I think the number of users now has led to a place where there is an audience for every niche. This argument steadily becomes more invalid.
RE: Introducing Smackdown Kitty
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Introducing Smackdown Kitty
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
As long as non-experts are able to vote on comments and posts of all topics, the argument will remain valid. You can't assume that all of the people voting are the ones with expertise.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Experts only rule in the world of governments. Here in the wild west, experts are rare, most people are generalists.
Not only that, there's more people who think they are experts than there actually is experts. So the argument still diminishes in validity over time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
ok. But I don't see how that's relevant. The fact that generalists exist doesn't justify silencing the experts' votes.
The comment that I responded to made a blanket statement that self-votes are always spam. I provided counterexamples demonstrating that self-votes are not always spam, and in fact, they often convey more information than votes cast by others.
This is basic logic. If a counterexample exists, then "always" is shown false. qed
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Your point is valid, however, even 'experts' cannot be considered as such without their peers. Declaring something doesn't make it so. Same applies to voting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit