He wouldn't be able to handle all these accounts in a way that every of them could create more or less reasonable comments/posts. However, pure automated comments, created for farming puposes only, could easily be detected and flagged by members of an implemented anti abuse committee, which I suggested, as well.
RE: 100 DAYS OF STEEM : Day 33 - Tackling Abuse on Steem - Part I - What is Abuse?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
100 DAYS OF STEEM : Day 33 - Tackling Abuse on Steem - Part I - What is Abuse?
OK I wrote about 100 acconts.
You are right this is really hard to handle.
But if you allow one vote in full strengh every day it would be also ok to use only 10 accounts.
Every day one post in every of the 10 accounts and the other 9 vote this post.
I think it's not much difference in time to post 10 times a day in one account or to post in 10 accounts only once a day, isn't it ?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's rather easy to spot (even by automated algorithms) if these ten accounts were only interested in upvoting each other instead of upvoting other users as well ...
For example also Voting CSI in SteemWorld would be very low.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
haha, so I am the worsest guy at all cause my Voting CSI is negativ (-0,6)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Indeed, just another evidence of how well these kinds of algorithms are working. ;-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes with 100% selfvoting you have 0.0 (like your friend hae...) so I am worse cause I have 0.0% selfvoting and - 1,1.
OK so your opinion is that selfvoting is better than votings others.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My guess is that the algorithm doesn't differenciate between 'self-voting' and upvoting 'other' accounts. It matters how often and strong certain accounts are getting upvoted (and also how many different accounts are receiving upvotes).
The algorithm cannot know anyway if the upvoted accounts belong to the same user or not.
I didn't write the algorithm of Voting CSI, so I can only guess how it works. It could well be that it also checks how often these upvoted accounts upvote each other (if they are building a closed group which is mutually upvoting each other) and how diverse the upvotes are which they receive from other users (in this aspect @haejin beats you).
All in all it does a great job to detect selfish voting behaviour. YOU and @haejin fully deserve the low rating. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Haha ... I have 0.0% selfvoting :-)
As I see you get for every comment votes from the same two accounts - so probably this is good and normal.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just read what I (already) wrote: the algorithm cannot really know if your self-voting rate is 0.0, because it doesn't know how many accounts you own. That's why the 'official' self-vote rate doesn't matter much for Voting CSI.
Yes, these two accounts upvoting me have a very sensitive algorithm which detects whenever @jaki01 has to spend too much precious time being involved in time consuming discussions, and then grant him some smart money as compensation.
However, Voting CSI also detects on how many different accounts (which are also not upvoting each other) @jaki01 spreads his valuable upvotes and thus grants him the well deserved high rating.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Haha - I even get worse than I was before, now -1,1 :-)
Such I bad boy I am.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit