Interesting post. You're calling attention to technical concerns, but also some ethical concerns as well. Right now, it is all too easy to exploit the system and "double-reward" yourself by reposting your old work. And to be honest, I wouldn't be interested in doing that, but plenty of people would have no problem with it! There is an ethical dimension to all of this, and it will be a challenge to reel in our darker inclinations that all human beings have.
It seems more likely that we will generate technical solutions, rather than convince everyone to act ethically. So you are wise to approach the problem from that angle.
While I am very new here, I already can see how I will potentially lose out on a lot of rewards if I refrain from using "vote for vote" or "follow for follow" tactics. But I really want to follow and vote for people that I feel deserve it! I've been fascinated by the ethical choices the platform makes us make, but you're making me realize that there are still fundamental technical issues to address too.
Steemit really is the Wild West of the internet right now, but I am happy to see that there are people like you out there that are trying to implement changes that improve the system overall.
Thanks for posting.
As a new user I do not see this as an issue. It would only be a double-reward if you upvoted yourself on the old post and then upvoted yourself on the new post. That is the only way an Author can "Double-Reward" themselves. If I saw an Author post 4 months ago, and then the same post today, and I remembered that post, then is it not for me to decide if I want to reward the post again? I mean face it 4 months ago my vote was worthless, $0.001 if that. Today at full power it is $0.070, I now have the chance to give a semi-Real Reward to them. Why should steemit be different than any other type of publishing company. If you were to go into any music store or any place that sells music I am sure you can buy a copy of Elton John's "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" Album. If you went into a bookstore I am sure you can buy a new copy of Anne McCaffrey's Dragon Riders of Pern. Why should I view steemit differently. The reason you can still buy those items is marketing to a new audience. I hope that steemit continues to get new audience members.
So in conclusion I myself do not see reposting information from the past as a bad thing.
The marshmallow experiment comes to mind. I think that a lot of people using the former tactics are in the camp of taking the one marshmallow. The quick, easy, and gratifying reward, but the one that turns off followers. Whereas what you want to do is wait, play the longer game, and build up a base: and in the long run, get a greater or more consistent reward. Two marshmallows.
I've said this for the past year. :) I wonder if it will actually change, as solutions (if they exist) certainly don't appear to be trivial.
Good point. I studied psychology in university, so I am familiar with that experiment. F4F or V4V is a quick fix, whereas building a real fan base is a long-term challenge.
Yes, the solutions that need to be generated are not simple. There will perhaps be more complexity and exploitation before there is clarity.
Thanks for the post and the replies.