You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit Winter Update: 2017 reflection, our Vision Statement and Mission, and a look forward
You mention a lot of problems many of us think long and hard addressing, but what do you suggest? If these were easy problems to solve, we likely would have fixed them by now.
How about steemit.inc puts their considerable SP into the hands of the community for the purposes of moderating abuse and gradually decentralising their stake?
YES! Yes yes yes. Bloody Facebook is going it and I wish to God I got @ned to read my article on the subject last week.
https://steemit.com/facebook/@techslut/facebook-invests-millions-in-community-leaders-what-steemit-inc-should-learn-from-this
From what I understand, they already delegated a large portion of SP to the SteemCleaners organization.
That's really good, but I mean a heck of a lot more.
I'm with you on decentralizing their stake, but I'm gonna pull a @timcliff on you and ask, cool story bro, how do?
I like the concept, but I don't know how we would decentralize that distribution and not create more clique empowered voting rings around newly empowered wealthy delegation recipients.
Remember when Ned gave a bunch of random people half a mill each last summer for inexplicable reasons? Like sweetssj and the ramen recipe / bikini photoshoot team for "quality curation"?
Meh.
My suggestion would be to give voting power to the rank. Not necceraly 25, but 50+ should have some voting power not 0.01.
I think there's two main contradictions here. One is the method of finding content. The other is assessing it's quality. Both of these contribute towards the current rewards pool abuse / vote-ringing low-quality content.
I think active competition can solve both of these problems.
I hope communities can promote that competition.
As it stands, content is flooded. There should be an overhaul to finding content by tags.
What other ways though? I'm not a developer. Idk. 3-dimensional content feeds with a GUI that lets you explore posts like through minecraft? lol. I've no idea.
As for quality (avoiding $1000 ramen recipes), there needs to be some kind of decentralized 'state apparatus' at play, a la content editors or something. If a post is made in a community, members of that community should be able to assess its quality.
I like Sola.ai approach, how they solved the problem of visibility. Great content is much more likely to be noticed there if you choose the right chanel. They don't support articles over 250 characters tho.
How about a new tab called,
Inordinately Inflated Posts Upvoted by Self-Paid Bots
Too long? Maybe just a new tab, next to Trending called
Big$Bots
Just funnel all the posts that have been immediately and significantly upvoted by bots into a new tab. That way, we know what we are getting under that tab. Easy fix.
:D
we could name it "derivative content"
Or self-paid whales.
Good one 😂🤣
Actually, there's already a "promoted" tab. Even a non-coder like me can easily categorize any post upvoted by a paid service as "promoted". :)
this is all off the top of my head.
remove voting or at least remove self voting over a certain level. either way this needs to be seriously overahuled.
users get to decide which 'party' or 'community' they can join. they don't have to but make it so they have positive incentives to do so, specifically incentives to contribute quality and not spammy shit posts.
content is generated under specific types. Types are tags. Communities or parties oversee these tags and moderate them
all communities can elect/recall mods /editors/etc
people can invest a stake in communities / delegate power to mods. the success of the party/community can get a percentage of investment return
content can be rated (valued) by an algorithm and not just a clickable and abusable vote system. possible variables include:
-number of views that reach the end of the post
-number of clicks on the post
-number of comments
-number of author replies
-number of 'stakes' in the article. 'stakes' are limited (X#/day and their value depends on user level. basically a reduced voting system)
poor quality content has to effectively compete within the ecosystem of a party/community. No more trash posts on trending with 7th grade writing levels.
users of a certain level can report posts to mods based on certain criteria. "poor quality" should be one.
"poor quality" should be when the content of the article and the reward have no logical correlation. this sounds like it could be abused, but i really don't think so. it's obvious when an article is dumb, or has bad writing (probably most obvious for 'story' and 'fiction') yet the upvotes are there solely because of a mafia/brigade/vote-ring.
communities can debate a mod decision. ensure that there is democratic potential to veto. this would require active participation from people, and that I admit is unlikely since 90% of the user base I see on this site are sycophants and shills.
Those are a lot of issues, and some can't be solved by non-coders. The problem is prioritization. Instead of solving problems, they're developing features aimed at entrepreneurs (money) instead of improving the existing product.
1 Can’t be effectively done. Users will just create sock puppet to continue upvoting themselves.
2-4 basically what is planned for communities.
5 basically what is planned for SMTs
6 these are easily gameable. Please read the whitepaper.
7 this is a want, not a proposal. There is no proposal to actually accomplish this
8 also part of communities
9 I don’t understand what you mean
10 or they can leave and join a different community
Thanks for the engaging.
I’m hopeful that communities will help promote some kind real competition for what counts as ‘quality’ content. I’m deeply critical of monetizing social media, but still think there’s a lot of potential in this project.
Again, real competition, I think, will solve a lot of issues and I think communities can promote that competition.
Well, I am not in the position to solve it, but I am 100% sure that those problems are not unsolvable. It is obvious, even from the newbie perspective, that if you want to promote quality content rank should have more power, maybe even more than steem power. It will make the inequality between the rich and the poor less influential, which even in real life is one of the main goals of each government. Here, the equality is only deepening with botting.
I'm not in a position to solve the problem because I have very little data, but here's, now I'm thinking of the system as at auction to make better use of the promotion tab and kill botting. The user, instead of using bots, could determine a deposit guaranteeing the quality of the post. If he succeeds to get upvoted for that amount that he has set up then keeps the earnings and the caution, if he does not succeed, he will lose everything (or just caution, cant calculate it now). Highest amount will have the highest visibility. I do not know if it is feasible but it is one of the ideas that came to mind after a few minutes of thinking. People who deal with it will make better ideas for sure if they really want.
The point is that at this moment the focus is on the economy, which is oversized, so steemit looks like a greedy man/bot without a soul, at least to newbies. The awareness that a change is needed in that direction would be a major step, and the people working on the project are smart enough to put it into practice. If they were not smart, they would not come this far.
I like to see problem solvers on here. And as a matter of fact, the board does comb the platform for feedback. They may be brilliant each in their own right, but a lot of the successful apps and implementations on here have come directly from the masses.
Agree
Can't kill bots. Am I a bot or not?