RE: Downvotes Oh Noes!

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

@resonator does not blindly upvote any posts - all posts are manually reviewed before upvoting.



0
0
0.000
11 comments
avatar
(Edited)

In that case, the relative % of vote matters. Perhaps that can be adjusted...

Community can view the voting pattern, it is public

image.png

https://hivetasks.com/@resonator

and Xeldal's voting pattern

image.png
https://hivetasks.com/@xeldal

Compared to that, Curangel's upvote pattern..

image.png
https://hivetasks.com/@curangel

Community can check and decide.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

The voting pattern for @resonator is in response to the content on the network. The main thing we are looking for when curating is posts that are aimed at identifying and solving real world problems. There are many problems we face that are avoided or heavily mis-represented by mainstream narrators. Anyone wanting to receive substantial upvotes from resonator can start by focusing on the real world problems that are not receiving enough attention and/or by providing information that is hard to come by on the controlled web 2.0 platforms.

We think that by far the most powerful utility that Hive currently has to offer is it's immutability and so this naturally leads to promoting content that makes use of the free speech vehicle that Hive was born to be.

If there were substantially more content creators on Hive producing content that aligned to meeting the needs of humanity and our own goals, then our vote spread would be greater. As it is we spend several hours every day reading many posts in order to place the votes that we do. The issue of any perceived limited vote spread is not a lack of effort from our part, but a lack of content that fits our criteria. This is partially because of previous downvoting rampages on this network which caused numerous content creators who are oriented towards topics that revolve around 'improving life' to leave Hive.

Voting on Hive is based on subjective preferences and it is healthy that people have different interests and support a broad spectrum of types of content. However, in order to achieve the noble goal of voting for a wider spectrum of content creators, we will look at ways to inspire more content creators to produce content that meets our voting criteria.

n.b. You can see from our vote spread that we, in fact, do not blindly vote tdvtv as they don't even appear in the data.

0
0
0.000
avatar

We think that by far the most powerful utility that Hive currently has to offer is it's immutability

If that is all that you care for just decline rewards.

It is already immutable. I will totally support you then.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Resonator rarely posts, so declining rewards would not achieve anything significant.

To clarify for you, the comment about immutability is in reference to the marketing of Hive - there is a large potential market for uncensored social media and immutability is a key selling point for Hive. Immutability does not negate the post reward mechanism that all Hive users can benefit from. On the contrary, these features were designed from the beginning to compliment each other and to both serve as selling points for Steem/Hive that help the network effect to amplify.

I am not clear what form your support would take if all of the accounts we voted on were declining rewards, but since we have no way of controlling them it is an irrelevant point. If you can more clearly articulate your goals in this conversation we will be happy to take on board constructive suggestions that serve the growth of Hive and the user experience of the community.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I am sorry for not being more elaborate.

It is not about you, it is about the people or accounts you vote. The problem from my, and our hive community members, point of view is dual.

Sometimes, due to auto-vote, some account can get substantial amount of rewards consistently. This is not content creators fault per say. As they didn't set up auto-vote or stike a deal (although in the past that has happened) But if they want they CAN do something about it. They can post less frequently (as many veteran hivers do). Or they CAN decline rewards (just like edicted did on his latest post, Kudos to @edicted !)

Second, the curator, you, can address the problem as well. You can potentially skip certain content creator manually even if their content seem to fit your criteria, or vote them less than you thought you might, just to adjust for normalization.

That is good curation. Spreading the rewards far and wide, even if it doesn't match your criteria 100%. Again this is not about my world or political view or yours. I am a very practical and factual person. I view it flatly from the reward or 'money' point of view. My goal is to normalize the rewards as much as practical.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I see. I am interested to understand your motivation and rationale for aiming to limit the capacity for curators to reward the content they prefer, in favor of a kind of averaging effect where all creators receive a standardized (or 'normalized') payout. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your goals here.

If all curators based their voting not on the content of the posts, but instead aimed to reward content creators who were not receiving any upvotes, wouldn't we completely break the essence of Hive - proof of brain? Wouldn't that completely negate the motivational mechanisms that Steem/Hive are based on? Wouldn't we also inspire people to simply create multiple accounts that churn out valueless content in order to receive upvotes?

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

there is a big gap between 'valueless content' and 'highly over-rewarded content'. There is a middle class. This middle class is what most of the curators are missing. Look around, and you will see them.

I am here for a long time. I know what hive is, please believe me. I call this my home. You are welcome, and thank you. That is all the time I have today.

PS.

We are handling 'valueless content' far better than 'highly over-rewarded' content, thanks to multiple anti-abuse projects. Like Hivewatchers, and Hive-DR and several other individuals are accounts who have downvoted some of these posts.

Total amount of downvote issued is insignificant compared to total amount of upvote issued on hive. This is a verifiable fact. Anyone can check it. Yet, multiple people have written posts about 'abuse of DV' however, I am yet to see a post of 'abuse of upvote' in any recent memory. You guys talk about 'alternatives'. Don't you find it funny?

0
0
0.000
avatar

OK, there is a lot to digest here, but we greatly appreciate the interaction and explanation from your point of view. We're so focused on the content that apparently we haven't accounted for the other elements (mostly) beyond our control. I'll discuss with the crew here and try to get a better handle on how to proceed. I'll just say that from our perspective, we have been greatly defunded by Google, et al. so naturally we are seeking revenue, but if we can do this in a better way for the HIVE community, then we'll aim for that. Much appreciated!

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thank you also for taking the time to discuss this. We're still digesting this entire thread, but we do appreciate the interaction and support!

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Thanks for supporting Hive with your content.

Hive is a truly decentralized and dynamic, community driven project - so it is important for the community to get clear on what we need and to work together to create it. The system is complicated and many details are not obvious, so people often have different ideas about the best strategies for success, often based on misunderstandings or differences in perception regarding what Hive is and what a successful growth strategy for Hive looks like.

Add to this the common trend of people seeking short term financial gain over long term growth and also the potential for bad actor involvement from competing networks... and we have the recipe for a spicy burrito! ;)

0
0
0.000