I think something that may help is having some sort of a "author voting power" basically when you vote on someone it would vote with a percentage of your vote with a formula like; percent of last x amount of votes that did not go to that same author.
For example, if I have self voted 50% of my last x votes, my vote would be worth 50% of what it normally is worth.
The problem with saying "no self votes" (I know, you're not saying that but some people are) is that people will just create other accounts to self vote themselves. With my proposed solution it would counter that work around as well.
I would think that this would encourage people to spread around their votes more or at least give you less and less weight everytime you vote on the same person.
I would love to hear your thoughts! Keep up the good work! Sorry about that whole flagging mess earlier! I'm glad you took the high ground!
I think a lot of stuff that goes on can be boiled down to self-voting. I'm starting to come to the conclusion self-voting isn't bad if it isn't abused.
I don't know. Given the recent blessing of such actions in order to end the drama, I wonder if we all shouldn't just use any means at our disposal to get the most possible out of steemit for ourselves. They seem to intend it to be that way. If nothing else, it will spur change.
I try to comment on a lot of posts. I don't usually upvote my comments, but if there's a discussion and I feel I offer a different perspective, I will. I see this as a sacrifice on my part as I would rather have the voting power to spend on something else.
There is another aspect in which whales can gain readership and return. That is the effect that comes from upvoting other with such a high upvote. I have only been upvoted a few times by whales here on the platform, but in every case I have followed them and thanked them by supporting various efforts they are a part of. Basically whales can buy friendships, and that brings added value to their posts.
This really is the top discussion moving forward. I have yet to hear a great answer to these problems.
I am tempted to say never to self voting, though if I self vote late, at least my voters get better curation. I do use my vote to raise my comments occasionally, that is the most useful part of the self vote, IMO.
But, self voting technically cannot add value to the platform. By the very definition, it breaks the system. I am tempted to say W/E to the investors concerns, there are a lot of other things they could be investing in.
But either way, I'm still having fun here! I think thats the most important part.
It's not my place to say what is right or wrong, but I think self-voting your posts is considered acceptable and is actually the norm here. For the average person that posts 1-3 times a day and doesn't have hundreds of thousands or millions in stake, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.
Hard fork 20 is changing the way the reverse auction works and cutting the first 30 minutes of a vote down to 15 minutes. If you vote in the first 15 minutes, instead of it going to the author, it will be returned to the reward pool. This will remove some of the self-voting, at least the early self-voting.
I believe this is a step in the right direction. 50/50 split seems interesting as well but not sure if it could be gamed through circular voting. Thanks for throwing down your insight. I'm pretty hard line against self-voting my posts/comments above others.
The way I figure, we need to promote thoughtful participation and contribution from the whole gamut of users. It's kind of like having a group conversation and maybe there're that one person that talks over others because they believe what they have to say is more important. Maybe it is and maybe it is but I think we both can agree that it shouldn't necessarily be the $$$ in your pocket that says whether something is meaningful or not.
I'm not upvoting this comment. It will get where it needs to go and read by whom is intended to read it. If nothing else @themarkymark will read it, because he said he would. :)
So. I am not only a minnow I am just barely out of the egg. Fact of the matter is, I came to Steemit right as your 'drama' was cooking along nicely, and some of the first stuff I really read. My thought at the time was something like 'wtf have I gotten myself into'?
I was unsure how I felt about the whole deal, so I didn't follow you then cause I just didn't know. I've seen a couple of posts not related to the mess and followed you just now.
On self upvoting? I don't average once a day. Hell, at my VP I don't have anywhere near enough votes to cast for the stuff I really like...
I think it all boils down to a simple question. "Are you here to make bank or to make a bankable place?" I would hope that every single user would answer that question honestly. I don't much care which answer, but I know I will offer my precious resources to option b.
This really feels like a moral dilemma. I haven't upvoted one of my posts or comments yet and don't feel comfortable doing it. However, the way you describe it, I must say, I'm slightly doubting my beliefs. I have had people upvote their comments on my post and don't have any objection to it.
Can one honestly say that he/she upvotes for awareness instead of financial gain?
Really looking forward to an updated version of this post in a month's time where you share your finding of self upvoting 1-2 times a day (if you'd be willing to write one of course :)..)
Thanks for sharing more light on this issue. Still can't make my mind about about it either, but at least I have a little more clarity of the impact now.
The system should always account for the nature of humans. The curation should be worth it even without some vague goal of making the platform better.
I upvote other people if I like what they are saying, but I have no shame in upvoting myself as well, since after all both upvoting yourself and others should be to your best interest, otherwise what is the point.
I think tying curation rewards to author rewards would be better, remove SP curation rewards, instead provide some other token that expires every week that depending on how much you earn will either decrease or increase the rewards on all your own posts.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. As a newbie, self-votes are my primary source of income^^ Without buying more into STEEM, it will take ages to catch up. It´s not very motivational in a way, but hey, we have to accept the rules and as long as self-votes are technically possible, no one is to blame, if they make use of it.
@themarkymark i send 1+1 SBD to @buildawhale. Memo: https://steemit.com/news/@knightwarrior/american-family-of-5-among-12-killed-in-costa-rica-plane-crash
Sent 2 SBD back, please use 2 SBD+ for bids.
Thanks
I think something that may help is having some sort of a "author voting power" basically when you vote on someone it would vote with a percentage of your vote with a formula like; percent of last x amount of votes that did not go to that same author.
For example, if I have self voted 50% of my last x votes, my vote would be worth 50% of what it normally is worth.
The problem with saying "no self votes" (I know, you're not saying that but some people are) is that people will just create other accounts to self vote themselves. With my proposed solution it would counter that work around as well.
I would think that this would encourage people to spread around their votes more or at least give you less and less weight everytime you vote on the same person.
I would love to hear your thoughts! Keep up the good work! Sorry about that whole flagging mess earlier! I'm glad you took the high ground!
Edit: I decided to write a post about this https://steemit.com/abuse/@littlejoeward/stopping-self-vote-abuse-another-proposal-voting-power-per-user
Enjoy! ;)
I think a lot of stuff that goes on can be boiled down to self-voting. I'm starting to come to the conclusion self-voting isn't bad if it isn't abused.
I think I agree. At least for now haha. It's when it is exclusive self-voting when it is a big problem I think.
I don't know. Given the recent blessing of such actions in order to end the drama, I wonder if we all shouldn't just use any means at our disposal to get the most possible out of steemit for ourselves. They seem to intend it to be that way. If nothing else, it will spur change.
I try to comment on a lot of posts. I don't usually upvote my comments, but if there's a discussion and I feel I offer a different perspective, I will. I see this as a sacrifice on my part as I would rather have the voting power to spend on something else.
There is another aspect in which whales can gain readership and return. That is the effect that comes from upvoting other with such a high upvote. I have only been upvoted a few times by whales here on the platform, but in every case I have followed them and thanked them by supporting various efforts they are a part of. Basically whales can buy friendships, and that brings added value to their posts.
I'm starting to feel anything goes at this point unless someone disagrees
This really is the top discussion moving forward. I have yet to hear a great answer to these problems.
I am tempted to say never to self voting, though if I self vote late, at least my voters get better curation. I do use my vote to raise my comments occasionally, that is the most useful part of the self vote, IMO.
But, self voting technically cannot add value to the platform. By the very definition, it breaks the system. I am tempted to say W/E to the investors concerns, there are a lot of other things they could be investing in.
But either way, I'm still having fun here! I think thats the most important part.
It's not my place to say what is right or wrong, but I think self-voting your posts is considered acceptable and is actually the norm here. For the average person that posts 1-3 times a day and doesn't have hundreds of thousands or millions in stake, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.
Let me just self-vote my comment right to the top ;p
Hahaha....assuming I can help you do that
You may help!
Am helping by commenting on it already. Three comments = an upvote
I believe this is a step in the right direction. 50/50 split seems interesting as well but not sure if it could be gamed through circular voting. Thanks for throwing down your insight. I'm pretty hard line against self-voting my posts/comments above others.
The way I figure, we need to promote thoughtful participation and contribution from the whole gamut of users. It's kind of like having a group conversation and maybe there're that one person that talks over others because they believe what they have to say is more important. Maybe it is and maybe it is but I think we both can agree that it shouldn't necessarily be the $$$ in your pocket that says whether something is meaningful or not.
I'm not upvoting this comment. It will get where it needs to go and read by whom is intended to read it. If nothing else @themarkymark will read it, because he said he would. :)
By the way, thanks for supporting @steemflagrewards!
read ;)
So. I am not only a minnow I am just barely out of the egg. Fact of the matter is, I came to Steemit right as your 'drama' was cooking along nicely, and some of the first stuff I really read. My thought at the time was something like 'wtf have I gotten myself into'?
I was unsure how I felt about the whole deal, so I didn't follow you then cause I just didn't know. I've seen a couple of posts not related to the mess and followed you just now.
On self upvoting? I don't average once a day. Hell, at my VP I don't have anywhere near enough votes to cast for the stuff I really like...
I think it all boils down to a simple question. "Are you here to make bank or to make a bankable place?" I would hope that every single user would answer that question honestly. I don't much care which answer, but I know I will offer my precious resources to option b.
Thanks for a terrific and thoughtful post.
I have been a damned fool for not self voting
This really feels like a moral dilemma. I haven't upvoted one of my posts or comments yet and don't feel comfortable doing it. However, the way you describe it, I must say, I'm slightly doubting my beliefs. I have had people upvote their comments on my post and don't have any objection to it.
Can one honestly say that he/she upvotes for awareness instead of financial gain?
Really looking forward to an updated version of this post in a month's time where you share your finding of self upvoting 1-2 times a day (if you'd be willing to write one of course :)..)
Thanks for sharing more light on this issue. Still can't make my mind about about it either, but at least I have a little more clarity of the impact now.
Unless your vote is worth hundreds of dollars or you post zillion times a day, don't worry about it.
Good to know. Thanks for the comforting thought.
The system should always account for the nature of humans. The curation should be worth it even without some vague goal of making the platform better.
I upvote other people if I like what they are saying, but I have no shame in upvoting myself as well, since after all both upvoting yourself and others should be to your best interest, otherwise what is the point.
I think tying curation rewards to author rewards would be better, remove SP curation rewards, instead provide some other token that expires every week that depending on how much you earn will either decrease or increase the rewards on all your own posts.
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic. As a newbie, self-votes are my primary source of income^^ Without buying more into STEEM, it will take ages to catch up. It´s not very motivational in a way, but hey, we have to accept the rules and as long as self-votes are technically possible, no one is to blame, if they make use of it.