I just noticed @steemauto/Hive.Vote introduced a sudden change where they basically reset autovotes from the standard 'daily' vote setting to a 'weekly' one which is automatically set to twice a week.
I'm not against autovotes as I'm not pro or anti most behaviour: most things are fine by me if it's not obvious abuse. It keeps my blood pressure low to live this way :-)
I do however feel like we can make (auto)votes more rewarding other than financially. I don't think I have the answer but let's just write down some thoughts.
Why autovotes rock - the summary (we all know this I guess):
- Curation is a big part of Hive. Some people believe in and want to invest in HIVE and instead of HODL set a few people on autovote and generate the curation rewards - way cooler than HODL'ing BTC, don't you think?
- It's a way of rewarding the most consistent users (more on that later)
- It can be a way of spreading ones vote very wide among 'the community' - I know there's a few curious whales who are spreading votes between 10-25% amongst a very wide amount of Hive users, and from what I can see, they are indeed often very reputable/consistent users. I think of accounts like @mangos, @alexis555, @ripperone who are never mentioned or seen as 'real users' but have been upvoting a pretty big Steem/Hive base for years now with significant votes. Their votes really made a difference on my personal journey on this chain - and I guess they did/do for many others.
Why autovotes suck
- Some people get autovotes because they get autovotes! It can be very interesting to place your vote right before another big vote comes in curation wise, so some of our users who were once rewarded by 'that one whale' because that person wanted to reward one authors efforts, now receives quite a few 'whale votes' - not because those whales want to reward the author per se (although they will often avoid obvious bad content) but just because they want to optimise their curation rewards. Although that in itself is just 'smart' if you want to passively enjoy your earned/bought Hive stake, it does lead to some authors getting exponentially 'autovoted'.
- Once a user has 'won' that vote there's no need to improve their content. Many users that create decent content and then 'gain' autovotes can just keeping doing what they did - no need to make that one epic post or other effort, right? "The votes will come in if I did what I did yesterday!" Now, of course, lowering your quality/efforts might risk you to lose the autovotes because that might get discovered after a while, so often these authors keep up a basic quality, but their motivation might more be about posting a fixed daily quota than something else.
- The other side of this coin sucks too: what if you are a pretty good writer or video maker but want to shitpost your way through communities for a day or a week? How embarrassing is it to see your one liner post earn 50$/HIVE? I believe autovotes can sometimes ruin some of the light-heartedness we need on Hive to really make this an engaging platform.
What if we lived on a Hive that only did one of the extremes?
- If we only had people autovoting - do you think this platform would have ANY value - at all? Do you think it would attract new users?
- If we only had people not autovoting - do you think people would think this platform lost value? Do you think a platform without autovoting would attract new users? Other types of users maybe?
It's interesting to collect your own thoughts about autovoting if you take a minute to imagine these extreme ends. Truth often lies somewhere in the middle, but a platform with 100% autovotes would probable not have a lot of value to future users and thus might be a hint why we wouldn't want to 'reward' autovoting too much.
How to better autovote?
I suspect many people will write about this autovote change so maybe I shouldn't even have started this post because what are the chances I will actually bring something new to a discussion that has been held so many times already? I was just coincidentally sitting behind an empty screen while seeing this discussion getting started on @steemauto/Hive.Vote.
Maybe I can simply share my wishes regarding autovotes, fully accepting they will never really disappear and always be a part of this ecosystem.
- Spread votes more widely/with smaller percentages: there's nothing more annoying than seeing the same content on trending each day, and there's nothing more awesome than to see more people get a few decent votes. If you need inspiration on how that looks like take a look at the voting behaviour of @mangos, @alexis555, @ripperone
- Don't reward 'good content' - reward good Hivers. Those who show up a few times a week, really try to engage, make something valuable of our Hive Communities (which often are not about long-form content) - try to make them part of your autovote efforts.
- Leave some room for manual curation! Really! If you spend 10% of your VP each day you can easily spend 50% of your VP once a week on posts/Hivers you really like/want to reward once but not on auto, you'll certainly make someone smile with an unexpected vote here and there. With about 10% of you VP 'spent' the rest of the week your VP will recover automatically meanwhile helping to keep an element of surprise on Hive.
- Don't chase the curation rewards ONLY by pre-voting bigger votes. It can be very worthwhile to vote smaller accounts, and vote on content after 2-4 hours instead of cramping everything in the first 15 minutes. Some of my biggest ROI comes from being the last to vote on a post that didn't make 1$ before I voted.
- Once a day? Twice a week? It's up to you but think about it! Make a conscious choice and review it from time to time. Set a quarterly appointment in your calendar to review your autovotes, remove a few, add a few, reward some authors once a day for a few months, lower others to once a week for a while, and mix it up again in three months.
People work harder if they feel they can win or earn something and don't know when it will happen - in the end we want people to have fun and not feel either overlooked or entitled in regards to post rewards.
I gave a bigger vote for visibility because I believe this is an important topic. We already know we can't rely on goodwill or long forward thinkers to change their actions is there is immediate gratification via bigger rewards for lazy auto voters.
I feel there needs to be something like a randomizer for a curation window, maybe even captcha pop ups if a vote is cast too many times in a short period. We need to find a way to punish lazy auto voters and reward manual voters. I don't have blue prints written down but I do plan to dive into this deeper.
Randomization - 'gamification' - easter eggs: I would be for all of it. Especially if they are clearly meant to reward manual users.
Random curation windows even it was ever 'X' posts could be interesting too.
We need to find a way to reward passive investors in a way that keeps them interested while having additional benefits for those who are active participants.
Thanks for joining the discussion :-)
Agree this should reward so called 'active' behavior rather than punish passive support.
wow, I think those are great ideas. All three of them together even
I agree that the current curation window (and the exponential nature of it for people that get in early) is the issue which makes auto votes more favorable over manually voting. We need to change this IMO. But I disagree that 'auto votes' should inherently be worth less. Conceptually if an investor wants to come in and invest in Hive, power up and follow a curation auto-vote trail, are we just going to label them "lazy auto voters" and penalize them ? Are we saying that they are not the type of investor we want to bring to the platform? We have a post inflation pool and a developer fund which produce selling pressure on the token. To me large scale passive investment is what we want to encourage to balance this. If their passive income can support active content creators on the platform is that not a win/win solution? We seem to be turning into a war against "passive" stake. Yet most of the investment world runs on passive stake. I respect you as a large scale 'active' investor on the platform so I am keen to hear your opinion on this.
If an investor wants to auto piolet their votes they can follow a trail, nothing can stop that ever, anyone can always follow someones votes. However, that isnt the point of attack, the point of attack is when the initial vote is cast. If an investor is following a trail of a manual curator, it makes the ones doing the work, the manual curators that get rewarded and investors still earn but just less because they cant front run.
With lazy autovoters, IE people who vote at 4min mark of all "popular" creators and just leaves it, that is destructive to the platform. We need to encourage better curation, which means rewarding manual voters. What is the best way to punish lazy voters and reward manual voters? That is the 100 billion dollar question IMO, if we get curation right, we explode in popularity.
If you make curation rewards more linear the more successful an author gets over time then it would encourage true content discovery. For example you could incorporate the reputation score of the author being voted on into the post curation rewards algorithm in a way such that curation of low reputation authors would be subject to a more exponential reward curve and curation of high reputation authors would have a more liner curation reward curve. This could stop the early vote stacking on historically popular authors as there would be minimal exponential advantage to voting early on those posts and shift the people chasing exponential rewards towards true content discovery of less known accounts and spread the votes over a wider distribution. I know reputation is not a perfect indicator after the bidbot years but it's somewhere to start. I guess the downside it would make self voting of accounts with high reputation slightly more profitable. But you would not have to make it completely linear just at a comparative disadvantage to the posts with lower reputations.
I have an idea as to how to fix that in the next hard fork. It's not too complicated and does not require too much coding or testing.
https://peakd.com/hive-136578/@markkujantunen/taxing-too-frequent-votes-on-the-same-authors
The issue with that proposal is if I discover a 'new' person and I want to reward a few posts at once while looking at their portfolio I would essentially get 'taxed' to do that. One would also have to keep track of everyone they voted for and when they could vote again and not be hit. This is complex and shifts the balance of power back to autovoting and away from manual curation , as you can schedule posts votes after a certain amount of time has lapsed.
I think we need to separate the "content discovery" issues which need to be dealt with by a front end algorithm that does not rank simplistically by HIVE reward, from the discussion about the perception of an unfair blockcahin reward pool distribution in a stake based system. Content discovery is abysmal. We need a proper way to search the platform, we need an open tag system like Instagram hashtags where we can see posts grouped into areas rather than the current 5-10 meaningless tags which are taken up with tribes and trending tags. We need algorithms that suggest trending users and posts based on spikes in community interaction .
HIVE is by definition a stake based system, should we really be discriminating on what people can vote on with their stake? Any top level token limitations will also have an effect on the development of other dapps etc who might use the reward pool. The real question is what are we trying to be here? Are we just going to specialize as a top level blogging site where the primary token is perfected to produce the best rank of posts using 'reward pool payout" as the ultimate form of post rank ? Or are we trying to be an open stake based Level 1 DPOS token without restrictions on the use of stake where people can build a variety of Web 3 DApps that can use their own level 2 token to rank posts (or anything else they might want to do like reward people for exercising, or providing the answer to question, or winning a level in a game, etc)?
Danny, how easy is to develop a Curator Reputation based on experience? I am bored to see the trending full of jerk circle abusers and manual curators receiving big upvotes as salary for their manual curation efforts.
If we are able to develop transparent curation metrics, we will be able to support those curators using a portion of the rewards pool or from a DAO proposal.
Curation by humans which scales with the platform, instead of the algos of Twitter and Facebook is a holy grail.
That is crushed by lazy autovoting.
Hive is close to getting it right but needs to be hyper careful with services like hive.vote. We all know that auto-voting is easy to code, but if the services aren't easy to use, fortunately, their use won't scale up.
Good to see comments come in :-) I'm off to dinner and will reply later. Oh, and thanks for everyone voting for me, I appreciate them, both auto and manual ;-)))
They changed it back!! :0/
As I understand it they also give you the option for voting daily now, still reverting all votes to twice a week if not manually edited on their platform ;-) (Not using Hive.vote myself so can't check.)
I think it has defaulted to 1 daily and 2 a week if not edited. Below is one I edited so it makes sense :0)
That makes sense indeed.
Can you fill in 'soyrosa' and '100%' on that one? 😂
Comin right up!!! :0D
Starts shitposting exactly once a day 7 days a week
The reality is that you can not stop auto-votes at the blockchain level; so we have to create a structure where they have a positive impact. I see it as being like Patreon; people can support an artist. If they don't like what happens with the content after they have supported them they can remove the autovote support. If they are too lazy to check, its their stake, their money, and their right to continue to support who they want. This is how the world works.
The elephant in the room here is the non linear (time exponential) based curation rewards. This drives the need to place your vote first and massively rewards auto voting over manual voting as you simply cant make the same curation rewards manually unless your online "all day" waiting for exactly the right time to vote. It also encourages reward stacking on posts, like you say auto voting on popular posts slightly before everyone else's auto vote is profitable. This is the issue. Not the autovote system itself.
All the recent changes with hive.vote have done is hurt passive investors who don't know the change has been implemented. Anyone else including all the scammers can just go in and update their account. We have to stop treating non active Hive investors like they are unwelcome. If people cant buy Hive and stake it somehow for passive income and forget about it (by following some auto vote trails) ; we will simply loose the vast majority of investors to other coins which can stake. Are we saying as a blockchain we only want "active" investors and passive investment will be discouraged? Will anyone trust hive.vote not to change their set preferences on them again after this? We hailed 50% curation rewards using autovotes as the solution to passive investment to shift people away from bidbots. It has worked; look at trending now compared to 12 months ago. Most people who want to 'invest' just want to set some settings and come back in 12-18 months; not have to monitor continually changing requirements or log in each day to manually vote.
Investment funds will just flow to coins like Tezos which have simple staking rewards if we keep changing the goal posts. If HIVE is to succeed and cover the selling pressure from the development fund and post inflation pool we need to make it attractive to passive investors. At the moment we are actively trying to discourage them. I would hope overtime we will see more sophisticated development in this space to help with maximizing curation rewards for passive investors. @therealwolf was trying to start a discussion about introducing some passive staking rewards system at a blockchain level; not sure if it ever went anywhere.
It's simply not comparable when we're on a platform where that 'auto support' is taken from a shared fund/pool instead of actually paid from your wallet like on Patreon - however we look at it, a vote for one post is a vote less for everyone else. I would be all for a Patreon function on Hive though, and the tipping feature of @peakd is a step in that direction, I'm sure tipping could be automated at some point in the future - and then it's up to the one supporting the artist how much he/she wants to pay from their own earnings or investment.
No - I'm not an extremist in any shape or form. I think all should be welcome. But I would be interested in having an okay/interesting return for investors and an even better one for active voters :-) I don't know if everything has to be done on the blockchain level, I see huge opportunities in gamification on fronted level as well.
I believe the idea was you would turn your accounts on 'holiday' or 'investment' mode and would automatically receive HIVE as if you were autovoting yourself 10x a day :-) Definitely interesting and I wouldn't mind discussing ideas like that further.
Cheers!
tipping can indeed be automated ;)
\0/
TBH it would not even have to be at the blockchain level; although some people have proposed that. You could simply integrate the feature into hive or PeakD wallet to toggle on where you automatically follow some curation trails which were randomly selected from the top curation performing trails (and perhaps shuffled) .
Yes - on a blockchain level we could have the 'reward your own 10 votes' as it would be 'paid by the chain', but ofcourse frontends can offer other creative solutions like autofollowing votes from a selected few trusted curators. I know how I've done this a few times while traveling: set a few people on autovote as I knew I didn't have the time to read each day.
Yes I travel for a job and spend a lot of time away from the internet; so its just not possible to manually curate every day. If we start to penalize auto voting then I may as well power down my hive and sell it for something else. That is the issue. Investors wont keep funds here if the only way to make a return is labour intensive manual curation. Capital has to have some value too in a stake based system. I currently auto follow various photographers and bloggers that I know have a high quality and want to support and also quite a few manual curation trails (like photofeed and photocircle) to provide support for those photographic communities. I set it to keep 70% of my vote mana available so I can manually vote as well when I have the time.
I'm really concerned that we need a way to turn off auto votes on certain content. I am acutely aware that I get a few autovotes (thank you) and some of them quite big.
Which means I'm reluctant to use the upcoming service to cross post tweets to Hive if it means a stupid one line post is suddenly going to be auto-upvoted. There is a tension here and we do need it addressed.
THIS! I didn't even know how to respond to the announcement of a potential Hive micro blogging service. I feel a huge need for a way to engage more regularly and with less 'substantial' posts on Hive but the rewards I could potentially get for a random post really holds me back. On the other hand, if we all just start posting like we want that could potentially change, but a significant group will have to lead that change.
Autovoting is not the problem Rosa. Well it is a problem, but only because of how curves...and auction windows...and "penalties" on voting strength for not crossing the 20 Hive mark on posts etc, work.
That's what needs to be fixed...imo.
For example my 100% vote is worth $1.3(?) - $1.4(?) sometimes even less if there's that penalty and issues 3(?) 4(?) Hive maybe? What if that's what one will get (50% of it) no matter if they front run whales or if they vote after 6 days. That would allow users to read before they vote...and would push more people to manually curate.
I see no reason for "taxes" on votes and stuff anymore. There might be abuse but there are also a lot of tools to fight it. Plus, we are not on Steem where abuse nowadays is something normal.
Nothing is 'the' problem, but we definitely should tweak a few smaller ones anyway, right? :D
But yeah, I honestly never have worried about the 'taxes' on voting, I just vote whenever I see something worthwhile, and am not too worries about the ROI I get. BUT for those that do, maybe something proposed as you describe makes them feel more clam/less inclined to 'chase optimal ROI' - and actually start manually curating instead of automating everything.
Thanks for adding your thoughts (and TIP! Thanks!), I didn't even take the 'taxes' and curves into account while writing this post, that's how much they're off my radar :D
I'm with you on 'how to better autovote' and I think this change may help with that, quite a lot at first (as people are awol) and a bit less in the future.
It still feels hard to find the 'best' stuff for the platform, and if everyone had to curate manually all the time, I think there would be a stack of votes on some stuff, and little on the rest - which seems not ideal to keep people plodding along.
We shall see how it pans out...
I remember the first blogging platform I joined about 15 years ago and the frontpage showed titles of posts categorized on maaaaaany ways, like 'most commented on' for example. More ways of categorizing/displaying content would help us explore more - a very engaging post from a small author could that one time suddenly get voted on by whales - and maybe even be recognized for whatever content they are making that normally remains unseen.
Curious to see how this pans out indeed, there's enough bigger voters who use their own scripts so the impact might not even be that big :-)
Oh, I do like that way!! Several different ways of being on top!! I think it would be awesome to try that. Thanks for the write, I thought they changed it back yet again!
They had me scratching my head. Did I miss that notice?
!tip
🎁 Hi @soyrosa! You have received 0.1 HBD tip from @dswigle!
Check out @dswigle blog here and follow if you like the content :)
Sending tips with @tipU - how to guide.
Thanks for remembering me that this blockchain is designed like a casino business model. Where every player gets a portion of the rewards to keep playing hard.
Work hard play hard!
I think it's a good change, I've been changing a few and it does encourage you to spread your votes more widely - why not 5 a week rather than every day with some people?!?
I keep my min VP set at 85-90% on autovoter so I've still got some left to manually vote with, it means I don't necessarily autovote people everyday already anyway.
The people panicking about it probably have high powered dead accounts voting for them everyday.
Yes, that's a big one too, it leaves some room for manual curation. 5 posts a week on autovote is fine too, even if the author is AWESOME you can add the other votes manually and even give a higher percentage.
Yeah - it was actually crazy to me that so many autovotes were just moved with us from Steem to Hive :D I think many people don't even know they're voting on Hive!
That depends a lot on the person posting, and his/her followers. Although I have auto votes on my account, I don't particularly like them and consider that if everyone would curate manually there would be much more interaction, probably more traffic as well, and the variety of creators getting curated would also be wider. I doubt though that Hive will ever ditch auto votes so I got at peace with the idea. The only plus for them is that in case of users not opening Hive daily to curate they can rest assured that their HP won't be wasted. Other than that I don't see too many reasons why we need auto votes. It's probably that I'm old school but, I like doing things organically more than I like automation.
This is what I held in mind while writing the post - they'll always be here, and I don't think we need to hate them either (passive investors have their worth!), but we certainly can make it more fun for active users.
Me too and I'll never become a 'good curator' in the sense that I'll have the best ROI but I like voting and picking the percentage each time :D (Although sometimes late at night I'll just vote people on 50% or so because I need to sleep, lol!)
Artificial intelligent bots are getting the most significant rewards than humans. How can we play against them? The answer relies on the equation the bidbots had solved.
If we are not able to retain good content creators publishing in the platform we'll lose a crucial part of the value of this blockchain. So, autovotes can help us to upvote great content creators and continuously motivate them to keep publishing high-quality publications. The scary part is that the big stakeholders delegate to the ex-bidbots to maximize rewards not quality.
It is well-know the ex-bidbots community is the most popular because they support medium-to-high quality publications to retain users. But, when artificial bots detect those authors, the bots will upvote 1 or 2 posts per author per day. Amazing right? you are getting autovoted by the artificial intelligent bots. Now, the ex-bidbots will not upvote to those authors because they will earn lower curation rewards. After 4-5 non-upvoted posts by the ex-bidbots, the artificial bots will stop upvoting to these authors because they are not earning rewards. Again, the ex-bidbots will upvote the publications of those authors in an endless circle. The bad part is that some authors prefer to publish a great publication after two or three shitposts to keep the artificial bots away and receive the upvotes of the ex-bidbots.
I enjoyed reading this post!
Interesting comment Sergio, I'm not really uptodate on these AI/Bid-bot voters, could you point me to some accounts that are AI/bid-bots autovoting so I can do some research?
Thanks for leaving a comment! Always better than the votes, right? :D
I'm for the mix of two things, which I'm doing currently... Part is on autovoting through curation trail and part manual voting (as I did to this post)... I know that I'm not a whale here, but as a creator I know that even a small upvote and a comment is highly appreciated... and motivating to continue creating and bringing value...
Great post and thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Sometimes a comment is even more motivating than a vote of any size! It would be great if we can somehow gamify our actions on Hive overall and have a more exciting experience in the end :-)
Thanks for doing your part!
Good post. Watching this post for more comments.
Thanks! Quite a few comments have been added in the last 3 hours :-)
Just don't allow the blacklisted accounts get upvoted by using your service. How difficult is it?
I completely agree to that. If someone who has decent auto votes on them can even grab a 30$ vote on their post if it was just a cat photo without any content on it. This needs to change. People should start voting good contents and not because they like the authors. This is my humble opinion. And the below part of your post contradicts with my thought.
I'm not sure I understood it right. So, lets say someone is posting a neat article for like 1000 words and he is pretty new and not popular and he hardly gets 30 cents on his posts almost every day. There is another good Hiver who is popular and whatever he writes, he gets 20$ minimum solid. Here, are you saying the first guy deserves no vote and our votes should go only to the second guy?
If we are going to vote people who are
good Hivers(I'm sorry, I don't understand whom exactly you call as good Hivers), how will the new guys who just started and writes quality content will get motivation?I think what I mean is on Hive (and before Steem) we have really gotten used to the term 'good content' and reward that. Of course good content should be rewarded! Don't get me wrong. But I think sometimes a simple post from a good Hiver could get a lower but still significant vote from time to time too. Especially autovotes (as they don't read the posts anyway) could put 1$ votes on people that are trying hard to make something on Hive, like growing communities. Sometimes those posts are not 'great reads' but they are worth something in other ways. That's what I mean by 'reward good Hivers' - and I don't mean that we don't need to reward good content, just that we don't need to 'exclusively' reward good content.
Hope it makes sense now :-) Thanks for discussing!
Yes, it makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for clarifying. 😀
I have some people that I autovote because I want to support them every time they post.
When I see on BeeMe that I've voted for you I come to comment. It's just the easy way for me.
I DO keep my autovoter current. Shit post me a few times and I'm gone. I think that is a reasonable and responsible way to handle voting on hive.
I also manually vote several times a day. I want to be engaged and there are just some people who I DO NOT want to miss.
I absolutely can see why people autovote and I appreciate receiving them as I'm no saint either :-) I just would LOVE to have people have to option to autovote be 'challenged' by making manual curation more fun by having randomized voting windows or easter eggs or even badges :-) There's a lot of engagement to get even from a voting perspective and in the end we want Hive to become as cool/fun/unpredictable as possible so we can have fun with it.
Your way of using autovotes reminds me of the good old RSS-reader by the way :D
In my opinion, Auto-voting should be limited to just 1 or 2 users a day so that such laziness in that voting style is strictly regulated on the hive ecosystem. If we want to see hive thrive, there is need to change certain things that should have been a set back for Steemit and this issue of auto-voting is one such a thing that needs some revision and regulation.
Thanks for bringing up this topic. I believe the hive ecosystem will be kept healthy when auto-voting is somehow regulated.
Thanks for adding your thoughts :-) I think rewarding manual voting is the way to go, auto voting will always exist in some form, but manual should be the 'more fun' option for active users. (And even made so much fun that more passive users want to curate manually :D)
You can't limit auto-voting. The blockchain can't tell an autovote apart from manual vote.
Okay! Then the author who is on autovote must ensure that he creates quality content consistently.
I think there are very few posts quite that extreme in having low value but high rewards.
It's more theoretical because I agree it doesn't happen that much - but we know some people easily get 20-30-50$/HIVE a post, and would get that too if that post only existed of the word 'test'. It would get downvoted maybe, and if it was a 'smart' oneliner from a consistent user it wouldn't even really matter I guess, but with the recent announcement of posting tweets to Hive it certainly might get interesting and subject of discussion.
Well I don't mind autovotes not everyone has the time to vote every day. Autovote on your favourite poster is A good way of supporting their effort. The rewards went way down.
As investment you can delegate to @tipu, daily reward, 10% interest.
The thing is the negativity what steem had the boe bahh he has more that other one is doing only shitposts this and that...
We... steemians / hivers compared ourselves to Facebook... what do you see on Facebook? A ton of shit posts that are liked by friends posts that are shared with promoted posts between your feed.
My point is to attract more from the outside lose the negativity downvotes and the most most important
Most important lose the greed... someone dared to invest 10.000-100.000 euro or more in Hive. Maybe he sits on a crate in his house or lost almost everything... or.. was just lucky and this is their retirement fund or worked his ass off day and night... some post 3 times a day.
Maybe to earn look at the smart contract of the website www.infinity.com maybe it's a alternative solution of earning funds but I'm not a specialist. This is also an automation yes....
The greed... people talking about their neighbour when he bought a new car saying to themselves how does he do it but don't see that he has double jobs or put his life on the line in war.
But again.... big changes without posting before it happens...
The problem now is... we need to build the seo trust again with have what we had with steemit that takes around 8 months for our posts to hit ranking again if you follow the seo rules. Our backdraft is the double posts on steem and hive a way to counter is change all links used in steem to hive.io not peakd.com because peakd.com has 404 errors we need hive are hive so use hive links. The hive site will generate traffic and extra revenue for developers.
the only people that win by this move of switching to weekly upvotes are the ones who already have a large following on their curation trails. They have the benfit of voting 1st and then having a ton of people vote after them. The rich will get richer and the rest will get some crumbs.
I would love to see a Hive where no autovoting would happen. I'm sure it won't reduce the platforms attractiveness, since no other social medium encourages autovoting. Instead, it might attract even more users, since there will be a greater diversity on the trending page.
Unfortunately, Hive just doesn't work that way. Effective manual voting requires you to be online at least once every two days, and that's stretching it. Otherwise you'll waste voting power by sitting at 100%. But the fact that curation pays money is the main contributor.
On Reddit, not voting for a week doesn't cost you anything. On Hive you'll waste a lot of potential voting power, and thus curation rewards by doing nothing. More activity equals more payout. Therefore, people will always try their hardest to automatically get the most out of it, so they can get the payout without the effort. This behavior is unavoidable and very hard, if not impossible, to prevent.
But I stand by my point. Hive would be best without autovoting.
i was hoping it was possible for all auto voting to be charged somehow (%?) and $ went to the hive development fund or other useful places.
Autovote can be improved for sure, the question is how. It's really not in our hand basically, if people do want to auto vote yo some author.
A hard fork could be used to make curation harder to game. For example, if curation was on a flat curve, there would be no point to auto vote unless one is lazy. The curve could just be made flatter, especially if the post doesn't zoom to the stratosphere and actually trend. Alternatively, a random feature could be thrown in.
Or we could just ask the autovote apps to skip the post if the tag #noautovote is used. They could enable this by default, but allow curators to disable if desired.
This comment could also be added in front ends by default at the end of a post and comment as a hidden comment
[//]:#noautovote. It would be good to allow the user an option to remove it, but this could be notified in some indicator to prevent farming.LOL This is how much I suck...
Been on this blockchain (Steem -> HIVE) for almost 3 years now...JUST started using curation trails a few weeks ago and set up some autovotes....3 days ago!
I've always thought I want to reward the content that comes across my feed or support the creators doing awesome work...But saw the silly uber confusing 'rewards curve' kinda screws my ability to earn any kind of curation return...So apparently autovoting is the way to earn better ROI on the curve...
I have NO IDEA what I'm doing LOL
So for that...I will just continue to vote the amazing people I meet here and enjoy the content they create.
Combining my new found 'ability' to use these curation tools, as well as good ol' fashioned manual curation as well :)
Awesome topic, I'm learning a lot!!
Exactly. Autovoting is the patreon light of hive.
Great sum up @sourosa.
The way I see it autovotes are both awesome but at the same time a pain in the ass.
From my point of view very few things have changed regarding the author rewards since we forked out of Steem. I mean there was never a reset on Hive.vote and that lead to the same people receiving votes from "lazy whales" as they used to in Steem but this time with double the amount of $$ cause Hive is more than double in value than Steem was before we fork.
We need more manual curation or else Hive will become like Steem. It already feels like Steem now that the Hive hype is gone if you ask me.
I see a lot of community leaders who are trying hard to build something unique here not receiving enough support from whales etc. Not everone has the cash to buy 100k Hive to support their community members and that leads to community members abandoning the "not-so-rewarding" communities and search for communities in which whales curate or for communities in which whales follow their curation trail.
I believe that we should start trusting community leaders more and start following varius community curation trails. Then it is up to the community leaders to spread that auto-voting stake to everyone. The vote and HIVE distribution will become way better than just users auto-voting other users and friends. If you feel like auto-voting a user or a friend you can do it manualy.
I know that this is kinda off-topic cause this whole discussion is about auto-voting and not about communities but the way I see it communities are the future of Hive so we better start trusting people who are working hard and not just auto-vote our friends etc.
great post and love the discussions; it shows that the community is active and dynamic!
One thing I love about autovotes is that I can simply manage my stake in a better way. In no way could I upvote the almost 100 accounts that I like to support manually. So that alone I think is worth having the automated function. Of course, one should occasionally review upvoted accounts to see if they still post content that one wishes to upvote.
But yes I would love to see changes in the way that upvotes work and that incentivize manual curation!
This is nice analysis
A hot, interesting topic. I learned a lot from both the post and the comments. Thank you! If I understood correctly, the majority would be against the automation of the vote. My opinion, if you want an opinion from someone who is at the bottom of understanding how the voting process, algorithms and other finesse work.
I consider this auto-voting a useful tool. To encourage beginners ... (I remember my first months in Steemit, after dozens of posts I worked for hours the result was $ 0.00. I knew I couldn't expect consistent rewards but that 0.00 gave me a sense of worthlessness and pushed me into depression. Of course, as a beginner I still didn't know about good practices, interaction, how to curate with only 14SP? Luck came from friends, @dswigle can tell how she convinced me not to give up.)
... to feel that they are being observed! We can find some beginners with a decent, good posting history, and vote not with a very high percentage but enough to mean something to the recipient. Otherwise, now I'm talking about myself, when I found a beginner that I liked, I watched his posts for a while, I voted but then I was attracted to something else, I went in another direction and forgot about him.
In three years on the platform I met many very talented colleagues with whom I interacted for a while and then I stopped because time does not allow me to read, vote and comment on dozens of daily posts ... then I lost touch. An automation of voting I think helps to stay connected to those people. So the vote on the person not on the content. Because I knew that the content is always quality!
I already have a doc set to talk about this topic. Auto voting is really causing some real shit on this chain. It is quite annoying to see content of little or no value trending on Hive because of AUTOVOTE.
HELL NO!!!
I have a new community here and I am planning to use manual moderation on every post that we will be curating. I set a trail on Steemauto, but the manual curation and moderation will ensure we are giving real value to the people and Hive.
Someone just need to ensure quality, not some shitty post.
Good to see you do manual curation within a community! I think communities will be a way forward where manual curation is both rewarding and not so 'daunting' as searching through all of Hive for the best posts :-)
Vote for newbies till they cross 500 hive - to motivate them. After that, they should have been accustomed and their content and engagement will take them to the next steps , but I think how we can improve user retention is the biggest challenge. Auto votes chasing curation rewards is no way going to improve it.
I would love more manual curation for new users, more then auto, as auto also makes a person 'accustomed' to something, and I would love for people to experiment with what works. Anyway, it's definitely a search for what works best.
My take on this is that while I make some Autovotes, I set my VP threshold to %92 so there will be always five to six %100 votes for me for the days I wanna vote manually (I almost never vote when my VP is %80 or less.)
If I didn't manually vote one day (which is currently most of the time, but this changes) then my VP will get down to %92, recover, then get spent again. Smart move if I say myself~
I totally agree with your advices on how to let Autovotes make Hive better.
That's a good way to balance autovotes with manual curation! :-) It's definitely smart to use autovotes to never let your VP sit at 100%.