Feedback on Steemit After My Brief Experience And How I Think We Can Improve Voting Systems In General

I just received a thoughtful comment from @akintunde on my post here in which I attempt to outline reasons why we need to come together as a society to promote positive values. His comment inspired me to go into a little bit of detail about why I think the current voting system (binary up or down) are broken in a lot of ways.

I think the feedback is worthy of its own post and would love to hear your thoughts, so here is my response to his comment:

Well, I understand what you are saying. You are talking about the extremes of evil, the moral measure of it and all but the truth remains that there is no absolute extreme in life . We are all just in between and that is all it will ever be.

This is certainly true and I do not deny it one bit!

Nevertheless, we can only try to shift towards the best , I mean that part that best that leans towards UTOPIA . Steem is a place that tries to lean towards that but, to be sincere, STEEM is not perfect either.

That is the premise of my idea here: https://steemit.com/life/@halfjew22/proposal-for-extracting-value-from-positive-behaviors-and-its-imagined-societal-impact

We can't absolutely define a perfect place, but we can attempt to always improve. That's the basis of my idea in the post there. I would love to hear your feedback on it.

There are wars going on here too. it's just that it's a war of votes being thrown at each other in a UP or DOWN direction.

The whales believe they own this place and they want all of use to think that same way which is a really good idea becuase if you don't exhibit a sense of ownershuip, your contribution will lack the right motivation or inspiration. That is a "utopian" philosophy.

This is one of my key frustrations with the platform thus far. There are certain people that can post (relatively low effort / energy) posts that make a few hundred dollars, while you and I can spend a few hours writing a post and make less than a dollar. I think the premise is sound, however, we need a more multidimensional analysis of what makes a post have "quality." For example, I think accuracy and proof in what one claims is valuable. I think honest and respectful debate is quality. I think well typed, grammatically correct posts are valuable.

I do not think a ton of posts on what someone speculates about Bitcoin prices is quality, I don't think people posting about their meal prep is valuable (if that's all they post.) I don't think watching people play video games is particularly valuable. However, there is undeniable value to some in those posts.

I think one way to solve the problem of these "vote wars" so to speak is to apply a multidimensional rating system to the content. An upvote simply can't contain enough feedback to represent accurate value. We should be able to upvote the mindless enjoyment of a post, or the honesty and respectfulness of a debate between two people or the kindness and thoughtfulness one puts into a comment and the higher their rating in those respective categories, the higher their influence in that category. That's what I'm trying to get at, and I can't think of a way in which that idea wouldn't work. I'm confident that the rating system, if created in that manner, would be able to be applied in all different aspects of life as well, and not just online on social media.

But then, some people think it is wrong to upvote yourself , so they retaliate by downvoting you. So , it's a war of freedom to vote. That is not utopian.

I personally don't feel as if post content that is not worth upvoting. So it follows that I will upvote almost all of my content. If someone feels that the content I am posting isn't valuable, they should absolutely have the right to downvote me and tell me why, but then it follows that I feel I should have the right to engage in discussion with that person about why they found my particular content lacking in value. That would truly promote more positive dialogues between people rather than just nonsense pandering for money - which I unfortunately see is a big "issue" currently with the platform. When the value of content does not directly correlate with its rewards, the system is not healthily functioning. Just looking at the front page, we see various people playing video games, someone talking about eating by themselves, and some large group ("centralized") posts.

I'm not complaining about centralized posts, but rather stating that this content becomes repetitive and stale if the content from individual creators doesn't rise to the top. It's a hard problem to solve and Steemit takes great steps in doing so, but there are definitely better solutions that can be created, and I think I'm on to one.

So in the real sense of it, there is no perfection anywhere, we can only try to create perfect systems but it will never happen. NEVER!!

Perfection simply cannot exist. I don't think there is any denying that. However, we establish useful metrics and compare improvements based of hypothesis and adjust should we be incorrect about those hypothesis.

Steemit is on to something, and I very much look forward to seeing how we can influence, improve, and innovate together.