You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Discontinuing my daily statistics posts
Perhaps there is another way that you could continue your service by capping the payout reward.
Perhaps there is another way that you could continue your service by capping the payout reward.
@dantheman, why should it be necessary or logical to "cap" the payout reward. Doesn't the platform take care of this through the built-in incentives? If users value the content they upvote. If they don't value it, they don't upvote it. I don't see the point in flagging content because someone doesn't think other people should value it. All we're doing here is directing the faucet, so to speak. Whether or not specific content is more deserving should not be the point of the flagging system IMHO. Flagging is for content that is abusive, stolen, obscene, spam, etc.
The Oragami ones are cool. One should do what he/she is good at! MasterYoda is good at stats.
I vote on both. Well I used to. What will you be posting next masteryoda?
What do you mean used to? Did you not get the message, there are no new voting limits or weight changes. Vote away!
oragami posts worth hundreds, analytics break downs not acceptable?
who is working for Soros on the Steem team?
Agreed, sounds fishy that someone is downvoting Steem data, only reason could be that they are hiding the falling payouts.
it was @ned
no joke!
Flagging was originally downvoting, which as the whitepaper describes, was intended as a tool to bring down over-inflated rewards. Our vote weight is supposed to be able to both say "I think this should be rewarded more" and "I think this should be rewarded less".
I think it would be ideal to have some smarter voting options available. For example, "I think this deserves $X. My vote will count towards it up until the point of $X, but not further".
I think after they changed downvoting to flagging, they should have revised the whitepaper to say flagging was for spam only. Reducing payouts seems to be censoring BS to me. If a user doesn't get paid anymore, chances are they may stop posting.
they did not change downvoting to flagging. They changed a graphic in the UI. AFAIK, nothing at all changed on the steem blockchain.
The front end change has resulted in a semantic change for the community. Especially with the guidance added on SteemIt.com, about flagging being for abuse. This change in philosophy was never implemented consistently even among the founders though.
Stakeholders are entitled to believe, express and vote that a post is being given too large a share of the rewards pie. To disallow or discourage votes which say "this is rewarded too highly" is censorship in itself.
exactly.
I don't think @ned got the memo that flagging is only for spam, and not to be used to censor people.
You birthed this baby, but like babies world wide, at some point they stop recognizing absolute parental control.
If it was obscene, like bodies in wood chippers, I could see it, but this is not good.
When the people want to stop rewarding the work, they will.
Sounds like this user is essentially being successfully censored by a centralized authority on your platform? Not good.
Dan maybe you can talk to Ned, since it looks like he did the flagging in the most recent masteryoda posts? This is a case where the data and information presented is consistently upvoted by members. It's not content that should be flagged. In fact, why flag content without discussing it with the author first anyway? Please consider helping to resolve this. Thanks.
Yep, I agree, 100%, this is either a user generated platform or it's not and it was definitely presented that way, so I'm afraid I don't get what this is about.
Why does that need to happen, Dan? You talk a big game about liberty, but this right here, is an authoritarian response. You either believe in a free market, or you don't.
capping rewards (instituting a maximum payout for all Steemit posts) has occurred to me also, but I rejected the concept because it deviates us from the natural law of imbalance / the 80/20 principle. IMHO it is far better to continue to allow the best connected people to keep earning 'unfair' $5000 payouts, than it would be to payout 50$ to 100 people... hmm. AND i also have a problem with flagging used as down voting. But I guess that's just me.
How about we cap flagging instead?
Flag content and it costs you exactly what you took from the person you're flagging in terms of money and rep. Then require commentary on each and every flag and allow users to appeal that since it does not only monetary damage, but rep damage.
Your flag the other day on my post cost me an entire rep point even though I was busy talking to those who upvoted and explaining that several of the upvotes were coming from people i was contacting via email to discuss a business that would be using their infrastructure and because this was crypto world i had no other way to verify my ident.
It took me forever to get that rep point, and you took it away because you felt my post wasn't worth the money it generated despite it becoming an active discussion on the merits of voting and curation. Eventually the big voters filtered in and removed their upvotes so it would have gone to 0 anyways. But you did damage to my rep and god only knows how long it will be before I get that point back.
If you cap earnings then what will happen is sock puppet city, just like when you capped maximum number of blog postings. Limiting speech on a free speech centered platform is never going to fix it and money is the ultimate form of speech. You need to loosen the restraints not tighten them. The core of this problem is the fixed daily payout amount. Get rid of that and tie it to user activity instead.
The "fixed daily payout" amount is a myth anyway. Since the price of steem going up, could increase "cash" rewards, making every vote worth 50 cents, a dollar, or more, even for plankton, why sweat it? We need to be looking much more big picture.
I’m not aware such option of capping the reward exists. Also what would be an acceptable reward in your opinion? Thanks!
$50 is an acceptable reward
Says who? People should be able to vote how they want, Let's raise the price of steem, then the SBD payouts each day can go crazy! If you start limiting top payouts you'll stimey the incentive to grow the platform, everyone will end up with a $1 here and there and the whole place will be swimming in spam!
Is there any logic behind this number, or is it just your "gut feeling"? Or are you being sarcastic? I can't even tell...
I think it's a number that none of the users on steemit would feel "weird" about if they see it everyday, unlike seeing $300 everyday for the same post on the trending page, does not look fair
Who cares? Are we shooting for "fair" how are we going to judge that. Is my posts, after twenty years of writing in various capacities for a living on the same scale as some high school kid? Who gets to decide? Is this a decentralized, distributed network, or an autocratic oligarchy?
@craig-grant
What do you know?
I think $50 is too low. It's not the same post. It has new data each day and it's always interesting.
It was a rhetorical question, one that has no exact answer everyone agrees on.
I understand masteryoda. But what I personally don't understand is why some entities flagged content that people are interested in. We know there's interest because of the upvotes and comments. I can only assume the flags came from some people who had a lot of SP. It just smells fishy and is censorship by flagging.
I don't quite understand it neither, so that makes two of us.
That's ridiculous. In one thread it's the system decides what the work is worth, now a cap is proposed....
http://bit.ly/2cu76fn
Maybe @dantheman learned it from @smooth e.g.,
I have not been voting on these posts only on the basis of the statistics. I've been voting on them also on the basis of @masteryoda's presentation of a leaderboard as a generally-positive and engaging community-building concept, along with his interaction with followers to the same end, and finally in support of his ongoing work to produce other useful and interesting statistics such as the recent SBD report. That has been evidenced by the generally-supportive comments that I have consistently seen on his posts, on this post (other than yours and a very few others'), and by mentions of the posts elsewhere on the platform and in chat rooms and private conversations. All of this indicates to me that the posts add value to the Steem community and thus I am awarding my votes on that basis, in accordance with the standards suggested by the Steem designers and founders. (And to be fair, I assume that @ned is using his votes according to the same standards but with a different point of view.)
Your behavior has not evidenced this same sort of community-building approach, at all. If you could present yourrself and your data as @masteryoda has been doing then I would support it.
Also, you made a blatantly unsupported, possibly-inflammatory, and false allegation in another comment, that I was voting for these posts because @masteryoda is my friend. This is not only irrelevant but also false. Other than his presence here on Steem, I do not know @masteryoda. I have never interacted with him other than via his posts and the #witness channel (he hasn't been active there) and a couple of private chats where he asked for my advice and support on a couple of Steem-related development projects.
Please stop the trolling, negativity, and false accusations. They do not add value to Steem and your presence and actions are becoming a stain on the community.
Hello @smooth
Dropped a few important messages to you on steemit chat . Please check them out and reply. Thanks.
BTW guys, @ned already removed his downvote so stop spreading negativity and falsehood.
You have that backwards. I quite literally learned about downvoting being an appropriate action to take in the case of subjectively excessive rewards from @dantheman.
In this case I do not object to @ned taking the action he did if he feels that the rewards on the posts he is flagging are excessive. I do, however, believe that the reasons he gave to me in a private conversation for why he believed this were mistaken and incorrect. I'll let @ned comment on his reasons if he chooses to do so.
Just my curiosity. If I provide the exactly same statistics every day, will you vote for me? (not always but around 20 times per month)
I am trying to understand your wording because I could not understand the term "capping the payout reward" - does it mean to use another metric for measurement?
No, it means limiting the payout on the data posts because some idiot thought it was making too much money.