Quote from: iamnotback on July 19, 2016, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on July 19, 2016, 07:23:50 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on July 19, 2016, 06:44:39 PM

I have agreed and disagreed with sean-king's "one dimensional/factor" analysis:

https://steemit.com/steem/@sean-king/got-a-problem-with-steem-s-reward-system-read-this#@anonymint/re-sean-king-got-a-problem-with-steem-s-reward-system-read-this-20160719t184300483z

Please upvote if you agree with my point.

unusualfacts30, my linked comment post above addresses your rant.

What a great guy. Sean-king upvoted my post above. Note I had added to the end of that comment post. I think I made a very important point there about voting not being free of mental computational cost.

Edit: I added even more to the end of that comment post:

Quote

The curator rewards are such a small fraction of the voters Steem Power, that only those with significant Steem Power are economically motivated by curator rewards. Thus we could posit that minnow voters have no great mental calculation cost when voting since they can vote their conscience without significant curator reward implications. Although the minnows dont individually have much impact on the payout rewards, collectively they do since there are many more of them than there are whales. Thus we can conclude the white paper is more or less correct w.r.t. to minnows and w.r.t. to whales, the votes are not a replacement for micropayments because the whales vote doesnt involve an insignificant economics value.

I've concluded the minnows always can vote their conscience and ditto the largest whales, yet the problem remains that the dominant game theory is the most upvoted posts will also attract the most upvotes in a vortex of one-size-fits-all:

https://steemit.com/gametheory/@biophil/what-s-a-minnow-to-do-the-game-theory-of-steem-part-4#@anonymint/re-biophil-re-anonymint-re-biophil-what-s-a-minnow-to-do-the-game-theory-of-steem-part-4-20160719t212322332z

Again the solution appears to be the one I blogged about which earned me $7000:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@anonymint/improving-steem-s-rankings-to-cater-to-diverse-content-preferences

Quote from: iamnotback on July 19, 2016, 09:35:11 PM

Quote from: jeffthebaker on July 19, 2016, 09:31:48 PM

This is already a phenomenon seen all over social media. Look at Twitter, for example, where the only metrics of success are likes and retweets. Even there, content is dominated by garbage "parody" accounts, who all repost the same stuff. Why are these accounts the most popular? Well, on a platform like Twitter, people are rewarded via followers and notifications for playing a part of the majority. It's the same reason why you only see conservative view points ridiculed and progressive ones hailed. The best content strays too far from the norm to make up the most exposed content.

You can see this everywhere. Hell, look at top movie lists. The Shawshank Redemption routinely lands #1 on user generated lists that consist of voting for what you like. So does Pulp Fiction. Are these the best two movies ever? No, they aren't. So why do they always land on top? Because they are the goodest. Everyone likes these movies. It may not be everyone's favorite, but everyone likes it.

I was rewarded $7000 for proposing an algorithmic solution to the problem you lament:

Interesting solution, and I do believe that if implemented correctly, this could fix the problem of the same old garbage getting voted for thousands of dollars.

The problem with your solution is that implementing it, while improving the quality of the platform as a whole, would not be in the best interests of the developers. Simply put, people are only using Steemit to make money. Nobody is saying "Wow, look at the quality of content on Steemit!" The ONLY draw to the platform is the profit possibilities. By fragmenting voting into niches, there will no longer be posts earning tens of thousands of dollars. People will see the dollar values going down of top posts (as now money is split more evenly between the topics) and assume the scam is starting to dry out. The longer they can pump this bubble, the better for the few at the top of the ecosystem.