Disagree. There is a very limited supply of posts worth upvoting, and those that are should be favored on an ongoing basis by their fans.
OK, then I will keep being a faithful 'fan' of my few alt accounts. :)
'Diminishing returns' wouldn't prevent you from upvoting some loyal friends but made it less profitable (but still possible!) to do that very often (for example several times per day, like a little @haejin) ...
I have nothing against upvoting friends but I would like to reward the effort to see beyond one's own nose from time to time and seek, read and reward something new (that's how for example new users could get integrated into the community and new friendships could be built).
I very much like the idea of not having the negativity of flags, but I agree there should be a mechanism to punish or remove those who abuse the system.
That exactly could be also a possible task of a committee: to act against flags given for personal reasons or disagreement on opinion. (There are several options: for example a committee which decides about already given flags or a committee which is itself the only entity on Blurt allowed to flag).
Could that be the answer?
Lol, I like to be the initiator of discussions by contributing some general thoughts, ideas and opinions, but as a very lazy person most of the time prefer others to work out the details. :-)))
(However, one thing is for sure: as long as people like @haejin are making profit, they don't care about anything else, and be it a "place of public shaming".)
@jaki01
I am going to try to implement your suggestion about the voting window in hard fork 2. No promises, and it is an experiment. I'm also going to ask the community if anybody is opposed to this experiment, and I have to tell you that I may not actually be able to change it easily and it might not make it into hard fork two.
Speaking for myself and myself only, I definitely agree with your point of view on the 5-minute voting window. It basically encourages the use of automated tools for voting which overall I don't think is desirable.
Interestingly, I get @birdinc's point of view on self voting.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but I certainly understand where the sentiment is coming from. I guess that I probably fall closer to your point of view.
And I should also tell you that I found whale shares quite interesting, it does away with content rewards entirely and replaces it with tipping. Basically you have whalestake which is analogous to steam power, and your whalestake inflates and you have to log in once per day to claim your peace of the inflation pool otherwise it goes to a development fund.
When you make your claim, you can choose between putting your claim in a tip jar, and putting your claim directly into your own whalestake again kind of like your steem power.
Additionally, I should say that I have thought of censorship committees as well, or like duration committees or what have you, but I don't think that they're going to come to be on blurt.
That could change of course but I think that blurt is pretty much a very open product because of how we did the air drop right We let everybody in except for the company steemit.
In fact and just to be very straight with you, probably a lot of people that we should not have let in.
Either very nasty and destructive types, or people who had been using steem and steem identities to commit fraud.
When this is how we got the phrase
"Blurt loves everyone!..... Except steemit, inc"
Back to 40 votes and a maximum voting power of 1 Dollar resulting in more than 40 votes could end some bad habits here I think.
I'm not talking about upvoting friends, I'm talking about curating for profit, which has been an accepted role since day one. Why should someone be "punished" for upping exactly what they deem worthwhile content with diminished returns? Doesn't make sense, isn't fair.
The upshot is, in order to prevent the serious abuse you keep mentioning, curators-for-profit would constantly have to find different content that simply isn't there. In the last consequence that would be the death of curation, pretty much.
Your idea works only for people like yourself, i.e. someone who blogs and curates. I could say I don't care, because I'm mostly blogging. But I do, because it puts those at a disadvantage, who are my loyal followers. Without their contributions I might as well go to Facebook, where I have to publish for free but get more eyeballs faster.
Yes, I for one am not here to right the wrongs of the world. Others are not only more versed in those matters, but unlike me they actually enjoy dealing with them. Who am I to take away their fun by solving the issues for them? There's nothing wrong with having an opinion and explaining it in the most generic outline, as opposed to a full-fledged proposition. So I guess, I'm a "very lazy person" just like you ;-)
They will, if it also matters how often an abuser has been dragged there, along the lines of "three strikes and you're out". Like every justice system, it would have to be nuanced in order to be fair. I never said it was easy.
Right, why should that be punished? And especially, who would want to punish it? :)
I think these are completely wrong assumptions.
Diminishing returns would only have a strong effect on those who upvoted other accounts very frequently. If you upvoted for example your friends (or your 'precious content creator buddies') lets say thrice a week, there wouldn't be any (or a very small) effect on curation and author rewards. If however, you played a little @haejin, and created ten short posts per day to upvote them yourself, the effect would be rather strong (how strong depended on the configured parameters of the formula) - rightly so!
Already now your voting power gets less when you vote a lot, and recovers when you stop. The same would apply for the effect of diminishing returns.
One other interesting aspect is that it would affect flagging, too: if someone flagged anybody not once but very often to take all their rewards, the consecutive flags would become weaker and weaker ...
By the way, even on STEEM I find quite some interesting posts if I keep searching. I think it's worth it to try to find some new authors from time to time, and stick with my opinion that it's a good idea to reward the attempt to spread one's votes on as many (good) different authors as possible (but no, it is not necessary/forced, even not with diminishing returns).
You're very negative about this somehow. I don't understand this.
I for example frequently upvote an Italian painter (@armandosodano), about daily. This man is producing beautiful art, and spices up his art posts with ample photos and neat texts, often historical context. I have learned a lot from him and really enjoy his stuff. Why should I vote for somebody else?
He also happens to like my paintings, although I suspect it's more a teacher's encouragement for an eager student. In any event, I can't see anything wrong with us being "buddies" as you put it. Oh yeah, I always vote for my wife. I have to live with the woman, so may I be excused please?
O. K., I can live with that. Compromise sold. I take the hit on daily Armando, if he ever comes to Blurt. He won't have to, since I can't post more than every 3, 4 days or so. BTW, the diminishing flags are interesting, but that doesn't really apply here.
I don't search. My feeds are full of them. Unfortunately my investment is not large enough to spread around very much. I vote 50%+, that's not that much to go around, and only on Hive. I'm nobody on Steem and Blurt, and generously distribute 100% votes of next to nothing, but that doesn't help anybody.
If I may ask, you upvoted your own comment. What's the reasoning there? Just curious.
No, but you corrected me when I wrote "friends", so as kind of a joke I tried to seek a more appropriate term. :)
I neither.
Sure (and I also upvote my wife), but anyway: an algorithm doesn't accuse or excuse anybody.
Diminishing returns wouldn't 'forbid' anything ... but I just had to realize that my 27th upvote of my wife, my best friend, buddy or alt account would count somewhat less than my first upvote at the same day ... nothing really dramatic in my eyes. I just had to choose if I insisted to upvote my wife 27 times a day (with less and less rewards per upvote) or if I would think about to grant upvote number 27 to someone else. :-) I would be completely free, and it's not about moral, just about an incentive to spread my votes within the community - at least to a certain degree.
And maybe he actually would profit from the fact that also other users (not only you) would think about to spread their upvotes, too. That means that Armando would possibly receive my upvote number 27th from time to time (which until now had been reserved for my wife). :)
To earn money? :)
Here are neither flags nor diminishing returns implemented, that means self- and circle-voting are highly appreciated.
Yes, I urge to change that (because I think that in the long run that would be much better for all invstors!), but as long as nobody changes it, I see no reason to let all rewards go to Korean mini posts, and simply claim my part of the cake.
I am not an angel but an investor with self-interests ...
(OK, and as these rewards are only pennies when converted, I admit that my self-voting is also a way to hint at the obvious problem: in a functioning society there would be anybody/any means to curb that ...)
That's just weird. I mean, to worry about deincentivising destructive behavior with diminishing returns, which supposedly have only a tiny impact, and at the same time condoning self voting.
You see, I don't have a problem with anybody wasting their VP however they see fit, even on themselves - as long as the respective post has a modicum of value. Others do. Now I'm confused, but at least I'm confused on much higher level than before ;-)
Don't worry about answering; not much Sunday left. Thanks for the exchange; it was informative.
When living in the jungle, to survive you have to adapt to the laws of the jungle ... that doesn't necessarily mean that you prefer to live in a jungle.
Have a nice evening! :)
That's not nice!
You could be involved in the development of alternative instruments (other than downvotes and non-linear curves) that prevent or curb abuse.
The founders and developers of BLURT invest a lot of idealism and a lot of time of their lives in this.
I also bring a lot of idealism with me.
Sabotage, which you are doing, is the very wrong way here!
This reasoning contains no ethics.
I also live offline in a "jungle". But I don't do all the bad things just because I'm not punished for them.
I am very disappointed.
Beantwortet an anderer Stelle.
Can you stop sounding racist?
I am no Korean or related. I am an African but I have read you refer to a particular set of people/country in multiple comments/posts.
It sounds really racist and toxic even if the people you refer to are from the countries you mention.
I suggest you speak about individuals rather than their country or race.