| operations |
| comment | | "parent_author":"buggedout",<br>"parent_permlink":"grey-areas-of-steem-1-legitimate-self-voting-vs-abusive-self-voting",<br>"author":"glenalbrethsen",<br>"permlink":"re-buggedout-grey-areas-of-steem-1-legitimate-self-voting-vs-abusive-self-voting-20180315t141344149z",<br>"title":"",<br>"body":"My $0.02\u2014\n\na. If an author self-upvotes their own post instantly (as you described),<br> then the following happens:\n\nThey get all of their author reward (75% of self-upvote).\n\nThey get all of the *curation* reward (25% of self-upvote).\n\nPlus,<br> they take portions of curations rewards away from others who upvote the post depending on when they voted.\n\nThe ability for an author to get a curation reward for self-upvoting is slated to go away in the next HF,<br> but until it does,<br> that's one thing a self-upvote has been doing.\n\nb. The next thing a self-upvote does,<br> it adds to an author's own reputation. It might be incremental,<br> but you're still affecting your own reputation. And of course,<br> the larger the account,<br> just like with rewards,<br> the larger the effect.\n\nc. It can set up false hope or expectations. If you're self-upvoting to get onto the trending page,<br> good luck. I don't know how much you need to get there,<br> but $0.11 (my 100% upvote) isn't going to do it. I doubt even a $20 self-upvote would get you high enough for anyone looking to see it for very long. \n\n(Just for the record,<br> you would need 125,<br>000 SP to get *one* $20 self-upvote at 100%. That's a fair sized Orca account,<br> one people would probably consider a whale.)\n\nd. The prevailing thought among those of us who have been here for,<br> say,<br> longer than a week or maybe two,<br> is that the trending page is trash. So,<br> who is looking at it? Newbies who don't know any better yet with little to no voting ability. If you're trying to catch the eye of a larger fish there,<br> they're not looking there.\n\nYou might have some luck being found on a trending page in the tags,<br> depending on the tag and again the size of your upvote,<br> but again,<br> if bigger fish aren't looking there...\n\nIn other words,<br> there's not much logic to self-upvoting for the purpose of getting more eyeballs on it unless you're already a bigger fish.\n\ne. When you self-upvote,<br> you're saying your post has value. That's great and all,<br> and maybe it does,<br> but who's supposed to be deciding that? The author? I was under the impression that curators,<br> the rest of us,<br> were supposed to do that.\n\nf. It distorts the reward amount. I commonly look at whose upvoted a post. Am I in the minority? I don't know. Someone who doesn't look won't know that a self-upvote is included and so could think it's getting good traction by others. Those who do look tend to get upset,<br> depending on the size of the self-upvote.\n\ng. Self-upvoting takes away from your ability to upvote others. I understand we're supposed to have 10 full-powered upvotes a day. That hasn't been the case based on my own observation (it's been less than that),<br> especially when STEEM prices are low.\n\nHowever,<br> the idea is,<br> there's only so much you can upvote before you run it low enough that it doesn't really matter. If you're self-upvoting 2-4 posts a day,<br> then self-upvoting comments (10-20 a day),<br> you're not going to have a lot left over for anyone else.",<br>"json_metadata":" \"tags\":[\"steem\" ,<br>\"app\":\"steemit\/0.1\" " |
|