Why I Feel "Trails" Ruin Steem
I love the idea of Steem because it incentivizes valuable content, in theory. In practice, we have more and more people automatically voting without any idea what they're voting on. Not only do they not really value the content, but they have never even laid eyes on it. This calls into question the meaning of the upvote.
Wow, lots of people liked my song! Oh wait, never mind.
When people let bots use their voting power for them, these upvotes no longer have anything to do with the value actual people place on the content. It's just how the money-making game is played.
I don't want 213 upvotes if only 3 people actually listened to the song and liked it. At least then I know I'm not reaching a large audience, or people just don't like what I'm offering. Even if I got $11 for it. Don't lie to me to stroke my ego, I just want the truth!
Wow, great comment! By comparison, the post itself is apparently worthless.
If an upvote is supposed to indicate the value a person places on content, what should we think when we see this?
If one human is able to vote with the power of many other humans who have entrusted their votes to this person, I can see how it could be justified. It's like margin trading. But when anyone can post a command in a chat channel to get their own content upvoted, I think that's damaging. Or when bots are used to vote based on arbitrary criteria, depending on the criteria. A bot that votes on "thank you" posts? Beautiful! A bot that votes on any post that mentions a keyword, or as an incentive for using a specific app? Questionable.
I guess I just like the idea that each person gets one vote per post or comment, so the vote count means "number of people who valued this content."
I'm not complaining about a lack of exposure. I know that will naturally grow over time as long as I'm producing valuable content and engaging with others. But when other people are treating the platform as a popularity game, their posts and comments become little more than upvote receptacles.
I appreciate the sentiment that inspired projects to help "minnows." Helping new people get connected and familiarized is great. I love the ideas of peer-review and contests and bounties. But I think this whole "upvotes on demand" mindset is short-sighted. In my mind, the goal should not be getting rich and famous. It should be sharing and engaging with content that adds value, and then collecting on that value instead of leaving it all on the platform.
Also, let's please tone down the usage of labels like "minnow" and "whale." They just emphasize the differences between people's Steem popularity and/or wallet size, which are both irrelevant to the quality of their content. Referring to people by their popularity or wallet size emphasizes the importance of those things in people's minds. It encourages the mindset in which "minnows" are low-level characters struggling to beat the game and become "whales."
The problem with this mindset is that it's not about the content, it's about the numbers. It's not about adding value to others, it's about adding value to oneself. In contrast, the original idea of Steem was a balance of these goals.
People who complain or sulk over being on the platform for weeks or months and are making a only few cents per post are missing the point or exhibiting impatience. Giving them tools to upvote themselves in bulk only encourages the "get rich quick" mindset while abusing the system and diluting the (perceived and actual) value of the upvote.
I don't have answers, just concerns. I would like to hear some counterarguments, because I'm sure there are some good ones I haven't considered. I'd also love to hear ideas for ways to address these issues. I'm not sure that the root of the problem can be solved via technology, but perhaps it can be discouraged and its negative effects mitigated.
If the post's monetary value could be hidden, or less prominent, or viewed at some cost, or viewed under some kind of rate limit, I bet it would help people focus on the content and forget (even if just a little) about the money. At least it would send a message that it's not the most important thing about the post. Then again, it is probably responsible for a significant portion of Steemit's success.
I agree with you and my last post is also on the same topic. People post spam content copied from other sites and Steemit turns to giant garbage pile. Imagine lots of your old magazines lying for years on your kitchen table or in the toilet room. That's what we do even getting the chance for the better.
There will always be people abusing the system, but maybe its the systems fault. Quality content wins in the long run, or at least makes you more happy, cause you havent snagged the money away , you earned it. Good blogpost
I don't think it matters whose fault it is. If we can discourage these things (which it seems the latest hard fork does to some degree), I think we should. But I think the root of the problem is the mindset. It seems to me that anything posted with a primary intent of earning money is likely of little value. I question anything that encourages this mindset. Perhaps the system can be made to discourage it.
Completely agree. It somewhat bothers me to see good content with many likes and so little views. Just thinking about it for a second and realised that just maybe something simple like only putting the upvote button on the bottom of the article could help reduce this blind upvoting.
I think removing the ability to vote without opening the post might make more sense, but the "trails" I was talking about are the automated voting systems. People can subscribe to other people's comments and posts so they upvote whatever gets posted (for which I can see an argument), or they can give a bot permission to vote on their behalf (which is probably affected by the latest hard fork).
For example, as soon as minnowsupport upvoted this post, about 30 other accounts were automatically used to vote for it too, without the account holder's supervision (but with permission). You can see that even though it currently has 39 votes, it has only 13 views. I am grateful for the votes, but I think the very act of automated voting is damaging to the platform to some degree. Maybe it's not as big of an issue as I think. But from where I'm standing, it seems important.
Your points are valid. If I get the chance, I'll try to spark a discussion later. What you should be looking for is not counterpoints as you are raising an issue; but rather solutions to the concerns raised which I would like you to discuss in a future post!
Great, thanks! I edited the post according to your suggestions.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by cryptonfused from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, and someguy123. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you like what we're doing please upvote this comment so we can continue to build the community account that's supporting all members.