Who defines what's "quality"?
Your premise is that users will use downvotes responsibly even though 3 years of history contradicts that belief.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Who defines what's "quality"?
Your premise is that users will use downvotes responsibly even though 3 years of history contradicts that belief.
I don't believe that all users do, but I believe that a significant part of the stakeholders which have significant interest in the platform will try to make a responsible decision for the platform to avoid bad content.
Having, as proposed, a pool similar to 10-25% is not enough for significant abuse (as discussed in the post) but allows the community to action more easily.
If the effect it is going to have is going to be more positive than negative is going to be something we will see.
We'd be stupid to not try though.
No we'd be stupid to try it instead of waiting for SMTs and communities and trying it there first.
By the way, you realize that if only a few people downvote (likely) their downvotes are going to allocate the entire downvote pool, making their votes significantly more impactful than their stake, right?
The downvote pool is a manapool and not a reward pool.
So it's individual.
Also, communities are not going to solve it, they are more a frontend story. And SMTs might as well need it.
Communities and SMTs likely go hand in hand. They solve it becuase steemit becomes part of the base layer and the rewarding layer and content discovery is done within communities where moderators etc can use downvotes or flags and they can set their own economics for each community.
Again the fundamental question is, will these changes bring in users or chase users away and it seems very likely it is going to be more of the second one.
Well, there are objective parameters by which you can determine that.
I could give you a dozen examples.
Photography, art, music. There are objective parameters in each category that determine what is quality and what is not.
Even when concerning quality of text....
But thats not the question really. What i find important is the CHOICE...
The most important change Steem needs is that we introduce choice into our content placement.
Maybe the community is stupid and has a shitty taste in content but it should be able to make that choice for itself. Something which it does not right now.
But here i completely agree. If there was a way to mask who the downvoter is on a post that would do the trick.
Then you would actually see people acting the way they should. Based on their personal convictions.
If you could encrypt, somehow, the downvoter on a post i guarantee you that bad apples like Bernie, FTG, chbartist... etc would be booted off the platform by the time the community realizes that the system works... I would bet every penny of crypto i have that would happen.
Unfortunately it wont and youre left with an idea that only works if youre incapable of assessing human behavior.
But there is not, because "transparency"! Which will make every downvote personal and not do what they are designed to do at all. Which means, it won't work.
You keep bringing up the "whale experiment" like it was the same thing. It was nothing like what is being proposed here. The whale experiment was a couple of whales that set up to auto downvote (negate) any votes that were over X amount of vests. All they did was put a cap on influence. It couldn't last because eventually people split their stake into different accounts to stay under that max threshold. Completely different than what is being proposed now.
Not sure that would do anything... but yes that is how "quality" will be defined. One man's trash is another man's quality. Though more likely it will be people upvting friends no matter what they put out and downvoting those they dislike no matter what they put out. Please tell me how that is proof of brain?!