose their stake when the poster starts annoying people.
Still, if people understood how it worked, it would offer a great incentive to putting more effort into curating posts.
As far as I can see it looks like a great idea, though I'd have to hear someone's take on the other side of the issue to really consider it.
Maybe the 50/50 Rewards / Curation would not be a bad idea.
That way, those folks would earn less by upvoting their own comments than if they upvoted for other people's posts.