I like the existing curve as it makes self-voting less beneficial.
A platform without flags plus a linear rewards curve would be a pure self-vote paradise. :)
RE: Rewards on Blurt: Request for Comment
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Rewards on Blurt: Request for Comment
Let's see what we can do about that....
At this point I have just written the following to @jacobgadikian above:
"The problem with the self-votes should be solved in another way, not in a way that my vote leaves only half value on comments, which were mostly not already highly voted.
There are other and better solutions against too many self-votes.
It is a very bad idea to solve this problem with this hated curve. I guess @jaki01 is the only one who loves it. This destroys communication in the community. I have a lot of experience with voting for comments. My site is on Steem and HIVE 77 times the most commented site at this day and 10 times the most commented site this week. This curve is, besides the sale of Steemit, the biggest trouble for all users."
Edit: @jaki01, you also know that there are other and better solutions. If you notice that you seem to have influence here, please mention things that you know bother the majority of users and not just what bothers you. I maintain that the majority does not want the fucking curve.
In which way?
I guess not, otherwise it would not have been introduced. :)
Only if you expect high rewards for every word you say. However, I like to communicate with my friends in real life even without getting anything for opening my mouth. :)
Apart from that, comment-voting often has the advantage that nobody else has already voted (automatically) so that one doesn't need to share the curation rewards with many other (very fast) users.
Looking at my curation rewards in SteemWorld, it seems that comment-voting in practice is actually rather beneficial.
The self-upvote of the comment above would have been even stronger with a linear rewards curve ... think about that ...
I can only tell you, from week 30/2019 I have been looking for newcomers and have been doing a weekly post to get them a bit more attention. After the introduction of the convergent curve (and in combination with the free downvotes) newcomers had a much harder time, many were gone faster than they came.
I think right now at the start of a new chain the price for this curve is high.
Do we have currently the problem that large accounts are splitting up into many small accounts? This is the main reason for the convergent curve, the reduction of self-votes is only a side effect.
That's what I observe on STEEM since four years ...
However, If bigger accounts support small users, like for example in the "Kneipe", then they will stay (independently of the curve).
And that's why I also disagree with the 'staking theory' of @birdinc: if big accounts just 'stake' (self- or circle vote), there is no reason at all for other, smaller users to join such a self-centered microcosm - and as we all know: the value of a (social) network is measured among others by the number of its users.
I disagree here. Without flags it's even more important than before.
There is another interesting reason in favour of the convergent linear rewards curve: in a linear universe bots could simply spread their votes randomnly without having any disadvantage. With the curve it's worth to vote on posts which other users like too. This effect is getting even more significant in case there won't be a curation window anymore (like for example @double-u prefers), which for now is the other reason not to upvote just randomnly ...
A lot of people talk past each other here.
(Deutsch: Viele reden hier aneinander vorbei.)
So do you two. Jaki, your statements have many contradictions.
I won't say more here. I'd rather write a post about it.
Just prove it! :)
What I see as a contradiction, I explained to you earlier in the Discord. Small accounts are disadvantaged, although you would like to do something for them.
I agree on the point with the bots and of course there are other reasons as you wrote before. As someone said, it's like a small tablecloth, if you pull on one end you expose the other side.
We will see how it goes on, thanks for your point of view.
Well said. Future will tell us more.
Who knows the Kneipe?
The term "Kneipe" refers to the periodically appearing posting, a virtual pub of the same name, in which @double-u votes for almost every comment, no matter how trivial it is. This is a good success in the German community. The institution has a very connecting character for bloggers and even newcomers can write themselves into a community very fast.
It doesn't matter who knows the "Kneipe" to name it as example how upvoting comments can help newbies (where the convergent linear reward curve isn't a problem at all).
That makes me angry again. Cause you know me to tell you that it is a problem.
Since the implementation of the nonlinear curve, I've had to vote twice the percentage for my guests. That costs me a lot of money.
For my guests, I have compensated for the negative effect of the curve. But I paid for it.
And outside my pub, because of the curve, almost no strong stakeholder votes on the $0.16 contributions of my guests.
Well, you can do that. But I see it as borderline when you simply wipe the arguments of the majority of our German community off the table with a flick of your wrist.
A lot of people talk past each other here.
(Deutsch: Viele reden hier aneinander vorbei.)
So do you two. Jaki, your statements have many contradictions.
I won't say more here. I'd rather write a post about it.
I never are in favour or against things because the majority prefers/dislikes them (anyway, a few German users aren't automatically the majority) but because I myself come to the conclusion that they are 'good' or 'bad'.
(In history many people who didn't agree with the majority - for example because they insisted that the earth isn't flat - got huge problems, which didn't change the fact that they were just completely right.)