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.
Listen... if God or my earthly father didn't want to talk with me, that would be a problem. You, sir, not wanting to talk with me after catching an attitude because I wouldn't instantly tell you how great your idea is, but had mere questions?
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.
The only person behaving in a dramatic way, throwing accusations of overly emotional behavior around, is you, Acidyo.
Now you have added a detail: if you ASK for a comment, it indeed will be there, but you did not say that at first.
As for punishing people who are auto-voting ... basically, is what you are getting at is messing up their money by shifting the money to the comment? This would mean that you and "fren" have got to ask and explain on every post ... complicates your workload.