Agree on a surface level but we need to provide some incentive to up vote something that is better than for example just this comment. Linear curation rewards encourage just up voting of anything as the rewards are all the same. People will self vote and claim the rewards; there is no disincentive other than vigilante mobs of down voters which makes the platform feel more like a failed police state.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I like to upvote comments because they are essential for real interaction and communication in this community.
In the eyes of many newbies HIVE must look like a real desert, an unpeopled ghost town, inhabited only by bots!
However, what I meant was: when I see that some well known bots have 'curated' a great post which I would like to upvote, I often abstain from that and ask the author to write a comment which I upvote then instead of the post because I don't want to increase the curation rewards of these voting bots.
I disagree! :)
If rewards were the same anyway, then you would be free to upvote quality content! You didn't need to think about your curation rewards anymore but could focus on what you like (and I think the big majority of users would do exactly that)!
The few undiscerning ones who wouldn't care at all could be flagged.
For author rewards the convergent linear rewards curve would still apply ... and if we had '75/25' again, self-votes wouldn't be that beneficial.
In addition one could think at further measures like 'diminishing returns' when upvoting the same (also own) accounts again and again.
Furthermore, I think something similar like "Voting CSI" in SteemWorld could also serve well to detect abuse.