If you're protecting your stake I anxiously await your group and others downvoting all of the content on trending page that is hilariously over rewarded.
Just last month posts were being downvoted that had 50 to 80 usd for "being over rewarded" and now trending has hundreds of posts 200 usd+ plus with no downvotes.
I hope you can understand where we are coming from.
I don't judge posts as overrewarded only based on usd, I do however keep an eye on certain authors who more often keep getting rancho votes that take them over the top on top of some other leeches I've had my eyes on for a longer while. Quite frankly it takes a lot of time to look for overrewarded posts, when I have free time I do it, but quite busy these days and curation of underrewarded authors and newcomers from our onboarding have a higher priority to me and my project. Aside from everything else I got going right now it's not like I'm going to spend extra time I don't have looking for overrewarded posts just cause you feel I should do it to make up for the few times I have downvoted authors on your curation list.
The Rancho votes are a problem,
that I agree with you on.
Does your group DV food recipe posts for example that are 200 usd? If you do then I take what you say more seriously on protecting the reward pool. Maybe you do and I didnt know about it.
Right now we are just being slammed and it's one sided as we dont downvote. We could. We have just as much power as a few whales combined.
I've told others not to do that, I cant stop people forever though I'm just one person. Believe me there are some I've talked to amd convinced not to start dving back and their gaining a lot of support privately. I dont want to see another dv war, but it's looking like that's what it's coming to in these private convos. Ugh
Or by making "Hive" synonymous with censorship and authoritarian trolls to the small handful of people who have heard of it?
This is a systematic attack, targeting individuals and taking the rewards from them and their curators, back to these couple of people - all clearly based on the defense of the pedophile agenda (hence completely leaving alone shitpost photography & recipes - but zeroing out research, journalism, and high quality content.)
It's not stealing, how do you still see it as that so many years here?
Censorship again? Come on, feels like you guys are literally losing your minds over rewards even after having made so much which the rest of the internet wouldn't give you a dime for.
I doubt smooth downvotes for anything else than disagreement of rewards and maybe the complaints of how things work here, he's one of the most respected stakeholders around but obviously you guys are just going to turn against anyone when all you care about is money.
I'm genuinely curious about this. When so much voting power is concentrated in so few accounts, their own self-interest would seem to potentially conflict with the interests of the less wealthy bloggers.
While I agree that the whales want to prevent the whole system from coming crashing down (to preserve their own wealth), the fact they are so self-interested in their own stake versus the community as a whole is an issue that a lot of users are trying to find a solution to. There has to be a balance that would appeal to both the Hive oligarchy and the rest in order to improve the appearance of decentralization - while still allowing a mechanism for dealing with plagiarism and fraud-like over-rewarding. Or am I just being too naïve?
There's not that much stake concentrated into a few accounts, smaller bloggers could easily band together and counter it. I know that if a bad whale would start downvoting something that's not controversial/borderline dangerous content I and many others would step in to counter it - so maybe there just isn't that much interest to help these people getting downvoted. Similarly how there isn't much interest to engage with most of these content creators looking at dbroze, highimpactflix, and some others who are apparently big "influencers". It's all just autovotes for the most part and now some are saying it needs to stop, they need to get a smaller pie from the rewardpool because such content while it's possible to exist here isn't bringing hive any value. Most of people crying about it are the ones cashing in on being left alone.
Thanks for responding, I'm really trying to better understand the mechanics of the downvoting and how much HP it takes to effectively zero a post. Looking at Effective HP on HiveBuzz, there's 36 accounts with >500k HP, which is probably enough for each of them to zero several popular posts a day. I'll have to search around some more to find a breakout of the HP distribution curve across all accounts as that might help inform me a bit more on the concentration, or lack thereof, of HP.
You're right, there apparently isn't enough interest for the "masses" to band together to counteract the big downvotes even though they may have enough HP to do it.
With regards to engagement, I remember a post of yours a while back that asked us to look at our comment to posting ratio and that certainly changed my perspective and I shifted a lot more of my time to commenting and engagement instead of just posting Actifit updates every day.
Perhaps a new focus on rewarding comments more than a primary post would move things more in the right direction with regards to rewarding the content most beneficial to the platform? Not sure if that's even implementable, but it's an interesting thought.
hmmm interesting idea to cap the vote value a single account can give. It'd certainly make it more difficult for the whales to exert control if they had to spread their HP across thousands of accounts and operate them in unison to maintain the same vote power. But I'm guessing that in order for a change like that to take place in a hardfork, the whales would have to vote to make themselves less powerful... and we know they won't do that!
It does seem a longshot, but with proper organizing of the small accounts we can maybe shame them into it.
It would have to be voluntary, but self discipline is the hardest.
Sooo, good luck getting them to do that.
Great as it would be were they to actually surrender power.
If they would, we could bring back the n2 and organize trending with actually popular stuff.
That's great to hear, we've shifted a lot of our focus on rewarding social content creators rather than those who just blog and dash, unless they're content is exceptional and they also link back to Hive on their other socials or have a big influence over there. If two content creators on Hive have the same quality of posts but one is not active at all or only replies "thanks" to comments on their posts while the other is going around connecting with others, leaving them comments and genuinely growing and receiving more manual votes, etc, we much rather reward that one than the other. It's one of the perks of curating manually and having many checkpoints we have nominations of posts from communities go through that we're able to place the votes where we really think authors deserve them and are bringing value to Hive in more ways than just the content.
We've recently added comment nominations as well which we give a 1-2% vote with ocdb but it's not as active, I'm going to figure out how to incentivize it to become more active down the line, though. In general I think not curating the unsocial ones as much could be incentive enough to want to become more. Only wish autovoters would check for the same things.
If you're protecting your stake I anxiously await your group and others downvoting all of the content on trending page that is hilariously over rewarded.
Just last month posts were being downvoted that had 50 to 80 usd for "being over rewarded" and now trending has hundreds of posts 200 usd+ plus with no downvotes.
I hope you can understand where we are coming from.
I don't judge posts as overrewarded only based on usd, I do however keep an eye on certain authors who more often keep getting rancho votes that take them over the top on top of some other leeches I've had my eyes on for a longer while. Quite frankly it takes a lot of time to look for overrewarded posts, when I have free time I do it, but quite busy these days and curation of underrewarded authors and newcomers from our onboarding have a higher priority to me and my project. Aside from everything else I got going right now it's not like I'm going to spend extra time I don't have looking for overrewarded posts just cause you feel I should do it to make up for the few times I have downvoted authors on your curation list.
The Rancho votes are a problem,
that I agree with you on.
Does your group DV food recipe posts for example that are 200 usd? If you do then I take what you say more seriously on protecting the reward pool. Maybe you do and I didnt know about it.
Right now we are just being slammed and it's one sided as we dont downvote. We could. We have just as much power as a few whales combined.
I've told others not to do that, I cant stop people forever though I'm just one person. Believe me there are some I've talked to amd convinced not to start dving back and their gaining a lot of support privately. I dont want to see another dv war, but it's looking like that's what it's coming to in these private convos. Ugh
By stealing the stake of others?
Or by driving all the users away from Hive?
Or by making "Hive" synonymous with censorship and authoritarian trolls to the small handful of people who have heard of it?
This is a systematic attack, targeting individuals and taking the rewards from them and their curators, back to these couple of people - all clearly based on the defense of the pedophile agenda (hence completely leaving alone shitpost photography & recipes - but zeroing out research, journalism, and high quality content.)
It's not stealing, how do you still see it as that so many years here?
Censorship again? Come on, feels like you guys are literally losing your minds over rewards even after having made so much which the rest of the internet wouldn't give you a dime for.
I doubt smooth downvotes for anything else than disagreement of rewards and maybe the complaints of how things work here, he's one of the most respected stakeholders around but obviously you guys are just going to turn against anyone when all you care about is money.
I'm genuinely curious about this. When so much voting power is concentrated in so few accounts, their own self-interest would seem to potentially conflict with the interests of the less wealthy bloggers.
While I agree that the whales want to prevent the whole system from coming crashing down (to preserve their own wealth), the fact they are so self-interested in their own stake versus the community as a whole is an issue that a lot of users are trying to find a solution to. There has to be a balance that would appeal to both the Hive oligarchy and the rest in order to improve the appearance of decentralization - while still allowing a mechanism for dealing with plagiarism and fraud-like over-rewarding. Or am I just being too naïve?
There's not that much stake concentrated into a few accounts, smaller bloggers could easily band together and counter it. I know that if a bad whale would start downvoting something that's not controversial/borderline dangerous content I and many others would step in to counter it - so maybe there just isn't that much interest to help these people getting downvoted. Similarly how there isn't much interest to engage with most of these content creators looking at dbroze, highimpactflix, and some others who are apparently big "influencers". It's all just autovotes for the most part and now some are saying it needs to stop, they need to get a smaller pie from the rewardpool because such content while it's possible to exist here isn't bringing hive any value. Most of people crying about it are the ones cashing in on being left alone.
Thanks for responding, I'm really trying to better understand the mechanics of the downvoting and how much HP it takes to effectively zero a post. Looking at Effective HP on HiveBuzz, there's 36 accounts with >500k HP, which is probably enough for each of them to zero several popular posts a day. I'll have to search around some more to find a breakout of the HP distribution curve across all accounts as that might help inform me a bit more on the concentration, or lack thereof, of HP.
You're right, there apparently isn't enough interest for the "masses" to band together to counteract the big downvotes even though they may have enough HP to do it.
With regards to engagement, I remember a post of yours a while back that asked us to look at our comment to posting ratio and that certainly changed my perspective and I shifted a lot more of my time to commenting and engagement instead of just posting Actifit updates every day.
Perhaps a new focus on rewarding comments more than a primary post would move things more in the right direction with regards to rewarding the content most beneficial to the platform? Not sure if that's even implementable, but it's an interesting thought.
If folks observed the 1000mv vote limit we could end this issue immediately, but greed won't let them.
https://peakd.com/utopian-io/@paulag/the-impact-of-unused-steempower-on-the-rewards-pool-blockchain-business-intelligence
hmmm interesting idea to cap the vote value a single account can give. It'd certainly make it more difficult for the whales to exert control if they had to spread their HP across thousands of accounts and operate them in unison to maintain the same vote power. But I'm guessing that in order for a change like that to take place in a hardfork, the whales would have to vote to make themselves less powerful... and we know they won't do that!
It does seem a longshot, but with proper organizing of the small accounts we can maybe shame them into it.
It would have to be voluntary, but self discipline is the hardest.
Sooo, good luck getting them to do that.
Great as it would be were they to actually surrender power.
If they would, we could bring back the n2 and organize trending with actually popular stuff.
That's great to hear, we've shifted a lot of our focus on rewarding social content creators rather than those who just blog and dash, unless they're content is exceptional and they also link back to Hive on their other socials or have a big influence over there. If two content creators on Hive have the same quality of posts but one is not active at all or only replies "thanks" to comments on their posts while the other is going around connecting with others, leaving them comments and genuinely growing and receiving more manual votes, etc, we much rather reward that one than the other. It's one of the perks of curating manually and having many checkpoints we have nominations of posts from communities go through that we're able to place the votes where we really think authors deserve them and are bringing value to Hive in more ways than just the content.
We've recently added comment nominations as well which we give a 1-2% vote with ocdb but it's not as active, I'm going to figure out how to incentivize it to become more active down the line, though. In general I think not curating the unsocial ones as much could be incentive enough to want to become more. Only wish autovoters would check for the same things.