Would it be a crazy idea to have both up/down votes for curation plus a front end gimmicky like/dislike or agree/disagree option to diminish this association of a downvote with a kick in the teeth ?
RE: Game of Flags - a "fun" Redistribution Game - WIN STEEM by flagging
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Game of Flags - a "fun" Redistribution Game - WIN STEEM by flagging
That is one reason I have not been convinced about the flag icon. It reinforces the kick-in-the-teeth aspect, which doesn't seem well-suited to a decentralized system. When you flag or report something on a centralized system that means bringing it to the attention of the operator who decides what to do about it, which can also include using its discretion and authority to temporarily or permanently ban the person doing the flagging/reporting for abuse of the feature. That concept makes no sense here. All we have are people expressing their opinions, and I don't see how attaching a value judgment on opinions at the UI level with an icon makes a lot of sense. Better to just leave it value neutral and let the blockchain use the resulting consensus to allocate rewards. That is my view at least.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That would work, I think, if down-votes were to all have equal weight on the payout hit that they cause.
I, personally, am not that fond of the idea that I can get hundreds of up-votes, meaning that a large portion of the community finds my content valuable, only to have one or two whales show up and flag it down to little payout, or, better yet, becoming "invisible" due to the overall vote weight swinging to the negative.
IMO, a fairer way to do the flagging mechanism would be to take the average voting weight of all prior voters and make that the down vote weight. Or, if we must retain incentive for higher SP even with the flag, then give dolphins the equivalent of two down-votes, whales three, and mega-whales four....or something along those lines. It's ridiculous to me that a post can get 10+ up-votes and still be made invisible to the public by one whale flagging it.
I don't think the majority of people uploading content onto YouTube would appreciate having their video thumbed up thousands of times only to have one or two people come in and cast tens of thousands of down-votes. I don't care if those one or two individuals happen to be Jesus Christ and the Laughing Buddha, themselves, people aren't going to take it well, they're probably going to become frustrated by it very quickly and leave the site for good.
Yes?
Of course.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit