Word Count: 462 | Est. Reading Time: 1:41 min | Readability Rating: B
Intro
This post is an expansion upon a comment I made yesterday. I noticed today that we currently lack the ability to un-resteem a post. I decided to post about my experience and why I think it'd be a helpful added feature.
Observations
Because I want to support beautiful photography on this platform, I previously upvoted, resteemed, and replied to a photography post, thinking that it was the author's original content.
The next day after seeing the other content posted to that account, most of it clearly not the author's, I decided to check the image with an reverse image search, and found the image on a number of other sites.
From my findings, it became clear that the post violated community guidelines, as outlined by @minnowsupport's post (copyright infringement/plagiarism). The post author made no attempt to credit the original creator of the photo. I unvoted the post, deleted my original reply, and flagged it. In the interest of transparency, I also followed flagging etiquette as outlined here by @onceuponatime and here by @beanz.
Opening a GitHub issue
Image: Ability to un-resteem posts #1713 | Source: GitHub, Josh Peterson | Rights: Fair Use
As you can see from the above screenshot, I opened a GitHub issue relaying my experience.
An Idea
One of the more useful features on other social networks is the ability to un-share a post, whether it be a simple undo or a delete.
As you can see from the scenario that I layed out above, while I expressed my disapproval of the content using the tools at my disposal as a Steemit community member, I'm still stuck with the content on my blog timeline.
This is problematic for two reasons: the first being that the account in question is still receiving traffic to the article by way of my blog timeline; and second, because it remains on my blog timeline, it looks like I approve of the content. This shouldn't have to be the case.
If an un-resteem feature were available, similar to other major social networks, these two problems would be alleviated immediately. This would help to elevate the user experience and further encourage the proliferation of original content.
Please let me know what you think of the idea in the comment section below.
Thank you for reading,
- Josh
View History
View Steemit blockchain activity/edit history | View draft edit history on GitHub | View My Steemit Archive on GitHub
Josh Peterson is a 2016 Robert Novak Journalism Program Fellow and a writer living in Denver, CO. Follow Josh on Steemit and Twitter. Keybase for secure chat. PGP Fingerprint: 4507 3000 1A40 2691 DAB8 ED65 A3EA 3629 73FD B7FF
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
It's a good idea to do something about unwanted resteems. But perhaps instead of introducing the un-resteem option to use users the system could do it automatically when a post gets flagged x-times.
This way the curation system gets improved and we leave it
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That could work, too. I think my only issue with that is you might end up stuck w/content on you carelessly resteemed onto your timeline that might not be objectionable, but you just don't want because it's not representative of what you're trying to present on your blog.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes that's true in case there is nothing wrong with the resteemed content. But in all fairness... Steemit asks you if you're sure you want to resteem...
But I understand the problem. It should be made reversible in some cases in some way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agreed. And you're right - Steemit does ask you to confirm your choices. The initial action is still recorded on the blockchain, so however the upgrade is implemented, you're still accountable for it.
Thank you for feedback. I do like the strike system you proposed. That might be a good way forward.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Either way, it's a good suggestion. Let's hope one of the people with influence sees this and take it up for debate to decide the if and how ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think we're trying for a solution for a problem that doesn't really exist.
First off, people should take more care when voting/resteeming. I think the voting issue is a bigger issues, I see loads of posts with more votes than views.
As far as you're example is concerned, normally when a post is downvoted enough, or by someone powerful enough, it gets greyed out by the system, indicating an issue.
I'm not sure if that works the same for a resteem, but it should. So on your timeline it would also grey-out if that works as I described.
Of course there is still some residue visible of this post on your timeline, but that goes back to one's own responsibility, check before you act ;-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Perhaps you're right. There's no real cost to resteeming, nor does it provide any financial benefit unless you're due for a curation award. While it is a way to provide content your followers might not normally see, and it facilitates engagement and sharing, unless you're a dolphin or a whale, it might not really be that big of a deal in the long run.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @joshpeterson! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDownvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit