UserAuthority has been launched publicly by @scipio and @holger80 less than two weeks ago.
It has received a massive support both in terms of total delegations and of number of delegators in the little time since it has become public.
You can see the delegators here.
Without trying to influence you in any way by sharing my thoughts first, I'd like to hear your first impressions about UserAuthority.
Please comment below with your answer!
I'll also attempt to entice you to answer the question, by setting up a reward in a new contest. :)
Rules to participate in the contest:
1. Comment to this post with your answer
2. Follow @gadrian
3. Resteem this post, please!
One of the answers (randomly selected, as long as it respects the rules above), will be the lucky winner of
1 SBD
1 SBDHere's the question again:
What are your first impressions about UserAuthority?
I promised to hold at least monthly contests. There we go, I found a good opportunity for a new contest. Looking forward for your answers!
First impressions:
UA for ranking
The current reputation system has massive problems. Creators of poor content who rent SP or use bid-bots can crank up their reputation in zero time and once beyond the range of those that might deal out an occasional flag, there is no incentive left to even keep up the guise of half decent content. While the UA ranking would be amazing if used by the platform itself, most importantly in our ability to flag those who have artificially inflated their reputation. The fact that for now, it doesn't work that way seems to mean that basically, UA has no teeth.
Witnesses as initial source of reputation.
It seems a nice idea to have witnesses that are the initial source of the reputation as "trusted" users. Given though that a few witnesses don't exactly have a clean rap sheet when it comes to beening upstanding steemians makes me think they might do better. I think the source of trust should rest with established real curation initiatives like @curie, @utopian-io and @steemstem.
Algorithmic curation
Fake curation is the problem, not the solution. Bid bots messed up the existing rep system because basically, they do false curation. Thinking that creating another false curation system seems, well, rather optimistic.
Why not flagging instead?
The big problem with the current rep system isn't going anywhere if delegated SP gets used to reward. It might though if it was used to punish. What if the UA delegations would get used to actually undo or at least attenuate a bit of the damage done by the problems with the old rep system? The idea would be simple: Follow flags by high-UA users. Turn high-UA into flaging leverage so that high-UA users can help attenuate the high-rep poor-content problem the bid-bots are causing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
UA seems very resource intensive. Do you think it should be included at the blockchain level? As far as I understand things, that would mean all nodes which would have UA enabled, would need to have enough resources to run it, and that might be an issue.
The current solution however is not the best either. What if UA becomes highly used on Steem, but the guys behind it cannot support the system anymore, or something goes wrong at their end?
Thank you for your ample response. I would say a little more about some of your other points, but I'd rather see if we get more answers, and I'm trying not to influence them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think I'll also wait to see if you get more responses first. I just wrote some other thoughts on the subject, two ways in what I think @steem-ua could be that much better (bringing in @freezepeach and replacing algorithmic curation with algorithmic vote-follow).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I'll wait until the week-end to see if there are more comments. Then, the prize will be awarded! :)
I gave my two cents on your post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am not knowledgeable in this area... something to look at for sure! :) The only thing I want to know is who is really in control! :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
UA is determined by an algorithm and updated regularly. The algorithm can be changed, for sure. In that way, the creators of UA are "in control". :) But considering @steem-ua works based on delegations, delegators are also in control.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ah ok... thank you for the response!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not sure if I helped you better understand what it really is, because I focused on answering to your question on who's in control.
So, UA is a metric which thrives to measure each user's "authority" on Steem (an alternate reputation system), based on who follows who (starting with witnesses as references). The more people with high UA follow you directly or indirectly (by following someone who follows you, and so on), your UA increases.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for clarifying the UA!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @gadrian!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 2.081 which ranks you at #22887 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has dropped 26 places in the last three days (old rank 22861).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 236 contributions, your post is ranked at #143.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit