RE: How about unflagging my posts?
Then the system will die. It is that simple. If I like a person's content because I feel it meets my standard of content, why should my vote be worth less and less and less if I continue to find their content valuable? Why should a content provider even try to develope a fan base if the votes and rewards from that fan base is less and less and less with each piece of quality content they provide. Believe me I get it. I understand, that there are going to be people that game the system, so since that is possible let's make it voting on content that people like worthless. I do not know Michelle Gent. have never met her, most likely will never meet her. I like her writing I voted on her stories as I read them. I commented on her stories as I read them. Sometimes that was 3 or 4 votes a day. You want to devalue my input it is as simple as that. I also read and vote on several other Authors works a day. You want to devalue my vote on their work also. Your system will only drive people away, and decrease the quality of the content on steemit, because there would be no, none, zero reason to be a consistent quality content provider when your work is devalued because your fans votes have been devalued. End of story, possible end of the steemit dream of having Quality Content.
We agree to disagree. I say the opposite is the case: the system will die if selfvoting and solely upvoting friends prevents new unknown users from enjoying the platform and being successful. Maybe you are not aware about many big accounts which are just writing about 10 'short stories' per day just to upvote themselves. By upvoting oneself there is no need anymore to produce quality content (there will be upvotes anyway). There is no need to communicate with others anymore: completely unattractive for potential investors.
If you upvote yourself and your best buddies once or twice a day that is more than enough: you just can't tell me that there is any need to do that several times per day(!). My system would still allow it but make it less attractive. (By the way I want to see that author who writes more than two quality articles per day ...)
Yes I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
The way you phrased that it seems as if you do not think it happens, quality is subjective, always has been always will be Here are two Authors:
1.@michelle.gent
2@everittdmickey
I, (I don't expect everyone does or will agree), find their stories to be Quality work. Michelle was posting 3 of her stories, editing one story and writing the continuation on two of them. Thats a lot of work, and I enjoyed the stories.
Everitt also has been posting multiple stories, two of which I have been reading and enjoying. So for me these two Authors post multiple Quality stories.
I do a small steemag, trying to bring readers and Authors/Storytellers together. We all have differing opinions on what is fun to read, and what is quality.
So there is an example of two quality authors making multiple post in a day.
Sorry, I think - depending on the topic - I can evaluate 'quality' very well. In my eyes this "quality is subjective" is often used as an excuse to defend non-quality stuff.
For example concerning science articles there are many criteria to evaluate 'quality'. It is important to be accurate, to argue in a logical way, to present the topic understandable, to cite your sources, to use instructive images and decent formatting.
I have the impression you want to defend @michelle.gent. That is nice of you, but actually I don't want to attack her anyway - I even haven't read any of her articles. :)
I am thinking about the development of the platform (and the Steem price) in general and from my point of view there are worse things thinkable than upvoting your favorite author only (let's say) twice per day with full voting power.
There have been a lot of post about voting. Either my Vote belongs to me, or it does not. I notice that all the limit a person's vote is only to the upvote. How about limiting the down vote, where are the whales when it comes to that issue. In hiding or justifying why we can not limit our downvote power.
If people read the FAQ, they will see that the only person you can effect with a down vote is someone with less power than you.
From the FAQ: "Your reputation goes up when accounts vote on your content. Getting downvoted by someone with a higher reputation can push your reputation down and make your posts less visible.
"Users with a lower reputation score are unable to affect your reputation."
I have no idea if that includes limiting a persons payout, it most likely does.
Science articles and Fiction Stories are two entirely different items. It is like comparing lemons and bananas. They are both yellow, that's pretty much where the similarity ends, as for which taste better, that is entirely subjective.
A science article is based on factual information and is as you pointed out easy to quantify as to whether or not it is a Quality Article.
Fiction is based on a writer's imagination, the only quantifiable quality is spelling, grammar and did they tell their story in such a manner that the reader enjoyed it. Completely Subjective.
But yes we are and most likely will remain in disagreement, about the downvote and limiting rewards, about how a person is allowed to use their vote, and about the right and wrong of one person deciding the correct amount of payout for a post.
Even now already your voting power is exhausting more and more with every upvote. And nevertheless your vote 'belongs' to you. After my model the returns would just diminish faster for accounts you have already upvoted recently. Of course even then your vote belongs still to you and not to me. :)
Naturally diminishing returns would also affect downvotes in the same way. So in case a whale is following you with downvotes, every single downvote would be weaker than the previous one. Then it would still be possible to flag content (for example plagiarism) if necessary, but less easy to hunt people ...
So you agree that quality is not subjective always. Apart from that also fictional stories can be evaluated concerning grammatical correctness, style, semantic richness ... I guess experienced reviewers will have various criteria to evaluate them. Of course there always remains the subjective part.