In regards to diminishing returns on voting for the same authors, I understand how this could alleviate problems with botting, but doesn't this diminish the value of Steemit as a social media platform? It's not incorrect to say that many users follow a few "favorite" people that may post things that they like, and upvote just about everything that author posts. Naturally, this shouldn't be for the sole purpose of making money, but I feel as if it's unfair for users to profit less from voting on specific authors again and again. Perhaps a more efficient way to alleviate the problem in a similar, but fairer, way would be to check the actual quantity of authors that a user commonly votes on versus their votes on authors that they may not have upvoted before. This would allow for a better analysis of how diversed someone is in their voting, however I must admit it sounds pretty difficult in terms of developing this method, it's just an idea to be thought on.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There shouldn't be a major issue here, the diminishing returns will only kick in if someone uses a vast majority of their VP to vote on the same people. They are either a) extremely lazy and ineffective curator or b) abusing/self voting. In both cases, penalty is valid. For most people, this wouldn't matter much, while incentivizing the proactive curators who go out and actively seek a diversity of content.
Or c) trying to support a content creator.
I vote for people regularly who without my meagre vote get $0.01 for their posts, should I, and others like me be punished for trying to encourage a poster to carry on?
Cg
A majority is 50+%, a 'vast' majority? Gimme a number. Something to work with here.
I enjoy some prolific authors that serialize content here, and on days when I catch up on their work, most of my votes can go to them.
Thus the time frame considered for a penalty is also relevant. Is this per day? Per week? Month? The only week for which I have data, last week, I hit over 150 unique accounts with upvotes.
This idea may be more complex in practice than in theory.