RE: Report as Steem Representative, 04.05.2024
Thanks for the feedback. I believe that Steem needs a larger and coordinated paid promotion campaign. I think it would even be appropriate to use a certain amount of funds from the DAO for this. But I would not even vote for such a proposal myself, since it is impossible to control whether the funds are used as intended.
I also aimed to promote STEEM as a good asset for investment, because it is one of the few cryptocurrencies that, thanks to author and curation rewards, even in a bear market, is able to level losses and bring profit in the long term. But unfortunately, when it comes to investments or tokens, Instagram blocks the possibility of advertising. Therefore, I focused on an audience that is interested in blogging and writing. At least until I come up with something else.
This is a good plan...
Are you able to follow through and track people joining Steem through your Insta promo campaign?
It would be interesting then to work towards calculating a Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) through this and other types of promotion.
I have thought about this question before.
In Instagram, it is possible to target the campaign not on visits to the profile, but on visits to the site. In this case, I know how many people followed the link. However, it is impossible to verify how many of them have registered, since registration takes place on the steemit.com website.
Speaking of personal correspondence, only 5 people out of 59 who visited the profile wrote to me with questions about Steem. But it is not known whether any of them decided to register.
I think that in order to find out how many people registered thanks to promotion on Instagram, we need to create a separate landing page with the possibility of registration. But here one cannot do without the help of programmers.
Warning: This comment is unrelated to the post I'm replying to 🫢
I can't remember when (probably years ago) that you said to highlight people we think are good authors... I think that this is a good author that you might be interested in.
Hi @the-gorilla
I think you leaving a note not warning 🙂 The author you recommending sounds good. She is sharing quality blogs and I appreciate that too ❤️
Warning: This comment is also unrelated to the post I'm replying to 🙄
I may have been premature in recommending hnubdona to you. Sadly, the post that you voted on has already paid out 😟
Now following @hnubdona.
It looks like sc02 picked up one of her other posts.
Sadly, I think that her account isn't genuine. I don't know if you've seen this thread but I've also discovered that the photos she's shared with her in them are also fake and probably generated via AI.
I don't want to give away too much detail in case they correct it next time, but this photo is particularly telling (open in a new window for full resolution):
In particular, notice how the bush is in perfect focus... until it is near to her head. Which has clearly been doctored. If you look closely at all of her travel photos, the same mistake is made.
This indicates that (s)he's happy using AI to create deceiving photos, which almost definitely means that (s)he's also using AI to generate the content.
She also said that she's got no children and followed it up with a despicable lie in the hope I'd feel empathy and stop probing. Which I didn't. I believe that she has no children. The previous version of her profile, she claimed to have a 3 month old, but at the time her baby was allegedly born, she was posting about travelling and there was no mention of being pregnant or having a baby. Quite an oversight.
So in summary, I apologise for recommending this user and don't think that her AI deceiving ways should be rewarded.
Another one that @o1eh and I have been promoting recently is nadinad who has the same hall marks as this user (including some "behind-the-scenes" "coincidences (which aren't coincidences)). She's also transferring her STEEM and sending them to HIVE using graphene-swap. It's something that I didn't even know existed until (s)he did it - https://hive.blog/hive-167922/@trayan/using-graphene-swap-the-easy-way
If you look at the users who transfer to graphene-swap, it's the people who have been farming Steemit in order to buy HIVE.
So unfortunately, I think that her votes should be removed and we should never trust a new user ever again.
It's very unfortunate, I think this is what in particular makes me think that this is why it is necessary to see a certain level of activity on the platform from each new user, before assuming that they are a genuine user, because it is the activity, when posting , which allows us to explore whether they genuinely do...
In addition to everything, the details you explain are very good to be able to study the cases.
Greetings friend, very good job, in my case I continue learning with you😊
When it was first suggested that these accounts aren't genuine, I said:
Which makes me sad. But unfortunately, it's where I am.
It's an impossible challenge. I think that users probably leave quicker if they don't see a reward for their efforts. Whereas that initial incentive of the Newcomers' programme has probably kept some good people on the platform. The proportion of good people vs. scammers though? Almost certainly mostly scammers.
I know that you've been working hard to ensure that there's a certain level of engagement beyond Achievements with Newcomers, but I wonder if a Newcomer shouldn't receive their "Validation" until a minimum of 3 months use. So they can continue the achievement programme, etc. with no guarantee of rewards (so that they learn about the platform) but there's no "badge of accreditation" until that time is up. No labels at all. Just a "Well done, that's great, do the next one."
Currently, the rewards for the Newcomers' Achievement programme aren't the incentive for the scammers. It's that label of "Validated" which gets them into Contests, Engagement Challenges and that coveted prize of a potential steemcurator upvote. Many communities insist upon this accreditation now which is driving them to you / us.
They're learning with each piece of "evidence" that is shared. Next time, they won't make this mistake as they'll be looking for it. This is their profession and they're getting very good at it.
As an aside, it's perhaps interesting that it's never even crossed my mind to "investigate" most of the people that I speak to the most. And these are also the people that have been around for as long as I have and in many cases, longer. Reinforcing thought of "never trust another new user ever again"!
That's very harsh, but I honestly don't want to spend my limited time here with newcomers, of whom many / most are just spam accounts or fake accounts. Although I know that it would be important to take the newcomers by the hand and support them.
chriddi warned me early on that nadina's account was fake. Her intuition was probably right. I'm still not entirely convinced that it really is "fake". But some of her activities were atypical for a newcomer. Ultimately, as a Steem Representative, I can't justify supporting someone with a delegation who posts here and then pushes the rewards onto the other chain...
It feels like repeated bad experiences. I can only think of 1 new user in the last year that has been worth the effort. So maybe it's a case of "wait and see" when there's enough activity to form a complete impression. It's probably telling that most of the people I talk to the most never completed their achievements.
I suspected that when I read the comments in DU. It was obvious that her German wasn't good enough (presumably worse than mine 😉) but whoever's creating these accounts always has "recently moved to..." in their introduction, giving them a "get out clause". They've had a lot of practise now so it's increasingly difficult to know what's real and what's not!
That's what did it for me. It's one thing to be suspicious of AI, but to transfer it to HIVE is a big no-no if you're on Steemit.
Receiving a validation after three months can be a long time...
I'm simply referring to the fact that at least in my case I try not to assume anything, or suppose, until I see how it unfolds. There are many details that are observed in addition to the photos or information, which I will not say here, that is why you say that by discovering everything, they perfect their techniques.
I would like to think that the proportion of authentic ones is higher, but after a while, that is, in those who remain. As for the newcomers, this proportion is more difficult to determine.
I completely understand that you don't trust, it's natural, after a while of seeing these types of cases.
Plus all of that time I spent looking for them instead of just enjoying! I think that over time, the good, trusted people rise to the top. It's no coincidence that the people who are doing well here are the people who we've formed a little "circle of love" with 💖
It's really sad. And the other user you mentioned? Well, I had also resteemed his/her post!
I am relatively new on the platform myself, but when I saw that the account was receiving support and guidance from our esteemed veterans, I thought I should also play my part. So, I took on a little mentor role, forwarding the same goodness that I had received at one point.
But I just feel so violated now. What a shame to play with other people and abuse the system.
This is truly disheartening!
It’s the reason newcomers find it so difficult. We’ve all tried to find new authors but maybe the best route is to let them find us. If you look at both of those accounts, the only comment on somebody else’s post was them commenting on each other (themselves) and the one to you - presumably an attempt to guilt trip us. Whoever’s running these accounts seems to be shameless about their emotional manipulation.
I’ll write a post at some point about AI generated profiles. I’ve only spent a couple of hours working on it but I’ve got some reasonably good results so far.
The second user has been engaging with different users... And in different communities. I am really at loss of words!
I was also thinking the other day, 'Why all the whining?' She has received substantial support. It took me over six months, around 70 blogs, and thousands of meaningful comments to gather a following of some 74 followers. It's quite fortunate that this account has garnered such followers and sc02 support with only 4 posts, yet this comment. I genuinely asked her concern (How stupid of me) and also shared my genuine insights, but I have not been replied to!
The user stopped all activity after I highlighted to hnubdona that (s)he wasn’t being honest. Since then, (s)he transferred her STEEM to HIVE. Maybe (s)he’ll get away with it there. They’re as keen as we are to find new users. (S)he did have an sc01 vote too which was removed.
It took you a long time and you had the advantage of knowing event-horizon who’s well respected. Which is probably why some people feel the need to cheat. They’ll go again. They always do.
No había visto esto 😱 y bueno aunque es impactante noe sorprende, con la llegada de los sbd muchas personas están vueltos locos inventando de todo para appderarse de los votos de los curadores en especial de los más grandes.
En steemit deberíamos tener un nivel de apoyo para losas nuevos muy distinto al nivel de apoyo de un usuario que ya tiene más de 4-6 meses por ejemplo.
Hay usuarios aquí que demuestran lealtad y fidelidad solo a steemit hacen buen trabajo y son dejados a un lado por dar apoyo a alguien que viene llegando con el fin de solo aprovecharse de la blockchain, cosa que me parece un poco injusta.
Me alegra mucho que personas como tú estén metiendo la lupa es casos como estos, puede abrir la puerta a un buen filtro para usuarios en la plataforma.
No todos ven a steemit de la misma manera, estamos los que creemos y hacemos de steemit nuestra casa y nos comprometemos con ella y están los que solo ven en steemit una naranja para exprimir y exprimir.
I think that there's a subconscious level of support like this. It certainly takes a long time to earn that level of trust on a consistent basis and it's probably impossible to achieve by using multiple profiles.
The better people always seem to rise to the top. Sometimes it happens quickly, sometimes slower but with some consistency and original thinking, the better people eventually stand out.
On closer inspection, the photos are clearly recognisable as fakes. Thanks to your eagle eye! :-)
On the one hand, I'm glad that you had the same experience as me. On the other hand, it's really particularly sad in both cases.
It did actually cause me a bit of conflict... on one hand (I've got to copy your expression here), we don't want people pretending to be somebody else, and using AI to generate content. On the other hand, the content appeared to be authentic and well written - creating a better impression for external people visiting the site, and presumably search engines. Which made me wonder, should it be allowed? (Of course, the reward element complicates things further.)
I'm pretty sure I've debated this, or similar with @remlaps before where AI could be used to attract new users. It's the "cheating" element that bothers me.
Yeah, I don't think the AI aspect really matters much. If you use AI and acknowledge that you're using AI, fine and dandy. If you write fiction and acknowledge that you're writing fiction, fine and dandy. But...
If you use AI and claim (imply) that it's human or you write fiction and claim that it's fact, then it's a problem. I can't see this author's posts any more, so I have no opinion on the immediate topic.
I felt similarly conflicted with a couple authors recently who (I strongly suspect) are using some tool that I can't identify to generate content that's not obviously abusive and not obviously created by AI, so I was stymied about how to curate those. Again, it had the feeling that someone was cheating. Although I couldn't say for sure, and I wasn't sure what the harm was, anyway.
I ultimately decided to give low-percentage upvotes, and it seems that the votes were low enough that they moved on to other communities. Which, I guess, makes them someone else's problem, at least for now. I'm not going to level public accusations if I can't say what the cheating mechanism is. :-(
Of course, detecting these sorts of deceptions at scale is another matter, entirely. It occurs to me that we could fund a "fraud department" out of the SPS, but that just devolves into the problems of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and how to measure success. For example, I've seen no evidence that STEEM WATCHER has produced a meaningful reduction, and I have no reason to believe that the "detectives" aren't just creating spam in order to collect rewards for reporting it. In the end, I think we need automation or else SBD interest at a high enough rate to disincentivize cheating for posting rewards.
It's difficult, and becoming increasingly so. There are often other telling signs, beyond the content, that can help to validate a suspicion. In this instance, there were 3 other factors which alone (even from an individual account perspective) could have been dismissed but combined and across multiple accounts, became more than just coincidence.
I think that this is what happens on Hive and they take a huge payment every day to do so. Perhaps they have more success because they have the power to deal with the biggest farmers that use upvu or tipu and the likes of trafalgar - thereby (theoretically) improving their Trending page. Their Trending page is definitely more attractive than ours. Whether it's value for money or not... It's $290 per day.
The comments underneath their proposal is eye opening though.
This won't be true of all Steem Watchers, but it's certainly my opinion on some / many of them. (Disclaimer: I don't look at any of their reports so can't comment on whether the work that they do is genuine or beneficial.)
The lure of SBDs...
You are actually correct sir, I even noticed the point that steemians who are on the post of admin and mods are only selecting the posts of near and dear ones, it may be their members of the family or friends due to which the other steemians are not getting rewards for their hardwork. There is a lot of partiality in choosing booming votes and the votes given by community curators.