I second that question. I vote when I read. I can't be on right when someone posts, and I don't want to use bots, personally. So I am being penalised for voting 7 hours later, 1 hour later? I think it should be 25% to curators, no matter when they vote. Why can't it just be that? Why does it have to be so complicated! KISS rule, Keep It Simple Stupid ;) Much love everyone. I just don't get why it'Ks so complex when it can be so simple. In my head it's simple anyway hehe
I think you put your finger right on a serious issue, which I don't see a lot of people talking about.
I don't live on the platform. I do other things. On days when it is a "writing day", most of my posts take nearly all day to put together. (I'll blame an endless love of words and the fact that I've been using a lot more illustrations for part of that.) On days when I'm not producing or just surfing, I very well may be coming to content a day or even over a week later.
Why isn't my discovery of value important or interesting to the system?
But let's say that, for whatever reason, I'm looking at my feed or Gina tells me that something has been posted which is related to my interests, I go read it, and think that it is worth rewarding. Why am I penalized for doing so soon after it's posted if it's a short piece?
The reward cycle on Steemit is a little wonky, to put it mildly.
The default state for new users is to self upvote on every post, but the common wisdom is that doing so handicaps your ability for other people to get notable curation awards.
You expend a significant opportunity cost with every upvote because you have no idea how many upvotes you might actually think things deserve over the next 24 hours. There's no way for you to know. You would have to be able to know the future – to make a good decision about whether or not to use and upvote now.
The reverse auction just pushes manual voters further out of the curve because it seems to be a system which is absolutely devoted to privileging automated systems, by both requiring tight timing and a preference for not sleeping or even ever leaving the platform.
From a game design perspective, it's kind of a mess.
Your scratch that your correct that everything could be much more simple and easier to deal with. Have upvotes go into a pool that pays out after 24 hours, with whatever split (75%/25%?) that seems reasonable to people (or is even configurable on a per post basis by the author). Have payouts be possible for any content as long as anyone is upvoting it, so that content which retains value in the future continues to reward the author. Take away the voting power decay/build structure and replace it with a settable pool of rewards by the curator, with votes essentially being shares of that pool which pays out every 24 hours.
These are the sort of architecture changes that would pull away from rewarding bots more than human intervention and interaction which engages with content. As it stands, very little of the system is about content at all.
As someone who cares about content, that's a real problem.
Exactly. Plus you mention about "deserving" and predictiing as though we should only upvote those who will make a lot of rewards from their posts. What I deem valuable and deserving is different than what someone else deems valuable and deserving. There are some who I always upvote and who almost always upvote me, but we don't always catch each other's posts.
The rewards can still pay out every 7 days, but after the first 7 days, the content can still generate rewards. Anyone new to the platform will search for tips and tutorials. Those month old, year old posts that have helped me so much in my first few months, deserved to keep generating rewards as new users upvote them. Some content never gets old.
It could be in the first 7 days, curators get rewards as well, but after the initial week, curators maybe get less and it's a show of cortesy to upvote past that date maybe. Or everything remains as is, curation and author rewards, just continuous payouts.
And yes, the whole voting power things is so confusing to me as to why it even exists. People are stingy with their votes because they don't want their voting power to go down. Whereas someone like me, votes and votes, especially on days I've dedicated to just being on Steemit. My voting power has gone down to 0 and I'm still voting to let people know that I appreciated their content. Sometimes I like to upvote a comment. If there is nothing else to add to the comment, instead of commenting back a generic type reply, I want to be able to upvote and let that person know I saw and appreciated the comment. Even if there is nothing to add, nothing to say. An upvote can say a lot. Leaving voting power high would make people want to upvote more.
I don't use bots, I kind of get why they exist, but I also don't. It could be so much simpler f there is no timer, no decrease. Just voting and rewards. Simple.
I think it's exactly the other way around; you get higher curation reward by voting after the 15 minute mark has passed. Right now the same rule applies, but with a 30 minute mark instead.
Oh ok. I thought there was still a penalty for voting way past the 30 minute marker as opposed to as soon as it hits 30 minutes. THAT I think is unfair.
No, there's no penalty at all for voting later, as long as you vote before the payout is sent. You do however get higher curation rewards if you vote before other people, so it still pays off to vote early on some posts.
Oh ok. Well, I just vote when I vote. It's good to know though. But I don't want to have to worry about when to vote. I just want to upvote ;) Thanks for letting me know.
I try to do the same thing :) I for one don't upvote stuff in order to get rewarded for it, but I can also see why some people would do that. At 100k+ SP the curation rewards are very high, so "randomly voting" can cost hundreds of dollars in lost rewards for them.
Well, randomly voting would be like a donation to someone else, but a donation requires you to spend money, whereas an upvote does not. I understand people want to benefit, but stinginess and greed is something I just don't get.
I second that question. I vote when I read. I can't be on right when someone posts, and I don't want to use bots, personally. So I am being penalised for voting 7 hours later, 1 hour later? I think it should be 25% to curators, no matter when they vote. Why can't it just be that? Why does it have to be so complicated! KISS rule, Keep It Simple Stupid ;) Much love everyone. I just don't get why it'Ks so complex when it can be so simple. In my head it's simple anyway hehe
I think you put your finger right on a serious issue, which I don't see a lot of people talking about.
I don't live on the platform. I do other things. On days when it is a "writing day", most of my posts take nearly all day to put together. (I'll blame an endless love of words and the fact that I've been using a lot more illustrations for part of that.) On days when I'm not producing or just surfing, I very well may be coming to content a day or even over a week later.
Why isn't my discovery of value important or interesting to the system?
But let's say that, for whatever reason, I'm looking at my feed or Gina tells me that something has been posted which is related to my interests, I go read it, and think that it is worth rewarding. Why am I penalized for doing so soon after it's posted if it's a short piece?
The reward cycle on Steemit is a little wonky, to put it mildly.
The default state for new users is to self upvote on every post, but the common wisdom is that doing so handicaps your ability for other people to get notable curation awards.
You expend a significant opportunity cost with every upvote because you have no idea how many upvotes you might actually think things deserve over the next 24 hours. There's no way for you to know. You would have to be able to know the future – to make a good decision about whether or not to use and upvote now.
The reverse auction just pushes manual voters further out of the curve because it seems to be a system which is absolutely devoted to privileging automated systems, by both requiring tight timing and a preference for not sleeping or even ever leaving the platform.
From a game design perspective, it's kind of a mess.
Your scratch that your correct that everything could be much more simple and easier to deal with. Have upvotes go into a pool that pays out after 24 hours, with whatever split (75%/25%?) that seems reasonable to people (or is even configurable on a per post basis by the author). Have payouts be possible for any content as long as anyone is upvoting it, so that content which retains value in the future continues to reward the author. Take away the voting power decay/build structure and replace it with a settable pool of rewards by the curator, with votes essentially being shares of that pool which pays out every 24 hours.
These are the sort of architecture changes that would pull away from rewarding bots more than human intervention and interaction which engages with content. As it stands, very little of the system is about content at all.
As someone who cares about content, that's a real problem.
Exactly. Plus you mention about "deserving" and predictiing as though we should only upvote those who will make a lot of rewards from their posts. What I deem valuable and deserving is different than what someone else deems valuable and deserving. There are some who I always upvote and who almost always upvote me, but we don't always catch each other's posts.
The rewards can still pay out every 7 days, but after the first 7 days, the content can still generate rewards. Anyone new to the platform will search for tips and tutorials. Those month old, year old posts that have helped me so much in my first few months, deserved to keep generating rewards as new users upvote them. Some content never gets old.
It could be in the first 7 days, curators get rewards as well, but after the initial week, curators maybe get less and it's a show of cortesy to upvote past that date maybe. Or everything remains as is, curation and author rewards, just continuous payouts.
And yes, the whole voting power things is so confusing to me as to why it even exists. People are stingy with their votes because they don't want their voting power to go down. Whereas someone like me, votes and votes, especially on days I've dedicated to just being on Steemit. My voting power has gone down to 0 and I'm still voting to let people know that I appreciated their content. Sometimes I like to upvote a comment. If there is nothing else to add to the comment, instead of commenting back a generic type reply, I want to be able to upvote and let that person know I saw and appreciated the comment. Even if there is nothing to add, nothing to say. An upvote can say a lot. Leaving voting power high would make people want to upvote more.
I don't use bots, I kind of get why they exist, but I also don't. It could be so much simpler f there is no timer, no decrease. Just voting and rewards. Simple.
I think it's exactly the other way around; you get higher curation reward by voting after the 15 minute mark has passed. Right now the same rule applies, but with a 30 minute mark instead.
Oh ok. I thought there was still a penalty for voting way past the 30 minute marker as opposed to as soon as it hits 30 minutes. THAT I think is unfair.
No, there's no penalty at all for voting later, as long as you vote before the payout is sent. You do however get higher curation rewards if you vote before other people, so it still pays off to vote early on some posts.
Oh ok. Well, I just vote when I vote. It's good to know though. But I don't want to have to worry about when to vote. I just want to upvote ;) Thanks for letting me know.
I try to do the same thing :) I for one don't upvote stuff in order to get rewarded for it, but I can also see why some people would do that. At 100k+ SP the curation rewards are very high, so "randomly voting" can cost hundreds of dollars in lost rewards for them.
Well, randomly voting would be like a donation to someone else, but a donation requires you to spend money, whereas an upvote does not. I understand people want to benefit, but stinginess and greed is something I just don't get.