Thanks for the input on the penalizing of small votes. What you said jibes with what I've heard in the past, although I wasn't aware this also reduced voting on comments.
If I recall correctly, the original motivation was to make it difficult to do some sort of large scale, low value self-voting. But I may have that wrong, and even if that's the reason it was introduced, I'm not sure it solved any real problem. I'll try to dig up the reasons, and see if there are any compelling reasons to stick with it. But my first guess is there aren't any.
I don't think changing the window does much to change human behavior to be honest. The bots just get set to whatever that window is in order to maximize. Getting rid of the window entirely and moving to straight linear is what LEO has done and it makes sense on a lot of levels. One of the biggest being that it keeps things simple for new users. One of the biggest problems with all of this is in terms of attracting and retaining users is how complex it all is for people outside of crypto.
That being said, it's never a good idea to make changes just because they are more "simple". This change also allows users to vote on what they actually like instead of worrying that they will be the last vote and lose curation etc, which is more or less what we are trying to accomplish with voting anyways, people voting on what they like. Also, agreeing with @theycallmedan above, yes the current voting system has killed comment voting as well as new/small users as they get 'penalized' until their vote is of sufficient size. I get the reasons behind some of these changes a while back in terms of trying to prevent abuse, but we have gone so far in trying to prevent abuse that we have killed on-boarding... which is the exact opposite of how/where we should be focused in my opinion...
The main change a longer flat window does is bring manual voters on par with auto voters. With the short time window, it was impossible to be a manual curator that earned as much as an auto voter. However, when all things are even, manual voters should earn more or at least more than they did before. The reason being if auto voters don't start following the manual curators (which dnst hurt the manual curator with a longer window) then they may start over rewarding content, which can lead to downvotes. How many times have you seen those embarrassing auto votes on a "This post has been deleted, Do not vote!" - ya well some people are willing to look bad for the increased rewards. So ya, all things equal, manual should earn more simply because they will be downvoted less because their votes will be strategic and realtime.
And curation isn't easy. I hire people to help with my curation, on top of spending hours a day doing it myself. When I see I earn on avg less than 10%, while auto voters earning upwards of 15%+, the investor inside me cringes. These people are doing no work at all, I'm coming out of pocket and spending countless hours and getting less. That is not an optimal system by any means.
maybe this would change with content + advertisement. So holder should only reward good content that other people from search engines also looking for ( for revenue).
Commercials with burn rate should profit every holder long term. It can be also flat 50/50 so the game is only looking for the best revenue content.
The change really did affect comment voting, although there are a few who 'waste' their VP rewarding comments as a way to try to boost engagement on their posts, and others.
Personally, I think that as long as there is a window, there will be 'curation rewards over content' automated voting. I still automate voting on the LEO tribe following the change to no window - I can follow the tribes curation account with being heavily penalized for following a large vote, 'late'. I can see people doing this with the base token if there was no window - following curation trails like curie, ocdb, etc.
There is a concern with regards to late self-voting though, but some of the tribes (LEO, STEM, SPORTS) have already done away with the window and at present are not suffering from late self-voting. The reasons for this are due to a) larger stakeholders knowing that self-voting is like crapping in their own kitchen and b) methods being introduced to allow more time to downvote than upvote. I worked with the SPORTS tribe after they introduced 3 days to upvote, and the full 7 days to downvote. It's not too difficult to run scripts to check who's been heavily (with stake or numbers) self-voting comments (either with same account or an alt), and having a few days after the last upvote can be cast allows time to check for 'abuse'.
Thanks as always for your work on Hive!
There will always be auto-voting as long as there are curation rewards, IMO, because not every stakeholder will want to curate. Accepting that premise, I think the proposed solution will at least direct that auto-vote towards more deserving posts.
I agree. Following a respected trail with an auto-vote knowing you wont be penalized feels more acceptable and better than the network over auto-voting an author who is known to collect decent rewards just because of the network they have. A removal of the any window could steer more to the former.
In my opinion, the "Rewarding Curve" is one of the most painful measures adopted in the past and the most discouraging in terms of engagement promotion. As @theycallmedan said to boost engagement is a MUST do.
ok some stupid question from me, what is with flat rewards 50/50 no curve? Or curve begins after day 3 so it's not last minute voting for rewards.