May 2nd, 2021
Down Vote Solution???
There has been a lot of talk lately about the down vote and very few solutions being put forth other than to do away with down votes.
Down voting is an option and there are many reasons to use a down vote. On hive.blog here is what the pop-up says:
Pretty easy to read, and to understand.
I believe the hive.blog front end should keep the down vote button especially since down votes are mentioned as part of the Hive Block Chain.
Other front ends such as Leofinance, proofofbrain, peakd, ecency and others have the option to display the down vote arrow or not. I would like to see PeakD remove the down vote button. They have no token to protect. Any front end with no token to protect I feel personally should remove the down vote button. It is an option to display it or not.
Those that do have a token to protect should consider carefully if they want the down vote button available or not. Not everyone needs to have the button available on second layer application. They can provide the button to trusted individuals only to help protect their token against the reason in the down vote pop-up.
Here is my proposed down vote pop-up changes for hive.blog:
If a person is on an alternative front end from hive.blog to down vote a post they should be required to go to hive.blog and use them for the down vote. I believe this would decrease the amount of bot activity on the other front ends.
Select a check box for the reason for the down vote. Simple one extra click before hitting the submit button. A warning is on the pop-up that a comment is going to be entered as to why the post was down voted.
That comment will not be able to be deleted by the down voter. It will be there always and forever even if later the down vote is removed. The down voter will not be able to up vote this comment, nor will any other account be able to up vote the comment, the up vote arrow will simply not be there. (This may cause the developers to create a second class of comment, but I believe it could be done).
People will be able to down vote the comment however, so if they felt the person down voting was being malicious then they will feel the power of the people.
What else happens
If the disagreement on rewards button is selected then the first three to five curators rewards are burned sent to @null up to the amount the post was down voted.
On the first image you can see who up voted the post. @smooth decided to remove 35.515 hive, and @sunsetjesus chose to remove an additional $0.004 for a total removal of 35.519 in rewards.
This would result in @xeldal receiving no curation reward, @gringalicious would also receive no curation reward, and @stoodkev would only receive 4.353 in curation reward. The voters could suffer reputation damage along with the reward removal.
The amount of reward slated to the author would be untouched only the curation rewards would be affected, and their reputation would be untouched.
If the Fraud or plagiarism box is chosen then the amount of reward would be removed from both the author and the curators, and the author could suffer reputation damage. To often people down vote for these reasons but never state so. With this system I would hope people would state clearly and provide a link to show the evidence of the rightness of the down vote. This may help prevent people piling on down votes on the original down voter in the automated comment.
Hate speech or trolling. This will no doubt be the most difficult to control. All the down vote power reputation and reward loss should go on the original poster of the content. Once again if the down voter wishes to they should clearly point out what was hate speech and or trolling when down voting this may prevent others from piling on the auto comment and down voting them.
Miscategorized content or spam. All loss of rewards and reputation should be borne out by the poster. If a person is doing a category search for cats of hive, they do not want to keep finding a bunch of post about jackasses.
One solution, one that will likely never be implemented, one that has been brought up before over on steem also.
I have seen a lot of complaints and the only solutions being offered are to not support Hive and go elsewhere, or to do away with the down vote completely. I do not see those as a solution to the problem that is avoiding the problem.
Blurt has no down votes, so why are they not a super thriving chain?
HF 25 will be done hopefully in mid June, perhaps HF 26 we can look for suitable solutions to the down vote issues on Hive.
Either a person is in control of their vote or they are not. I myself choose not to issue very many down votes, I think maybe three for plagiarism.
Personally I have never used the downvote. If one thinks something is fraud or trolling why not pass it on to be checked by @hivewatchers.
I have only used it for a few plagiarism post. I think most down votes are over done, and there are tools/groups that do a pretty good job of policing the system.
Why should another interface for all of Hive remove the downvote button? It's not like hive.blog is the only interface for Hive. PeakD is my most used interface, and they are directly connected to hive. I'm a heavy downvote user, and why should I have to go to an alternate interface(especially since peakd isn't a specialized interface) to downvote?
Also with your idea of selecting a reason to downvote, who's to say that the reason was valid? Whats stopping me from selecting the fraud button on every downvote? Remember Hive is decentralized. There's no one authority to pick something. It's a community effort. With the current system, the community gets to allocate rewards, what you are proposing will have the community's effect reduced.
Bots don't interact with the UIs. They interact directly with Hive APIs which again are decentralized. You can't stop the bot activity.
And with all of this, if we want people to justify downvotes, why not the same for upvotes? Put same restrictions on both way.
And do you have a solution to the down vote issue? Down votes are a negative action, it does not matter how people phrase it, how they justify it. I want to make it hard for people to down vote, I want to make it uncomfortable for people to down vote, and I want people to understand that the down vote has issues and has caused problems and that the common user has no ability to counter act most down votes.
If an account reaches a reputation of 15, then that account should have its ability to down vote removed, just one more of my ideas. How long on a system that auto adds a comment do you think an account like sunsetjesus would last down voting.
I know people will keep saying those pissant down votes mean nothing and to ignore them, if you owned a store and every day the same person came in and emptied your need a penny take a penny dish would you ignore that person?
Selecting the real reason for the down vote of course not people that down vote out of spite are going to lie, people that are bullies are going to lie, people that are asshats in general are going to lie. They will still have an auto comment added they can not delete and open themselves for community retribution.
So sunsetjesus account is a real person going around and down voting in a willy-nilly way a lot of people and not a bot down vote account?
!ENGAGE 15
Hopefully some people will offer alternative solutions, mine I know are rather draconian in nature.
This is the kind of thing that makes the anti-downvote sentiment so strange to me. Why do people see the current post reward status as already "theirs". Like it's their money or something they own? It's not in their wallet, they know the voting window is open for 7 days. I don't ever see people throwing tantrums when the number goes up, so I'm sure they know it changes. Do you know where you picked up this sense that the current post status is the entitlement of the poster?
IDK. It honestly seems like that most people don't understand how the voting system works and thats its a community driven effort to drive a valuation until payout time.
Sorry I do not understand that line or reference. People do seem to forget that the window is 7 days long. I don't think I have ever had the thought that the person/author of a post is entitled to anything pre 7 day period. I also do not think as you can see from my suggestion that curators are Entitled to anything until the end of the 7 day window, thus the removal of curator earnings in a reward dispute, and not the author rewards in that one particular case.
I quoted it for easy reference. I'll add emphasis:
It makes it sound like downvotes are taking something away from someone. You can't take something away from somebody if they don't have it, don't own it, and have no entitlement to it. If you don't see people as entitled to post rewards prior to the end of the voting period, then what's the issue with downvotes?
The big issue with post rewards is people feeling as if something has been taken from them yes, does not matter if it is reality or not that is the way those that receive large down votes apparently feel. People rarely complain about the down vote received on spam, plagiarism, or the other items in the list. It is only when large vote values are removed. Thus my solution is for the curation reward to be removed from the top five up votes and not from the portion of the rewards the Author/poster would receive, that way they would lose no perceived value on day 7.
People have issues with the down votes, they will always have issues with the down votes. If people did not have issues with the down votes there would not be a lot of people posting about getting down votes, or bitching about the down votes or leaving Hive because of the down votes, so there are obviously issues with the down vote system as it currently stands.
There are few solutions being offered to the system other than ignoring there is an issue with it.
Sure, some people rage quit a basketball game and go home when they lose, but we don't say it's a problem with basketball and change the game so there aren't losers. Being bad at something doesn't mean that thing is a problem. I've read a lot lately on people complaining about downvotes, but I still don't see an issue with downvotes. I've owned several businesses, some of them worked, some of them didn't. It never occurred to me to go change the laws and change how everyone thinks and feels to make my businesses successful. Applying that kind of thinking to Hive and restricting everyone's freedoms to help a handful of people feel better... like... it could happen, but there would need to be a really good reason. So far, the only reason I'm hearing is "some people feel bad when they don't get as much free money as they felt entitled to". That isn't an issue that needs to be fixed
I say leave them as is. It's good this way. Downvotes are healthy and should be used more often(https://hivel.ink/short/@rishi556/short-form-content-is-contnet). It's how content gets valued. I shouldn't be forced to justify why I think something should be valued one way or another.
The current reputation system is garbage and will probably be scraped if anything better can be made so anything to do with that can just be ignored IMO. It's not an accurate measure of anything. Just look at the current user with the highest rep.
Remember, none of the rewards are yours until they get paid out. Nothing can been taken from you with a downvote. You aren't owed the rewards that you see. The community is working for 7 days to put a value on your post. A upvote just means they see it as more valuable, and a downvote as less valuable. There's lots of posts I skip voting even though I think they are good just because I think they are at a good amount of value already(but can later change my mind and vote one way or another depending on where it is).
It's a bot probably looking at its actions(can't say for sure though, there's some weird people out there). But it's not interacting with any particular UI, but directly with the chain. It's using code to downvote somehow, probably posts that match its requirements.
ENGAGEtokens.Same thing that was brought up over on steem. people just do not understand the difference between a positive action and a negative action. People that do not understand that difference will come up with all kinds of reason to take no action at all.
Do you need to justify helping a small child and old woman cross the road? Do you need to justify recklessly running them over in the street? Positive action, negative action.
There have been a few post about restricting the amount of reward a vote can give out.
Why is a downvote a negative action though? I see upvoting some posts as a negative action because they already have too much in rewards?
Why are people leaving Hive if it is a not a negative thing? Why do we see so many post about it being a negative action? I think there are really very few people that when it comes to the reward side of things that do not see it as a negative action.
I do see the down vote as positive in most instances.
I think just adding the check boxes and demanding comment would go a long way. If someone wants to actually put time into explaining a downvote its likely legitimate, at least for the voter. I think everything mentioned warrants consideration but I think making it less reflexive would be noticeably helpful.
The check box would leave a comment attached to the users name, so accounts like sunsetjesus which has no comments, no post and does nothing but down vote can be lowered a significant amount. If with the changes above a minimum reputation level was required to down vote, then that kind of down vote only account would disappear in a flash.
!ENGAGE 15
True. I like the minimum reputation to downvote part, too. Not so low that a new comer would be excluded, but a brief history of malfeasance would be enough to knock the out of commission.
ENGAGEtokens.Blurt is virtually unusable most of the time. Transactions are paid for with blurt and they did not mirror our follow lists and so one must start from scratch and for very little payback. I tried to work on Blurt; it was posting into nothingness. My time was way better spent on HIVE.
I really do think we should do away with down-votes or at least penalize/remove those who down-vote frivolously. There are accounts that only downvote. Plus all down-votes should be equally weighted, so that the big fish cannot kill the little fish. Perhaps too we could stipulate that an account needs to be in good standing regardless of its value, liked that they must leave a comment and as such can be down-voted and perhaps these comment downvotes could be anonymous to avoid retribution. There should be multiple downvotes ... say a percentage of the upvote ... before the monetary value of the post is affected.
Right now, just about the only accounts that use the downvote function are bot accounts.
Disagreement of post value is too subjective and this in particular should be removed. With a 50/50 curation, much of inequity wrt to over valued posts has been removed and incentives for finding an undervalued post before anyone else increased.
This and the removal of upvote bots really fixed most of the problems. I do feel HIVE is a place that rewards time spent with and supporting the community. Sometimes this is what the post value is really showing and we do not want to discourage the community.
That is one of the reasons I like the auto comment if someone is going to down vote a post. That way the down vote only accounts can be down voted for malicious down voting. No down vote should not be able to be countered.
Yep ... that was a great suggestion. A lot of downvote accounts don't post and so there is no way to bring down their reputation.
View or trade
BEER.Hey @bashadow, here is a little bit of
BEERfrom @pixresteemer for you. Enjoy it!Learn how to earn FREE BEER each day by staking your
BEER.Your content has been voted as a part of Encouragement program. Keep up the good work!
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
I did one downvote when I arrived on the previous platform, but it's because I did not understand the principle. That's a good idea that you have, to give a reason for the downvote.
I don't mind if it's completely removed, personally!