I love that you share openly, compassionate humility and precision about your experience using bots. Even more so, the moral of the story as you so succinctly report "With voting, comes responsibility." definitely goes in accordance with my experience as a voter. I keep and eye on people who consistently bring about quality and haven't yet been taken for a ride... I cross my finger on this one but, of course for human reasons, the odds are always going to be there.
I wish you the best with your reassignment of bots and a profound thank you for exposing this situation to the rest of the big names out here as it does need exposure and rectification.
I noticed the exact same thing regarding Dana's content... and it is not the first time I have seen a previously respectable Steemian doing something that could be a bit sketchy.
To be fair, Dana is not actively breaking rules. I would not flag their account - but I did unfollow after I felt like it wasn't the kind of content that I wanted to engage with.
There was another user who I noticed doing something similar... one I had a lot of respect for.. and it really disappointed me.
Lastly, thank you for sharing your story about realizing you made a mistake with mindhunter. It takes courage to admit when you've done something wrong. It seems unfortunate that Steem's curation system encourages people to follow the herd and rush in to vote any content that will get money - regardless of the quality of that content.
I always encourage users, new and old, to just curate based on quality. The real rewards come from content creation and engaging with the community, NOT scavenging for dust from curation rewards.
re: flagging... yeah. I do disagree with the rewards, feeling they've been inproportional to the quality of content. However, it's a tough grey area determining when it may be appropriate to use the flagging power for such a purpose.
Thanks for bringing that up, as that was one point I wanted to touch on in the story but forgot.
And your welcome. Courage and some humility. But, we all make mistakes from time to time. And I'd rather suck it up and admit mine like this to set an example and pay forward the lessons, because it is a valuable lesson for the community and those using bots. Standards need to be set, and sometimes fucking up is a necessary part of the process of raising them - but if we keep our mistakes to ourselves, there's bound to be others who make the same fuckups, thus doing more damage to the community, when such could be avoided by simply swallowing one's pride and vocalizing as an example to others of what not to do. Not everyone might read or take such lessons to heart and implement themselves, but if even one or two do, the community will have upgraded because of it...
i made the same mistake expt of course with significantly less power but the conclusion is the same thanks for reminding me to reevaluate my voting bots
This comment has received a 4.24 % upvote from @buildawhale thanks to: @stimialiti.
Send at least 0.100 SBD to @buildawhale with a post link in the memo field to bid for a portiona of the next 100% upvote.
It sounds like the moral of the story is to NOT use bot voting because you are more likely to wind up voting on SHIT because you're not actually "curating", you're simply trying to earn profit based on a specific author's past work.
There's a saying that goes something like: Past performance is not an indicator of future success.
This is why I feel strongly that any voting bot is actually not in the best interest of the future success of Steemit. The reason curation rewards exist are for quality content to be raised to the greater community, NOT for profit.
Curation rewards are not meant to be a giant whale circle jerk. By not ACTIVELY curating posts, you are doing a disservice to the Entire Steemit Community.
Sure, auto vote bots may have worked when the community was smaller. There were fewer authors to choose from. It makes sense that you would auto vote the best / most consistent ones and manually curate the one-off posts that you enjoyed.
But the environment has changed. And you must adapt appropriately in order to ensure the future success of the platform.
Please end the Circle Jerk of whales who post ANYTHING and receive literally HUNDREDS of high-valued SteemPower votes. Regardless of the quality of their content.
All this action does is encourage new users to "follow suit" because "that's the way Steemit must work if everyone who is successful is doing it."
Thank you for your comment. While you're on the right track, the problem isn't actually "algorithms". If someone instituted a legitimate AI algorithm, I bet it wouldn't be so bad.
However, outsourcing to a mindless robot that simply votes for the same author over and over (mindlessly), is absolutely not going to work in the long-term. It's barely a short-term solution for a complex growth proposition.
Great post my mannn! Every Sunday, I go to check my steemvoter account. I usually catch a few people who were doing great content, then decided to do like 10+ shit posts a day.
You just made me go back to my account and now I want to go through everyone's accounts 😂
Congratulations @rok-sivante, this post is the third most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Superhero or Legend account holder (accounts hold greater than 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Superhero and Legend account holders during this period was 17 and the total pending payments to posts in these categories was $850.72. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
@rok-sivante excuse me ,was an mistake . I begin to learn the Steemit rules and I'll promise to do the right things , no spam only good comments and activity . Now I fallen from 42 level to 8 , I learned my lesson . Never make again .
Now how I can grow my same level like first , now I'm 8 :( ,thank you
I have yet to use bots but I am pretty sure I have a couple that I am on their list judging by regular votes, (not complaining at all) that I get.
This also is VERY important for other aspects of the ecosystem as well, like witnesses. People really should take time to re-evaluate their witness votes, or at least check in on them at @netuoso's STEEM Witness Stats site.
I love that you share openly, compassionate humility and precision about your experience using bots. Even more so, the moral of the story as you so succinctly report "With voting, comes responsibility." definitely goes in accordance with my experience as a voter. I keep and eye on people who consistently bring about quality and haven't yet been taken for a ride... I cross my finger on this one but, of course for human reasons, the odds are always going to be there.
I wish you the best with your reassignment of bots and a profound thank you for exposing this situation to the rest of the big names out here as it does need exposure and rectification.
Namaste :)
Well said brother~
Namaste~*~
I noticed the exact same thing regarding Dana's content... and it is not the first time I have seen a previously respectable Steemian doing something that could be a bit sketchy.
To be fair, Dana is not actively breaking rules. I would not flag their account - but I did unfollow after I felt like it wasn't the kind of content that I wanted to engage with.
There was another user who I noticed doing something similar... one I had a lot of respect for.. and it really disappointed me.
Lastly, thank you for sharing your story about realizing you made a mistake with mindhunter. It takes courage to admit when you've done something wrong. It seems unfortunate that Steem's curation system encourages people to follow the herd and rush in to vote any content that will get money - regardless of the quality of that content.
I always encourage users, new and old, to just curate based on quality. The real rewards come from content creation and engaging with the community, NOT scavenging for dust from curation rewards.
re: flagging... yeah. I do disagree with the rewards, feeling they've been inproportional to the quality of content. However, it's a tough grey area determining when it may be appropriate to use the flagging power for such a purpose.
Thanks for bringing that up, as that was one point I wanted to touch on in the story but forgot.
And your welcome. Courage and some humility. But, we all make mistakes from time to time. And I'd rather suck it up and admit mine like this to set an example and pay forward the lessons, because it is a valuable lesson for the community and those using bots. Standards need to be set, and sometimes fucking up is a necessary part of the process of raising them - but if we keep our mistakes to ourselves, there's bound to be others who make the same fuckups, thus doing more damage to the community, when such could be avoided by simply swallowing one's pride and vocalizing as an example to others of what not to do. Not everyone might read or take such lessons to heart and implement themselves, but if even one or two do, the community will have upgraded because of it...
every time I look at dana's blog, I am scratching my head... there is a disconnect between content and rewards
i made the same mistake expt of course with significantly less power but the conclusion is the same thanks for reminding me to reevaluate my voting bots
;-)
I would love so much to know how to automate my own curation.
!originalworks
The @OriginalWorks bot has determined this post by @rok-sivante to be original material and upvoted it!
To call @OriginalWorks, simply reply to any post with @originalworks or !originalworks in your message!
To nominate this post for the daily RESTEEM contest, upvote this comment! The user with the most upvotes on their @OriginalWorks comment will win!
For more information, Click Here!
This comment has received a 8.33 % upvote from @nettybot thanks to: @stimialiti.
Send 0.100 SBD to @nettybot with a post link in the memo field to bid on the next vote.
Oh, and be sure to vote for my owner, @netuoso, as Steem Witness
Have a great day!
This comment has received a 4.24 % upvote from @buildawhale thanks to: @stimialiti. Send at least 0.100 SBD to @buildawhale with a post link in the memo field to bid for a portiona of the next 100% upvote.
To support our curation initiative, please vote on my owner, @themarkymark, as a Steem Witness
It sounds like the moral of the story is to NOT use bot voting because you are more likely to wind up voting on SHIT because you're not actually "curating", you're simply trying to earn profit based on a specific author's past work.
There's a saying that goes something like: Past performance is not an indicator of future success.
This is why I feel strongly that any voting bot is actually not in the best interest of the future success of Steemit. The reason curation rewards exist are for quality content to be raised to the greater community, NOT for profit.
Curation rewards are not meant to be a giant whale circle jerk. By not ACTIVELY curating posts, you are doing a disservice to the Entire Steemit Community.
Sure, auto vote bots may have worked when the community was smaller. There were fewer authors to choose from. It makes sense that you would auto vote the best / most consistent ones and manually curate the one-off posts that you enjoyed.
But the environment has changed. And you must adapt appropriately in order to ensure the future success of the platform.
Please end the Circle Jerk of whales who post ANYTHING and receive literally HUNDREDS of high-valued SteemPower votes. Regardless of the quality of their content.
All this action does is encourage new users to "follow suit" because "that's the way Steemit must work if everyone who is successful is doing it."
Please stop the madness.
when will we (humans) learn that everything shouldn't be outsourced to robots and algorithms? Love your assessment of the problem.
Thank you for your comment. While you're on the right track, the problem isn't actually "algorithms". If someone instituted a legitimate AI algorithm, I bet it wouldn't be so bad.
However, outsourcing to a mindless robot that simply votes for the same author over and over (mindlessly), is absolutely not going to work in the long-term. It's barely a short-term solution for a complex growth proposition.
Just for the record...
I AM NOT A BOT!
:)))
Resteem...
Great post my mannn! Every Sunday, I go to check my steemvoter account. I usually catch a few people who were doing great content, then decided to do like 10+ shit posts a day.
You just made me go back to my account and now I want to go through everyone's accounts 😂
What's that saying?
"With Great Power Comes With Greater Responsibility"
Keep STEEM N ON,
Frank
Congratulations @rok-sivante, this post is the third most rewarded post (based on pending payouts) in the last 12 hours written by a Superhero or Legend account holder (accounts hold greater than 100 Mega Vests). The total number of posts by Superhero and Legend account holders during this period was 17 and the total pending payments to posts in these categories was $850.72. To see the full list of highest paid posts across all accounts categories, click here.
If you do not wish to receive these messages in future, please reply stop to this comment.
@rok-sivante excuse me ,was an mistake . I begin to learn the Steemit rules and I'll promise to do the right things , no spam only good comments and activity . Now I fallen from 42 level to 8 , I learned my lesson . Never make again .
Now how I can grow my same level like first , now I'm 8 :( ,thank you
four of the exact same comments, and 8 in total were unnecessary. ONE is all that was needed.
you're back at a 40. 2 points is quite a reasonable price for the lesson you got today. ;-)
I have yet to use bots but I am pretty sure I have a couple that I am on their list judging by regular votes, (not complaining at all) that I get.
This also is VERY important for other aspects of the ecosystem as well, like witnesses. People really should take time to re-evaluate their witness votes, or at least check in on them at @netuoso's STEEM Witness Stats site.