I ask this question because there is often so much discord in regards to what is or isn't abuse on the platform that no one is ever going to be happy with all decisions made. However, when an individual uses their stake as they choose, this is considered more acceptable as it is "their voice".
The other thing I wonder is if people would then be forced to take a more active role in the policing of the platform as they wouldn't be able to "outsource" the activity to others. Part of the issue with the outsourcing is that it allows people to basically say, "it isn't my job" and leave the dirty work up to others. Perhaps once people are affected personally by bad actors on the platform, they will start normalizing the usage of their 2.5 free downvotes or at least, being more sensitive with their upvotes.
The other thing is that perhaps once people did become more active in the policing or at least recognize or be affected by the problems of not having people actively "clean" the platform, they would actually become more attached to the platform. Maintenance of something owned adds to the feeling of ownership - people tend to take pride in what they care about and look after it.
I also wonder if the platform was covered in spammers and plagiarists, would it be a bad thing? Yes, I know, it would be shit in many ways - but I wonder if lowering the barrier of usage to effectively zero means that more people will use the platform and then the content that actually does stand out as good, gets rewarded. Yep, some of it will be plagiarized from all over the internet - but how much of it will get traction for long before a member of the "public" says, what the fuck is this? and starts downvoting it.
To me it seems that there is absolutely no way to (unless using a talented AI) keep up with all of the spam and scam on the platform, so perhaps it is better to go in the other direction and let it exist and allow the open market to deal with it. Perhaps then, there will be a lot of users who come into the platform, but the curation projects will be able to find good content using due diligence and consistently support it at a much higher level - create original Hive stars. This will give incentive to the up-and-comers to actually put their best foot forward. This is what happens on the centralized platforms already - where the majority of content is utter shit that will never earn anything, even on the monetized platforms, but some are chosen as stars to aspire to.
What this will mean is that the highest stakeholders on the platform will have the voice to propel real users into the limelight and use those users as proof of concept that will hopefully attract the shitposting audience we seem to need, in order to highlight the value of posting quality consumable content that people feel has value.
Mondays are generally quiet so perhaps having a random discussion about something important and something people feel strongly about, will fill the space.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Distributed Proof of Stake is great for those at the top. Any early adopter is disproportionately advamtaged over the late adopters. Being "free to join" is all fine and we'll, but when the largest stakeholders are exploting their rewards by creating (or copying) bidbots, they're in curation trails where they only upvote themselves and each other and they downvote any new/small account that calls them out on their hypocrisy... Then we have a platform that has failed.
Regardless of whether major stakeholders on the platform does any of these things anymore, the reputation and any chance that quality content will thrive on Hive, becomes too high of a barrier to entry for NEW quality content to join Hive.
We're on a "free" platform. If you tell these people to invest to get their voice heard - in an environment that can have their voice easily be stripped away by an OverPowered Whale, why would anyone invest $0.01?
I've seen some toxicity lately on Hive (not you, @tarazkp, to be clear), and it's highly discouraging for the longevity of this platform. I'm wondering if you've seen it too? And is your silence intentional?
Aren't you classified as an early adopter?
I am not sure about this as there seems to be the same conditions or worse on other platforms, yet people keep trying to "get their break" even though the chances of getting anything is close to zero, but the effort involved is far higher. Perhaps people will work hard for a big lottery win with very low probabilities, but not for a relatively high probability of getting something in a burgeoning industry.
Remember that a lot of people could have bought Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia,.... but didn't.
Silence? Since when have I been silent on this platform? I think you will find that for four years I have often got my hands dirty and been targeted for it.
I probably am an early adopter (maybe a year after Steem rolled out) and the fact that I have any stake is proof that I'm disproportionately advantaged over the newbies who can't get a single upvote that's worth something more than dust (my upvotes are difficult to come by and I have ~ 1,124 "followers")
Steem was never fair (and neither is the World) - which means that Hive inherited the same lack of "fairness". I don't have the right answer to solving this problem (or I might be a millionaire!), but I'll continue to discuss that the problem is still here - and until it's acknowledged - and addressed - by those who actually have the power to influence a decision, the problem will remain. (Again, not specifically calling you out on this- you have certainly spoken and used your stake to support the blockchain).
From the perspective of a small account holder who just wants to produce content that people actually read and comment on, I have felt all efforts to control abusive behavior that have been enacted since I joined steem two years ago have made it much more difficult for small accounts to make money and to support other small accounts. The upvote curve has been the most damaging of these measures - my vote was tiny before the fork that did that, but I upvoted low paying posts anyway, because they were good and they were by my peeps. Now my upvote on those posts is worthless, they get nothing, I get nothing. So I had to start looking at their other posts and choose one that had a bit of a payout on it already, just to support them in any way. Generally, the post I upvoted was not the post I thought was of their highest quality.
My opinion is that we can not control human behavior without harming the have nots the most. We see this with covid measures worldwide - many people who were previously poor are now starving and homeless, POC communities have had the heaviest losses. And the super rich are raking in profits. Same old same old.
Regulations to correct undesirable human behavior do not work.
Perhaps, but I have alspo seen small accounts get more support also, so it is hard to say what is best for the platform. When you go to the movies, do you care about all the starving actors who never made it through an audition process?
people of color - POC.
Yeah, I had to pander to large upvoters, rather than produce content I actually cared about, to make anything at all in my payout field. Poetry and freewrites don't attract a lot of heavy hitters. I did that for a while. Is that really what we want here?
There are no penalties to small actors that I know of. If their film doesn't make money, they still get paid their full fee. On this blockchain, if a post doesn't get a heavy hitter's upvote, my upvote on it is actually diminished. I essence, my 4 cents can not buy as much as a rich dude's 4 cents. The upvote curve created ghettos that are very difficult to get out of. Like the real world.
As a person of colour, I stay out of identity politics.
In my experience, people generally look for a range of personal and useful content and people have to also remember that i this day and age, most people don't read poetry at all, so it is strange to expect it to consistently earn on a tech-oreientated platform. It doesn't mean it can't earn, but it will likely not attract large stake consistently as those with large stake just aren't interested in it and I think it is wrong to expect them to be. However, there are curation projects that do look for and find poetry and art - but it is unlikely to ever be a consistent earner for one account.
But, what about all the actors that never made it into a movie at all - all the artists that never sell one painting or poets who will forever be in obscurity - with every master, there is likely tens of thousands of amateurs that will never make a dollar.
I think the ghettos have always been here - it is often where the abusive end up.
I completely understand that poetry doesn't have a large appeal and is unlikely to make much, but that upvote curve pretty much wiped out all earnings on poetry. Unless @curie or a poetry lover with clout (lol) also comes along, my upvote on a great poem is of no value at all.
There may be some usefulness in the upvote curve, I certainly have seen that many of the platform's big shots think it's a good thing and defend it vociferously, but the math at the low end has made it nearly impossible for newbies and small accounts to make anything at all. I'd like the mathematicians to take a look at that function's graph down around the origin to see what I'm talking about. We want to onboard people, but that upvote curve has made it impossible to get any traction, and is turning people off. Just try explaining it to someone new to see what I mean.
And I would love to upvote your response to my comment, but the upvote curve renders my upvote dust. Not fair to this little old lady who just wants to be spread a tiny bit of her hard earned money around to folks who are nice to her. If I upvoted your comment, I'd just be burning my money.
Until the post gets to 16 Hive or thereabouts - it renders all useless. But, I upvote comments anyway as I think the appreciation of effort has value, regardless of the value of my vote or whether I can make more elsewhere.
Not really. You would be burning your potential money ;) Essentially, it isn't yours until it is in the wallet (reward or curation return) and it all comes out of a shared wallet and is open for negotiation for 7 days.
OK OK I would be burning my upvote value, which can in some rare instances lead to earning money. lol
:D
I don't know if you know about @dustsweeper so i will mention it. I use it, basically you give dustsweeper some funds, if you see a post or a comment that has no votes you can vote on it, and dustsweeper will come along sometime between day 5 and 6 and if needed provide an extra vote to bring it above dust vote level.
You are not buying a vote with dustsweeper, what you are doing is fortifying your own vote with your own funds. There are tools in place to prevent people from abusing the system.
Granted it takes having some Hive to take advantage of the program but I feel it is well worth it. You win by being able to vote for a comment or a post that may receive nothing. The Author you voted on gets the reward you wanted to provide, and a small part also goes back to dustsweeper to keep the wheels moving forward.
He has a FAQ on his blog page and explanation of how it works, (very well in my opinion). I provided a dustsweeper gift to you so try giving a few comment votes out to people that respond on your post, (ignore my comment vote wise), or to those that respond to your comments. try three comment votes a day for the next five days, The rewards of course will be small, but it will let you vote on comments. Do something like a 25-30% level vote so you don't use all your vote value trying to get close to a payout vote.
Oh my goodness thank you so much!!! I will definitely do it. And thanks too for the tip on maximizing the service. My favorite comment of the week!!!
I don't care if they stop. I just want the wider Hive ecosystem to remove them from their blacklist ability. They can vote, or downvote, whatever they want. I just look forward to blacklists becoming opt-in and removing their tyrannical censorship from the base description of a user's value.
Posted using Dapplr
I am guessing the decentralized blacklists is what this is for, right?
Yup it's looking like we'll have the ability to "opt-in" to follow blacklist suggestions from other users like HiveWatchers. That being said if a user doesn't find a need for blacklists, or they disagree with a list, they aren't forced to have their interactions limited or flagged on the platform based on those user's elevated opinions.
It sounds like it might not be used by many due to complexity, but perhaps witha UI it could have a couple checkboxes to make the process and testing easier.
I'd argue that the least number of users using blacklists would be the best case for the ecosystem. I agree wholeheartedly with the concept that good content will still shine even if people begin shitposting. That being said limiting user's voice will diminish the number of users willing ot invest the time it takes to using the platform. People just want a place to post without limitations more than anything is my experience.
I don't even know what I got blacklisted for, but I'm glad I got Blacklisted early so I don't waist my time bulding anything, and who has the power to do this some ,Safe Space censitive butt hurt NPC I assume, but I don'tc
Also, how are you finding @dapplr?
I love it other than the addition of 'Posted with Dapplr'. I hope that we at least get an option to remove that from our comments.
The part that I appreciate most is how responsive their team has been. They've taken comments and suggestions from the community and quickly implemented fixes to make the app that much better. That is a huge thing to me and shows that they aren't just here to get a quick buck from HDF (even if they can't seem to get approved for it.)
For now, perhaps it is okay to have the dapplr tag for a bit of advertising, but soon it should disappear.
I don't know why they haven't got a little funding considering that there are some people funded twice.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe it'll go away or have the feature to remove a few weeks after the iOS launch so they can get more adoption from current Hive users.
I'm personally not a fan of the HDF in the first place but the way some user's proposals have been funded while worthwhile projects like Dapplr can't get past the refund post has definitely made me feel it's not worth the investment the blockchain places in it.
Yeah, consiering there is a starting "kitty", perhaps it could survive a while without the 10%. Would also like a lot of small proposals to get through that support some user dev teams like this. I think the @dapplr team have done a great job so far.
I don't think spam can totally be eradicated from any platform no matter the technology; in current times of course.
But of course proof of work will always win. I've talked about how I feel downvotes shouldn't even be based on stake but based on number.
Imagine a large stakeholder downvoting you because he doesn't agree with you, you are silenced no matter how many other smaller stakeholders uovote you.
But now, what if magnitude of downvotes were based on the number of downvotes and not the stake behind the account downvoting you. I think this is a better proof; because if a thousand accounts downvote you and only a handful uovote you, then you gotta be saying shit.
I don't have to imagine this - it has happened often enough. I am okay with it.
It is free to make accounts - so "number" doesn't work. I can make 1500 for free today. The only option in this regard is personal identification to ensure only accounts that are verified in some was as an individual can transact - no one is going to go for that.
Look at Steem to see what happens if nobody fights abuse. We all left them to it. We have the problem that if we leave abuse control to a few services then people complain it's centralised, but then individuals tend to be scared to flag anyone. If we do flag then we get called bullies. Given the small size of the communities it may be viable to act on each case manually to try and persuade them to act less selfishly, but some will not listen. Hive is inherently not 'fair' as some big accounts will look after themselves and their friends, but we can do something to deal with small cases before they spread.
A certain user I have spoken to about this still does not get how it works and commented on this post :)
The fact is that we can generally see what people are doing and we are free to reduce their rewards if we want to, for whatever reason. That carries risks of retaliation, but I think it is worth it.
Hey mate, I am just running off to bed, but I agree. I think that the communities should be definitely doing more to combat abuse in their environments. I think it would go a long way to helping the problems outside too. For the big issues, it is another story :)
Basically your saying it's ok for these large accounts to do this, otherwise you would be trying to stop them. You just admitted they are doing it but no one is doing anything about it.
Still here? As I have said before, I act where I can actually have an effect. You really ought to focus on more positive things, such as what you can do for Hive. It's obvious you are not going to win by being selfish and complaining is not a good look for you.
What is it with you every time I place an opinion it's whining or complaining, just because I don't kiss every ones ass like you do, just to get votes. I know this being a dick sure fits you well.
Having been more social than you I know more of what goes on and have made a lot of friends, so I don't really give a shit what you think. Have you thought about how you look to others? We know the issues with big accounts and some get dealt with. Just have to deal with what is possible rather than some impossible utopia. You should know that as you have been here for longer than me. Bye!
I don't need to be social to see what is going on right in front of my eyes.
And I don't care what you think either.
LOL have you.
It's not some impossible utopia. I'm sure hive, as a company has accounts that can deal with those big accounts, but chooses not to. Bye!
Ah, so you don't realise that Hive is not a company! That explains a lot. Go in peace.
giving support to small account is hard but we have to help them grow so they can stay on the hive and earn some
also, the minimum payout on hive 0.02 is a challenge for new hive user because very few reach it so I upvote t0 who reach a minimum of 0.01 $
the dust threshold is a challenge, but also an incentive for some to look to actually build their account. Not everyone feels this way, but also, the platform isn't a charity.
I think we would welcome it back in a hurry. If anything we need more abuse fighting measures. Too many people use the I didn't know excuse after collecting some I didn't know rewards. They rarely if ever offer to give back and burn ill gotten gains.
"I didn't know rewards" :D
Yep - I have been involved over the years in various ways and it is funny how many will accounts are churned and burned due to abuse - not many factor this into the churn rate though.
Its amazing people can learn to exploit so fast, almost as if they have been here before. If someone pops up out of nowhere like a Hive expert, it's obvious. If they are a social media expert, well let's hear more about why that is, do you operate on another platform? The worst now are the people who got booked cheating on Steem and want a second chance on Hive. Hive is the second chance for the rest of us, lol.
When called out, some of them even call it racist or a difference in culture. The only acceptable culture on Hive is Hive culture (the consensus).
When people are too familiar, it is obvious. When they come in knowing the right tags and communities...
You'd think they's clean up their act.
I hate this excuse.
I am sure that a real artist and quality content creator will be discovered in some way. it takes a lot of time for some. sometimes this doesn't apply to those who have really strong friends on the site. if they invested, they already have the right to evaluate their earnings as they wish. Actually I am not concerned with who stands out and how much. To what extent I realize those who produce quality content that interests me. my vote for you or someone else is not very lucrative. it's still worth being here for art chats. I may have moved away from the main subject. special affection. have a nice day..my english is not good enough. I'm sorry for that
I think those who are consistently producing something of relative quality will be eventually supported consistently.
This is exactly why there is more crime in America today than there was prior to 1900. Before 1900 we didn't have a lot of cops. People knew they needed to provide their personal security, so competent people did. Criminals didn't have many available defenseless victims to prey on, so there weren't many criminal predators.
But when cops started being put on the streets, people quit providing their own security, and criminals had more potential defenseless victims. Crime rates skyrocketed.
Cops cause crime.
I suspect that relying on 'official' spamfighters causes spam in the same way. I sure don't want to see loads of spam and plagiarism on Hive, so I do want competent users to police their platform.
Thanks!
Weird. You must live in a different world.
Perhaps you interpret what you read differently. We didn't gradually increase the numbers of policemen from 1700 to 1900. We did periodically dramatically improve technology. By 1900 ordinary citizens had repeating rifles, and the great Colt .45. These were much better mechanisms for providing security than flintlocks, and our security improved dramatically, as the highlighted text reveals.
The next paragraph points out exactly what happened after American started putting cops on the streets - crime rose dramatically. The imposition of cops into more and more areas of our lives, and particularly The War Against Treatment (TWAT) begun by Nixon and hugely exacerbated by Reagan in the '80s, is revealed in the rapidly increasing prison population.
What I said was:
Pretty much what your selected text says.
During WWI and WWII American men, most of the supply of potential criminals, were taxed by war, and weren't as available to commit predatory crimes. Only after WWII did both cops on the streets lull people into a false sense of security and a nominal supply of criminals coincide.
Edit: I will just add that today, wherever there are the most cops with the most power, you will find the most crime impacted societies.
Whatever narrative suits you.
Words have meaning. Are you trying to say that after 1900 the source you cite doesn't state, as I did and do, that crime rose dramatically?
This coincided with more folks in blue uniforms and fewer people packing heat.
Cops cause crime.
Are you a cop? Never thought about your nick before. I suppose my comment would be extremely offensive to a cop. If so, there is a way to resolve our antipathy: get a real job instead of beating up old people on the street.
Aren't you the "intellectual" (who make lots of assumptions about others).
Not interested in having conversation with your kind. Too many of those on Hive.
Really makes this place attractive.
Huh. You're the one who cited proof of my statements.
You people that project onto others the statements of the voices in your head can just go ahead and talk to them instead of me. I'm sure they say what you are interested in hearing.
"their" is an important point in that sentence. It is theirs, it is ours and if we all want to have a place that benefits the most, we have to take some responsibility for maintenance. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to be a good actor or have good intentions.
I think if all formal abuse fighting systems stopped then the reward pool would be actively taken by those that could. I do not think the whales or the large Orca accounts would be the ones to take advantage, However I do think that some of the mid level Orca accounts would. There are those that see the reward pool as a never ending gob-stopper, or a golden goose.
There is very little that the formalized abuse teams can do to those mid level Orca accounts, they just do not have the poser available to make much of a dent. Removing the Formal Abuse Accounts would be the end of reward pools ability to reward new and smaller accounts.
If the Formal Accounts can only cause minor irritation to the mid level Orca accounts smaller accounts are not going to be able to do a thing at all about them. If the down vote system was changed where a down vote could be targeted then the smaller accounts would actually have the power to attempt to control abuse, also the ability of the Formal Accounts to control abuse would become much more effective.
Spam and iffy type content is not the real problem of abuse on Hive, I believe the real problem is the Entitlement Attitude that the larger accounts hold. "It is my stake, if I want to only take from the reward pool I can".
One day the down vote system may be fixed, until then for small accounts to down vote is pretty risky when it comes to reward abuse.
I think so too - as well as some of the larger.
I was very disappointed on Steem that they didn't nullify the large abusive accounts when they could have.
I also would like to know how much abusive accounts at the bottom take in relation to some of the large ones that get away with it.
If everyone used them, perhaps it would be alright.
It would be nice if life worked that way but we know it does not. If everyone that was eligible to vote in an election we would have one less thing for people to complain about, but they don't, they won't, and they will continue to say their vote doesn't count. They are right it doesn't count because they did not use it.
In Australia, voting is compulsory - as much as I don't think it should be, I also think everyone should vote :) I also think everyone should find a way to better self-govern too though :)
That is where people need to accept and take responsibility for their vote, and hold those they put in office accountable for their actions. A compulsory vote is a good thing, but when the person just goes in and votes because they are supposed to with out understanding the consequences of their vote they have not really voted.
This seems to be how most people live their decision making lives in most things
!ENGAGE 20
ENGAGEtokens.The last part of steemit was really nightmarish. I've never seen so many knives and heads roll so mercilessly. But that stage has passed, I think. I also think that like everywhere else, groups are made and here in Hive there are groups with a lot of power. If you're lucky enough to be part of them, you're guaranteed success even if your publications are lousy and pathetic. If you don't manage to "rub shoulders" with the "cream of the cream", you have to do your job, as best you can, make social relationships, walk around publications and let yourself be seen, vote with your brain not with your heart, and even though you do all this, you won't be sure of being successful either. It's time to get the job done and get your hands dirty. There's no other way. Good Monday, @tarazkp
Getting the hands dirty is a challenge as it really isn't a fun job - I know, I have been heavily involved in it in the past and with a fair bit of power. It gets messy and it is soulsucking to see so much abuse. A lot of those people are now Steem witnesses.
We all know there will always be dead trees in any forest.Hive is no exception. With a bit of advertising anyone could reach to be a false star. We can see that in celebrities. But common sense and a good eye can spot them easily. True stars, people who really make a difference more than a pretty face and "as seen on Tv" are rare. And I am sure that no matter how much bad stuff gets piled up, a star will always find the power to shine. It takes a star to know a star. And people who have the power to reward people are smart enough to see the difference.
This is what I wonder - would it create a better platform for stars when there is a mountain of shit beneath?
Stars ignore the shitty smell. A star who can't rise from a pile of shit ain't a real star.
That's an interesting question. Self policing relies on the goodness and honesty of the population or you end up with FaceBook. I've been told there is actually good content posted on facebook.
I hate the idea or the practice of censorship at any level but my own. I think that the 'front ends' can do some (they do) and I'd like to see an increased filtering system so I can just decline to look at any user.
With that said, we also have to consider downvotes. All of us have to consider downvotes. When you find something that is spam or scam or plagiarism, down vote it. In the end, it's up to us to police our own zone.
Once upon a time my photos- not for years now :)
The frontends need to definitely improve their filtering and search functions.
Yeah, FB is just a faded memory to me...
I think PeakD and Hiveblog are both working at it. Their search functions are so far superior to anything on Steem that it's hard for me to complain after only a few months.
I looked at Hivesearcher today and was impressed enough that I voted for their proposal. They have some real possibility.
To me, there is no good or bad method. Probably a mix of Artificial intelligence and fighting services would be the best.
I am sure the groups dealing with bad behavior have already some protocols established and some of those could be programmed in bots using some AI to do the job. More sophisticated cases would still have to be managed manually but there would be less work for the groups which would be able to focus on those specific cases where human intervention is a must to take part in the final decision.
I think so too - but there will always be contention when the service is "centralized" - like how people hate governments, but don't mind the policing catching thieves.
The AIs are far from advanced on Hive, so most has to be done manually to a great degree and then oipinion comes into it, which is highly contentious.
It would be an absolute shit-show.
It's not so much that shit-posts would start appearing (as i'm fairly confident the community would step-up to that), we would just be leaking HIVE by a million paper cuts - the comment farming that people cant see.
Yep, this is what I assume, but I also wonder if there was enough "top end" that the bottom end would become irrelevant
giving support to small account is hard but we have to help them grow so they can stay on the hive and earn some
also, the minimum payout on hive 0.02 is a challenge for new hive user because very few reach it so I upvote t0 who reach a minimum of 0.01 $
LOL really Like upvoting this type content to almost $20
https://hive.blog/hive-174578/@salim001/photography-the-beautiful-white-flower-beside-my-coffee-shop
I see this type of shitpost getting large payouts everyday and no one seems to care about that but me.
It is probably not shit posting for that person. However, how much do you think the account will take and how often? Perhaps that should factor in too.
There is always going to be random posts and accounts getting support for sometime, but overall, it should be relatively decent content that gets the greatest stake behind it and, to really attract people, there has to be some decent mainstream accounts that get considerable support relatively often.
All I am saying is if you want people to post better content quit giving post like that one $20, give it $1 or less, people not making much and or new users see those type post making $20 and start posting that type of content.
I mean I see excellent photography post only making a few dollars and trash like that gets $20
There is a lot of great content that goes unrewarded as individual posts, but in my experience, those who consistently provide great content eventually get found and supported.
Or maybe the whales and curation trails need to spend more time looking into what is good content and what is shit. I mean anyone that is not blind can see that that post was not worth $20 just like this shit here is not worth almost $50
https://hive.blog/blog/@emrebeyler/a-new-milestone-on-my-diet
I think the "post by post" method of valuation will never work, it will depend on track record and consistency, the way it does with everything. You probably buy brands you trust in clothes, watch movies with actors you already like - track record. The random votes for random accounts are essentially rolling the dice in the hope that they can do it again or will add some value. The "worth" of any single post is not a very good measure of anything really and what that person does with their reward is up to them, but that is also going to affect others.
Well I have produced great photos for years and rarely get more then $4.
Except for me, I was attacked for self voting because I believe that my photography is some of the best photography on here and there are shit post getting more then my professional photos. I have never said a word about it until I was attacked by a few people for self voting.
This is true but if I buy a product from that brand and it is shit I take it back.
Anyway you guys continue doing what your doing , cause it has worked so well.