| operations |
| comment | | "parent_author":"",<br>"parent_permlink":"steemit",<br>"author":"condra",<br>"permlink":"the-curation-system-needs-to-incentivise-genuine-content-mining-be-honest-are-you-upvoting-or-betting",<br>"title":"The Curation system needs to incentivise \"Genuine Content Mining\" - Be honest - Are you Upvoting... or BETTING?",<br>"body":"This is a response to @dantheman's recent article about [\"People Rank\" (https:\/\/steemit.com\/steem\/@dantheman\/people-rank-using-page-rank-algorithm-for-better-curation-and-rewards) and my ensuing discussion with @smooth,<br> @bendjmiller222 and others. \n-\n\n### My assertion is that people are Upvoting on Steemit for the wrong reasons. They are *betting* rather than sincerely *voting*. \n\nI don't blame people for voting this way either. The incentive is there to vote for what you think will be a hit,<br> rather than for content which genuinely appeals to you. It's hardly ideal though,<br> nor is it sustainable IMO. This warped incentive is why we have so many posts about \"why do people Upvote shit\"? etc. It's not,<br> in my opinion because people have terrible taste,<br> it's because they are sport-voting,<br> betting,<br> gambling. \n\nhttps:\/\/www.steemimg.com\/images\/2016\/08\/11\/ScreenShot2016-08-11at16.52.0103d61.png\n\nHere's what I wrote:\n**People are voting on \"sure shots\" for the sake of curation rewards.\nIt's like going to bet on a horse race,<br> but the favourite,<br> who has won the last 5 races,<br> has the same long odds as the outsiders. Naturally,<br> you bet on the favourite.\nSomething needs to be tweaked to encourage people to actually vote for what they like,<br> rather than voting based on the \"form\" of the author.\nAs far as I'm concerned,<br> this is one of the most pressing issues on the platform right now because the current paradigm is so extremely polarising. It causes a feedback loop at the top of the foodchain.**\n\n@smooth contested\n\n<blockquote>\nNo,<br> people are voting on \"sure shots\" because they don't understand the curation rewards.\n<\/blockquote>\n\nHe's absolutely right. I agree,<br> for the most part,<br> people must not realise how little reward they will get when voting late on a trending post. They still are,<br> however,<br> voting for the wrong reasons,<br> and the feedback loop still occurs. \n\n### As far as solutions go,<br> I believe Steemit needs to incentivise more sincere voting,<br> and perhaps increase visibility of posts by \"unproven\" authors. \nI would not be in favour of a \"2 types of vote\" system which some have suggested. I feel it could add needless complexity to to the users. \n\nI'll refer to the ideal type of sincere voting as \"genuine content mining\" from here in. I think the system should be tweaked in the background to do one of the following:\n\n- Incentivise **genuine content mining** by giving a higher ratio of curation rewards when the author has made less than **X** in their **X** most recent posts. Think of it this way; an unsigned rock band would be happy to give their agent\/manager a bigger cut,<br> for the opportunity to get their name out there.\n- Incentivise **genuine content mining** by giving people a quota votes for under,<br> and over,<br> a certain threshold. For example,<br> when you've run out of Upvotes for,<br> say,<br> REP 60+ authors,<br> you can still vote,<br> say,<br> 20 times for authors with REP <59. \n- Incentivise **genuine content mining** by removing the Upvote button from the listings pages. People should have to at least open the article before Upvoting it. \n\nThese are just ideas. I'm not a developer or math guy! I'm interested to know other peoples solutions,<br> but I do know that **something needs to be done if we sincerely want the best content to reap the most rewards.**\n\nI also think perhaps people should have a small allowance of flags\/downvotes per day that can be cast without affecting their Voting Power. This would encourage a certain amount of dissent,<br> which I believe it sorely lacking on Steemit at the moment. \n\nhttps:\/\/www.steemimg.com\/images\/2016\/08\/11\/ScreenShot2016-08-11at17.01.28cedbd.png\n\nAnd on the subject of **visibility**,<br> I like the idea of random posts getting more visibility,<br> but users still deserve access to the genuine \"hot\",<br> and \"trending\" posts. Perhaps there should be a \"wildcard\" or \"recommended\" feature on the site somewhere. \n\n### Thanks for reading. I'm very interested to hear other peoples views on this. Especially any (reasonably straightforward) ways to encourage sincere,<br> genuine voting,<br> as well as giving more visibility to those without a track record.",<br>"json_metadata":" \"tags\":[\"steemit\",<br>\"steem\",<br>\"mathematics\",<br>\"blockchain\",<br>\"curation\" ,<br>\"image\":[\"https:\/\/www.steemimg.com\/images\/2016\/08\/11\/ScreenShot2016-08-11at17.01.28cedbd.png\" " | | vote | "voter":"condra",
"author":"condra",
"permlink":"the-curation-system-needs-to-incentivise-genuine-content-mining-be-honest-are-you-upvoting-or-betting",
"weight":10000 |
|