If you find posts that you think are overrewarded due to autovotes/blind votes and want to kind of punish the voters but not the author, would it be acceptable to throw a small downvote and then upvote the author in a comment? Asking for fren
When the post is overrewarded there is no reason to 'compensate' the author isn't it? It would just be to not offend the author.
Downvotes are often not appreciated. And besides that it's a lot of work.
I think it's better to look for a solution to prevent overrewarded posts.
I've would suggest defining a max post payout. When you think an author deserves more than that you can just tip him.
This way the autovoters need to distribute their votes better and more accounts will profit from upvotes.
I don't do that myself. I have no issue with that though. I've been downvoted that way several times on my top rated posts (although it was without an explanatory comment, but you kinda know).
This method would literally make up for the pending author rewards lost from the downvote. Maybe don't be so oversensitive to downvotes which causes no one to use them and we end up seeing so much farm and trash getting rewarded.
Maybe don't get into the habit of telling me what to do, Acidyo -- this is two days in a row. I'm not the farm or the trash. You take that out somewhere else.
I asked a random question and your 2nd point literally nullifies the whole idea presented, why would the author feel a pinch if THE IDEA itself presented here makes up for the pinch?
Some very old wisdom: "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no." If you think it should be upvoted, just upvote it. If you think it is rewarded enough or too much already, you can just let it be or downvote it. Splitting hairs on downvoting is too complicated.
Some times it's not the authors fault a small/short/low effort post gets overrewarded cause so many are just voting blindly/auto/trailing
Then maybe the problem has to be addressed on the end with the big trail leaders ... I largely know curators like Qurator and Curangel and Curie and of course OCD where somebody has to read something, but if there is a general problem, maybe it needs to be addressed on that end.
Many aren't available for contact, there's even a few big accounts who often stack votes and control trending like rancho/haejin/trafalgar you can't reason with or contact. It leads to a lot of low effort/low engagement posts ending up on trending making the platform look dead.
That may require a high-effort answer ... Hive has some great developers and a fork coming up ... can the algo for trending be tweaked a little on Hive.blog and PeakD?
My guess is, the contactless-that-be don't care if the posts trend as much as they care that they get paid. If they don't care, they won't be looking if their picks aren't seen in Trending so long as that doesn't mess with their money.
If it's not the authors' fault, then the root cause needs to be addressed. Discouraging the remaining authors Hive has is not wise, because without any authors left, how do you think the very big accounts you mentioned are going to pay themselves to get out?
Why would they be discouraged if the comment vote makes up for the downvote on the post? Are you trying to be difficult on purpose at this point? That was literally what my original question/idea pointed to.
It is so interesting that you accuse me of being hypersensitive, Acidyo. If I choose to be difficult with you, you will know.
So, there is a post. It gets DVed. No comment yet exists. Author may or may not make a comment to UV. That's the mechanical problem as I understand it.
A comment isn't too hard to come to existence if you ask them after you downvote followed with a short explanation as to why. Yeah dunno, not interested in discussing things with you in the future if this is how you go about things.
But if it is not the author's fault, that is not where the force needs to be applied. Hive has great developers -- I say again, can someone on Hive.blog or PeakD jigger with the Trending algos, perhaps, so that big upvoted posts from certain known trails don't dominate?
Fidgeting with the trending list doesn't change "shitposts" getting too much rewards. The idea is to punish the blind/auto voters only without the drama of authors feeling like you took something from them if you give them a comment vote instead.
This made me think that one should not focus on trying to solve the symptoms of a #TooFuckeh system but focus on the root cause of problems within the system. !LUV !PIZZA
Hard to say. As long as it didn't violate any like AI texts, copied images, etc. I think it's fine.
If it doesn't create a negative effect on the author's reputation by downvoting the post and then upvoting a comment the same amount, but somehow I doubt this is how rep works. Aren't some rep levels are easier to decrease and way harder to increase, depending on the threshold??
What is overrewarded?
If you look at the rewards and look what the big guys vote, you will see they most of the time upvote the same users. And most of the time these are also users with big HP.
Maybe voting power should be distributed on a bell curve so outliers like rancho/haejin/trafalgar can't vote more than median amount of HP or something like that. This would give the hive as a whole incentive to grow instead of contract like it does now.
Yeah but we all know 99% feel like you're taking rewards from them even if it's just pending, dunno, was just a thought to like soft-downvote to only affect bad curators' returns.
You can't really control how people take things, you can pretty much assume anything that reduces how much money they make will upset them. That includes you not upvoting every post of theirs 100%.