RE: How about unflagging my posts?
Dear @michelle.gent,
I have nothing against your work and to be honest I even read it myself. However, I see some logic in @transisto actions too. I will explain why.
First of all, as you know we have a little war going on here in Steemit. @Berniesanders started it against @minnowbooster, but then at some point made it more general - against unfair rewards and exploit of reward pool. As we can see, now he is not alone, more people are supporting his vision.
Now if take writing category and explore it a little bit deeper, we will see that you are almost the only author (together with @suesa) who is getting Daily up to $100 with a ratio of 100 views. As we know nothing is illegal here, but from the proportional point of view - it is more than 1$ per view.
Probably you will say "hey that's the point and difference of Steemit comparing to other platforms, you can earn here and I was working hard for one year to get these results. "
Well, maybe but if we take a closer look again, we will see that you get so high rewards only because @blocktrades supports you on a daily basis.
I can't blame you, you got used to it and now you think this is standard.
Personally, I see several problems here:
- unfair and too high rewards;
- minnows are thinking that if they work for one year they will achieve same results as you, which is not true, you got your results only thanks to @blocktrades. ( It would be okaish if he supported you once or 2 in a while, but every single post up to $100, comon! this does not feel fair to other authors);
- So if a minnow will follow your example and work hard for one year, but for some will not get noticed by @blocktrades or some other whales, he won't be able to earn at all? Even if he makes 2x of your views and upvotes per post?
- this looks like a pure collision. I don't know whether @blocktrades just likes your writing or you are buddies, but it is not right.
You have all rights to defend yourself, but this is not so much about you, the whole system of Steemit works poorly. We have so many people leaving platform because of the cases like this, they see potential, they work hard but then they see that a group of people are liking each other and they leave. So from my personal point of view something should be chnaged and this is a good start.
And I think you should not be sad, as you can see this post got you already 80$ without @blocktrades support. People are feeling you and all you need to do know is get their interest in your novels :)
I think we should use the idea of diminishing returns to make it less attractive to upvote oneself (including own multiple accounts) or 'buddies' again and again. I described it like this:
"How about if after each vote on a specific account (including ones own account) each further vote on the same account would lead to significantly less curation reward for the voter and less profit for the upvoted account? Thus, when upvoting an account which I had already upvoted before, my voting power would be smaller than in case I upvote an account which I didn't upvote before."
Maybe other ideas like the one of @scipio would work as well.
As long as the system is designed to be exploited it will be exploited ... so in my opinion not the ones who exploit the system are to 'blame' but the system should be improved.
Okay so four books are available to vote on:
Now if I happen to be a fan of Cat In The Hat, and I happen to think that Karl Marx was the most ignorant person on the earth at the time he was alive, that eventually you are going to force me to support his book? That is what I got out of your post.
Then you didn't get it. You could still vote on everything you like as often as you want. However, if you upvote the one and same author within a certain time frame several times, every upvote would be significantly weaker than the previous one.
There are accounts here who upvote themselves (or their own multiple accounts) or the same friends again and again, several times per day. They are not to blame as system allows it. But it is not useful for the communication within the platform. It is not helpful for very new account holders who still have no connections but produce good content. My idea would help to spread votes within the platform instead to concentrate them on a few authors.
Then the system will die. It is that simple. If I like a person's content because I feel it meets my standard of content, why should my vote be worth less and less and less if I continue to find their content valuable? Why should a content provider even try to develope a fan base if the votes and rewards from that fan base is less and less and less with each piece of quality content they provide. Believe me I get it. I understand, that there are going to be people that game the system, so since that is possible let's make it voting on content that people like worthless. I do not know Michelle Gent. have never met her, most likely will never meet her. I like her writing I voted on her stories as I read them. I commented on her stories as I read them. Sometimes that was 3 or 4 votes a day. You want to devalue my input it is as simple as that. I also read and vote on several other Authors works a day. You want to devalue my vote on their work also. Your system will only drive people away, and decrease the quality of the content on steemit, because there would be no, none, zero reason to be a consistent quality content provider when your work is devalued because your fans votes have been devalued. End of story, possible end of the steemit dream of having Quality Content.
We agree to disagree. I say the opposite is the case: the system will die if selfvoting and solely upvoting friends prevents new unknown users from enjoying the platform and being successful. Maybe you are not aware about many big accounts which are just writing about 10 'short stories' per day just to upvote themselves. By upvoting oneself there is no need anymore to produce quality content (there will be upvotes anyway). There is no need to communicate with others anymore: completely unattractive for potential investors.
If you upvote yourself and your best buddies once or twice a day that is more than enough: you just can't tell me that there is any need to do that several times per day(!). My system would still allow it but make it less attractive. (By the way I want to see that author who writes more than two quality articles per day ...)
Yes I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
The way you phrased that it seems as if you do not think it happens, quality is subjective, always has been always will be Here are two Authors:
1.@michelle.gent
2@everittdmickey
I, (I don't expect everyone does or will agree), find their stories to be Quality work. Michelle was posting 3 of her stories, editing one story and writing the continuation on two of them. Thats a lot of work, and I enjoyed the stories.
Everitt also has been posting multiple stories, two of which I have been reading and enjoying. So for me these two Authors post multiple Quality stories.
I do a small steemag, trying to bring readers and Authors/Storytellers together. We all have differing opinions on what is fun to read, and what is quality.
So there is an example of two quality authors making multiple post in a day.
Sorry, I think - depending on the topic - I can evaluate 'quality' very well. In my eyes this "quality is subjective" is often used as an excuse to defend non-quality stuff.
For example concerning science articles there are many criteria to evaluate 'quality'. It is important to be accurate, to argue in a logical way, to present the topic understandable, to cite your sources, to use instructive images and decent formatting.
I have the impression you want to defend @michelle.gent. That is nice of you, but actually I don't want to attack her anyway - I even haven't read any of her articles. :)
I am thinking about the development of the platform (and the Steem price) in general and from my point of view there are worse things thinkable than upvoting your favorite author only (let's say) twice per day with full voting power.
There have been a lot of post about voting. Either my Vote belongs to me, or it does not. I notice that all the limit a person's vote is only to the upvote. How about limiting the down vote, where are the whales when it comes to that issue. In hiding or justifying why we can not limit our downvote power.
If people read the FAQ, they will see that the only person you can effect with a down vote is someone with less power than you.
From the FAQ: "Your reputation goes up when accounts vote on your content. Getting downvoted by someone with a higher reputation can push your reputation down and make your posts less visible.
"Users with a lower reputation score are unable to affect your reputation."
I have no idea if that includes limiting a persons payout, it most likely does.
Science articles and Fiction Stories are two entirely different items. It is like comparing lemons and bananas. They are both yellow, that's pretty much where the similarity ends, as for which taste better, that is entirely subjective.
A science article is based on factual information and is as you pointed out easy to quantify as to whether or not it is a Quality Article.
Fiction is based on a writer's imagination, the only quantifiable quality is spelling, grammar and did they tell their story in such a manner that the reader enjoyed it. Completely Subjective.
But yes we are and most likely will remain in disagreement, about the downvote and limiting rewards, about how a person is allowed to use their vote, and about the right and wrong of one person deciding the correct amount of payout for a post.
There will be always people who exploit the system, that's why the system should change and grow with a time.
Regarding diminishing returns, I agree it might be actually a good idea. I saw something similar in "Steemit Roadmap 2018: Community Input Requested" post. In fact, there were many good ideas, let's see if any of them will come to life.
Imo one of the biggest problems we have on Steem is that there is too much intellect and not enough passion.
I don't agree, I think it is the other way around. Steemit is broken, because of bots and collisions. Minnow's posts are getting lost without any possibility to get seen.
Some bots help minnows to be seen.
On this point I agree, but it happens only because algorithm of hot and trending posts does not work efficiently. Moreover, they are obliged to use bots, because others do that and they have 0 chance to get noticed without bots. Personally, I would prefer to have a society without bots, with a better visibility and reward opportunities for minnows, where you grow your fan base and get rewarded proportionally for that. I use bots myself, minnowbooster was favorite for a while btw :) but I was doing that for the same reasons as other minnows - obliged.
That opinion is wrong. Plain and Simple wrong. People can and do get visibility without the use of bots. People can and do grow without the use of bots. I do not use bots. I learned to use the orig works bot to show my wife. I have tried pribra's croupier bot to see how it worked for rewarding people. That is all of the bots I have used. Resteem bot/people are a scam, I have, (I think) all of the minnow help bots on mute. In 3 months I reached 53.4 Rep and 157SP.
Not a great success, but done without bots or vote buying or minnowboosting scheme's.
I, on the other hand, haven't used bots. I decided to let the Steemit community decide whether my work was worth upvoting and apparently, a few people thought it was.
Then one decided they were all wrong and here we are...
This post is currently hidden due to the author's low reputation or low post rating.
The Writers' Block has responded officially to this situation HERE, and while we don't have a major financial stake in this issue, our team of writers and editors have several lifetimes of experience in publishing that gives our opinions value. I want to point out one thing, not to be arbitrary, but hopefully to bring a little real-world balance to table.
This is a pretty accurate summary of brick and mortar publishing as well. It's a reality all authors face if they hope to be picked up by one of the Top Five, or even a reputable small press. Many of us look at the success of authors like E.L James and even James Patterson, and scratch the hide off our scalp trying to figure out how in the hell they make millions, when much more talented and relevant writers make virtually nothing. Not getting noticed by people with the money is a fact of life in publishing. It also puts the onus squarely on the authors to write better. Promote harder. Invest in their own dreams. I definitely see your point that many writers coming to Steemit get into a twist over the dynamic here, but more because they failed to "manage their expectations" (hat tip to @lukestokes) than because the system is broken.
Now, before people start yelling over my last remark, I'm not saying the system isn't broken. It has quite a basketful of issues. But to think the dynamic addressed above is unique to the Steemit economy is not quite accurate. Just my two cents worth. --@rhondak