Is There a Fix For Hive's Downvote Problems?
There have been two posts on the Hive blockchain in the last week that define an ongoing debate about how to improve Hive and make it a better Web3 ecosystem. I'm a bit at odds with both ideas. Let's take a look at them.
The first of these, posted yesterday, is about LeoAds, a new initiative that will roll out on November 1 and showcase advertising on the Hive blockchain through InLeo (formerly LeoFinance). The LeoAds discussion has been going on for a couple of years on Hive. One group of Hivers believe that advertising will be an improvement on the blockchain and this advertising is scheduled to roll out in November. The claim from this group of Hivers is that advertising will make Hive more Web3. Every time the issue comes up, I have just one question:
How will advertising make Hive more Web3?
No one has been able to answer this question. It all boils down to additional monetization for those who choose to accept ads on their posts. But content monetization isn't Web3. It's one component of Web3 that is also a feature of Web2, particularly when it appears in the guise of advertising. Other components of Web3 include decentralization, censorship-resistance, and identity and asset protection.
The problem with advertising is that advertisers usually want to influence the message. When content creators take on sponsors, those sponsors don't want to be criticized and very often will withdraw their advertising if initiatives they support are challenged. That is not censorship-resistance.
I'll be watching the LeoAds initiative closely to see exactly how that plays out on the Hive blockchain and whether it leads to advertisers wanting more control over content messaging.
Hive5 and the Battle Over Downvotes
The other initiative being proposed is a bit more honest, in my opinion. A user on the Hive blockchain who goes by @agorise made a public post suggesting some changes to the core code of Hive that will curtail the centralization of power into the hands of a few. His proposal is organized into 12 core components.
@unklebonehead and I had @kencode on the Defluenced podcast this week to discuss his ideas. You can listen to that podcast right here:
We only got to talk about the first component of the proposed changes, which deal with the downvote feature on Hive. No one is suggesting the downvote feature be done away. Ken Code was very clear about that. However, there are some recognizable abuses of the downvote button that some people on Hive want to change.
Personally, I understand their arguments. I've never had a problem with people downvoting my content. Evidently, some people have and Ken Code names them.
The biggest issue seems to be that whales have such massive power on the blockchain that they can downvote a new user to such a degree that user ends up with a negative reputation score from which they can't recover and end up leaving the blockchain. If we were talking about child pornographers, rapists, and murderers, no one would care. But, according to Code, we're talking about legitimate content creators who post about controversial topics, and some of them have quite a following on other platforms.
I haven't researched Code's claims to see how accurate they are, but if they're even modestly accurate, then I'll admit there's a downvote problem on Hive.
There are other issues with the downvote button. For instance, I've actually witnessed downvote wars (on both Hive and Steemit) where individuals, and even groups, got into a dispute over something and busied themselves downvoting each other's content into obscurity. I've witnessed a few whales take it upon themselves to simply target someone of a weaker economic class as a "defense" for one of their friends whom the whale felt was downvoted or criticized unfairly. This, too, flies in the face of censorship-resistance. The claim that the Hive blockchain is censorship-resistant when this kind of behavior exists is weakened.
I'm not saying that Hive is not censorship-resistant. However, whales using the downvote feature as a weapon against those they don't like or agree with on matters that are not repugnant to the majority of the community certainly places those whales in a censoring position when their downvotes target those of a weaker economic class on the blockchain.
What the proposal attempts to do is mitigate the fallout from this type of behavior on the blockchain. In the real world, we have laws that protect weaker classes from those with an imbalance of power. These laws are meant to distribute justice fairly among all citizens of the population. On blockchains, which are often populated by people from all over the world and from a variety of cultures and nations, the only "law" that can address justice in a meaningful way is the code. How does the code make the system more fair for everyone such that a few don't end up dictating how everyone else behaves, what everyone else can say, and how everyone else can monetize their content and express themselves.
I'm not convinced that the proposal offers the best solution, but I do at least recognize the chutzpah of Ken Code, Agorise, and others who support the proposal. All they want to do is have a discussion. Certainly, the Hive community can give them that.
Image is a screenshot from the original post.
This post was first published by Author Allen Taylor at Paragraph.
I really need to let you write the podcast descriptions and show notes. I suck as a writer. Lol.
I've never actually thought of that. lol
I don't think you're doing a bad job.
Huh? There is hardly a few and anyone can do something about it instantly, power up instead of constantly selling.
That being said, very few people actually downvote yet everyone wants to complain about downvotes. Ken actually complaining is actually hysterical on a few levels but I’ll leave those to your imagination.
There is a perception of Hive being a "Ponzi scheme" that benefits the whales and no one else. Much of that perception is by former users. Some of it comes from not understanding the economics of the platform, which are quite complex, to be honest. One almost needs an advanced degree in mathematics to understand it.
Powering up certainly is the desirable thing to do. When one understands the point to doing so, it makes perfect sense. I think a lot of people are bitten by the instant gratification bug. They want the immediate income rather than the long-term economic benefit. Human nature, I guess.
I don't know how many use the downvote button. I do know there are people who have taken it upon themselves to "correct" posts that they perceive to be overcompensated. This is childish behavior, which is going to happen on any platform, probably more so on a platform that offers economic incentives. We don't want that guy earning more than he's worth, sort of thinking. Okay, well, that's really silly, especially if that guy has been on the blockchain for two months and has a reputation of 39. If that kind of behavior drives people away from the blockchain such that they never come back and badmouth the blockchain when they go, then it is damaging. And, I would say it's damaging in a way that none of us should want.
I don't agree with everything in @kencode's proposal, but I think it's worth discussing. Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved. That's my line of thinking.
Just look at trending and you can see this is bs. How many "whales" do you see on trending pulling in $50-100+/day from the global inflation?
I can tell you, as the person who uses it the most on the chain... Not enough.
Childish behavior? You ok with this?
Without downvotes, this is all you would see. Just look at Steem trending and see what it has become.
I won't argue there are shitty downvotes here, but it's hardly a epidemic, as someone who has giant whales downvoting anything I do (because I fight abuse), I still support downvotes.
No one's saying downvotes should disappear. I was very active on Steemit. I witnessed bidbot abuse, which is likely what that $900+ is all about. I'm glad we don't have that issue on Hive. Still, a good system can have inequities.
I'm curious, where are the metrics that show who has the most downvotes? Is there someone tracking that, or does that come from researching chain transactions? It could take a lot of time to determine that manually.
I'm not saying I agree with the Ponzi scheme mentality. I defend Hive when I hear it because I don't believe it either, but it is a negative perception that we face, and if that perception leads to people shying away from Hive, it's something that will eventually have to be dealt with. We already know Hive has been losing users. There could be any number of reasons for that, some are likely unrelated to this discussion. But it's worth discussing, nonetheless IMO.
I just did a query on last 30 days of downvotes. Most of these downvotes have almost no affect on payout as they are microscopic. Mine, adm, and gogreenbudy (who follows mine) are the only ones with any real weight. Adm is the main account used by Hive Watchers themselves. So please show me where whales are misusing downvotes, or are you just repeating garbage other people say?
Ken has an agenda, he is referring to the downvotes I give tdvtv, who is his customer. This account posts 40+ times a day, many times duplicate content, almost always other people's content, and many times his stuff is broken and posts the same thing multiple times. Ken was pissed I was downvoting it, but ultimate resulted in his change it so most of the posts are declined payout when it isn't his own content (which is a good thing). He then contacted me later asking me to do something because he accused this account to be a pedophile and putting his family at risk due what he has seen in his videos. I told him to contact the police, I have nothing to do with it. Yet he calls me a criminal for downvoting the account which I do as I feel it is in Hive's best interest, not my own.
This whole downvote thing is absolute bullshit. It's a microscopic issue, that they blow up to be an epedemic. Again, this is coming from someone who has had the most malicious downvotes than anyone on Hive. I've been downvoted for over $400 a day for months. I have one whale downvoting me for $60+ when I post. Yet I am still one of the biggest supporters of downvotes.
Everyone on Hive has an agenda. Wanting growth for Hive again is not a bad thing like you imply.
Vigilante.tv contributors have every right to post 100+ times a day if they like. They are adding more awesome Creators to their platform every month and many of them post daily. The Hive blockchain enables a platform to post every 6 minutes if you like and personally I would encourage them to grow even bigger and onboard more Creators.
That did happen in the past, but some dupe-detection code was added so that it would spot dupes automatically, so hopefully dupes are not slipping thru anymore. You sound as if you found some other dupes slipping through tho.. If the code misses a duplicate, then why not let the platform owner know about it? They have a Contact Us page here:
https://vigilante.tv
A $60 downvote won't affect you the same way it would affect someone with a reputation of 30. This is all relative. As a witness, I would expect you to make enemies. If you're not, you probably aren't doing something right.
I'm merely reporting what other people say. It's not all about Ken Code. There are MANY people, former users of both Hive and Steemit, who have negative feelings about these platforms about the very same thing. Can they all be wrong?
Do you know 30 rep users (who are model citizens) getting $60 downvotes?
People say a lot of useless shit. Again, show me where this is happening.
I'm talking about perceptions. If you have a lot of former Hivers with the same complaint, there's probably something to it. It takes all of a few days to make a reputation of 30. That's not enough time to prove oneself a "model citizen". As people join a new platform, they need some time to learn about its culture. If their first few experiences are slaps in the face for violating some unspoken or difficult-to-find rules, then they're likely to leave and not come back.
Again, please show me rep 30's getting hit with $60 downvotes. All I am hearing is he said she said.
If that's what you're hearing, you aren't listening.
My bad, show me examples.
I'd love to. You tell me a tool that measures downvotes. I've looked and can't find one. Here's an interesting post from a month ago that attempts to answer the question. I disagree with @demotruk's conclusion, however. Here's why:
Well, if there's no way to determine the full monetary value of an upvote or downvote, then the discussion we're having is moot. Neither you nor I can show any evidence to prove any claim we make regarding the question. I think you knew that already.
He goes on to say:
Since this is a complex issue, it's necessary to get into that level of detail. Has anyone done that? If they have, I'd like to see it.
In his "hack," he defines Heavy Downvotes as:
Again, while interesting, that's not really helpful. Hive Stats shows that your own current voting power at 30% is worth just $23 and some change. While that isn't a lot, it can devastate a new user who introduces himself and earns $25 on an introduction post only see that gone in a microsecond with a single vote. A person with thin skin, a low level of self-confidence, and an imperfect understanding of the blockchain incentives system may just feel discouraged and reticent to give it another go.
He concludes that there is no "statistical" relationship between heavy and whale downvotes to user retention, however, I would conclude the relationship is indeterminable. He goes on to say:
And to that, I agree. Have you seen such an analysis. Are there blockchain tools available that would allow anyone an opportunity to make such an analysis? I'm asking, and if you're an honest man, answer me honestly. If I conduct such an analysis and it proves that downvotes do not lead to a user retention problem, I'll make the post public and allow everyone to see for themselves.
I didn't see any large downvotes, or any downvotes on that post.
Again, just more stories and could bes maybes. Not actual evidence, or facts.
Imagine if someone with a broom ran around super markets and slapped people in the face? Oh man, this could be devestating.
See, this is a part of the problem. I didn't say there were any downvotes on the post to which I linked. In fact, the post is ABOUT downvotes and whether they are causing a user retention problem on Hive, the very conversation we're having now. If you had read the post, you'd have known that. If you had read the title of the post, you've had known that. Now we're talking about willful ignorance. And just in case there might be some confusion, I'll spell it out: I'm talking about YOU.
It's called logical reasoning. Analysis. That IS a form of evidence. Sure, it's 100% anecdotal, but anecdotal evidence is still evidence. Is it weak evidence? Yes, yes it is. But it's still evidence. And all you have to counter that small amount of weak evidence is some imaginary scenario that makes sense only in your head.
I've actually invited you, and now I'm imploring you, to point me to some tools that will allow me to gather evidence to prove you RIGHT. But instead of helping me help you be right about something that is obviously important to you, you lash out with non-sequiturs and fallacious misdirections. I want to be your friend, but you seem intent on making an enemy. If there's no evidence that downvotes has created a user-retention problem for Hive, a proper analysis should reveal that. Where is it?
Again my point, just a bunch of people talking. No actual downvotes just would be could be.
I don’t need or want to read the post, I’ve seen enough people crying about downvotes that haven’t happened.
Exactly, just a bunch of people crying about things that haven’t happened.
It’s a public blockchain, it’s all right here. There are no tools to providing downvotes. You can use any programming language to query the blockchain or even use SQL but unless you’re a developer you are not going to get far. I mean with all these people crying about downvotes, surely one of them must have seen them. In almost every instance the downvotes are justified. Not 100% of the time but it isn’t even remotely an epidemic, but what is crying about it without evidence.
You are the one making the argument. Surely you have evidence on your side rather than just repeating other people’s nonsense? You are asking someone who could care less about this crying wolf to prove a negative.
All I am asking for is one simple thing. Evidence. You are providing an argument but it’s all just based on hearsay.
I'm not making an argument. I'm presenting a query. But I'm talking to a deaf man.
lol sorry to interrupt your crying. Feel free to go back to it.
!lol
https://hivealive.io/untrending
You can see from marky's numbers above that freebornsociety is a good resource to follow along with for who is flagging what.
The different weights are different flaggers.
This discord is the second antiabuse initiative in the hive: https://discord.gg/sR7gBWfZb, many of the curators are there.
There isn't a widespread downvote problem in the hive, there is an entitled to rewards issue, though.
IF you don't believe me, follow along and find out for yourself.
I had to, and the years since have proven marky correct.
lolztoken.com
But it folded.
Credit: reddit
@allentaylor, I sent you an $LOLZ on behalf of antisocialist
(1/4)
NEW: Join LOLZ's Daily Earn and Burn Contest and win $LOLZ
Any time something of value is at stake, there will be corruption. People will feel entitled. What strikes me as funny is that both sides of this debate point the finger at the other side as the entitled. Both are correct.
Please show me these corrupted downvoters. I'd also love to know how they make money off their downvotes.
Downvotes are not necessarily about making money. It's very often about preventing someone else from making money, or making "too much" money. Like, how much is too much?
All of this voting is subjective. What would be interesting is to conduct a study on upvotes and downvotes. Why do we do it? Why does Subject A upvote Subject B? Why does Subject C downvote Subject D? In either case, there is an incentive or a disincentive at play. The blockchain has given rise to more than one short-form content frontend because of the debate over whether short-form content can provide value. Most of us would agree that it can, but there are some people who would prefer that Hive remain a long-form content medium. Some of those folks have downvoted short-form content just for being short-form content.
I've got nothing against the downvote button, but there are people who clearly feel the need to use it to somehow correct a perceived injustice for every individual who receives "too many" upvotes or is about to receive an abundance of rewards for an introductory post. Flagging spam and plagiarism are a given, but hitting everything that appears to be low-value content might mean misjudging some of them.
Downvotes are a balance to upvotes, a lot of content here is grossly over-rewarded and a lot is grossly under rewarded in comparison. The system was designed for the community to vote with both upvotes and downvotes to establish what the community feels is a fair amount.
Most people will immediately flip out if there is a downvote regardless the amount or reason.
Prior to me getting involved, there were multiple 100% automated posts making $100+/day. Do you feel that is fair to authors who put hours into writing their own content and make less than $1?
I 100% agree there are bad downvotes, but it is extremely rare and far less common than bad upvotes. I don't feel it is even remotely a epedemic. It's a problem, but extremely rare and 100% fixable with the tools already available to us.
Not all downvotes you feel are bad are actually bad downvotes, in most cases you either don't know why they are happening, or don't want to accept it.
As the largest downvoter on the platform, I don't go around downvoting people because I don't like them or disagree with them. I can't speak for everyone, but the reality is most people here have no significant stake so their downvotes are virtually meaningless.
I feel entitlement is far more of a epedemic here than these rogue downvotes you can't produce.
I don't know if it's "most" people, but a lot of people do, and I think the reason is because they value their own content more than everyone else does. Instead of seeing it as an object lesson, they see it as an injustice. Human nature, I guess.
Life isn't fair. If this happens as a consequence of this:
then the community has spoken, but keep in mind that "the community" consists of whales who can upvote or downvote at 10% percent with a strength greater than a dozen plankton with an upvote or downvote of 100%. To some people, that can seem like an imbalance. I certainly believe that those who have built their reputations on the chain should have more clout. But with greater clout comes greater responsibility.
We found something to agree on.
No one knows why anyone else is downvoting unless they ask, or the downvoter discloses it. When I downvote, which is not often, I do usually leave a comment explaining why. The exception is when something is blatantly spam or plagiarized. I've actually seen people bragging about downvoting something they thought was low-value and I do think there is a huge grey area where "low-value" content can mean a lot of things that are relative to each other. Maybe someone's English isn't that great, so their prose seems choppy and broken. Maybe they aren't great at expressing themselves in written form but have interesting ideas. "Low-value" is a relative term that can mean different things to different people.
Entitlement is a big problem for the human face in general. Especially in the U.S.
Nobody asks their upvoters why they upvoted.
Few want to suffer what comes with downvoting, even 'correctly'.
It's not rocket surgery, original content, every time.
People doing that don't get flagged, very often.
Thanks for the HiveAlive link. Just what I asked @themarkymark for and didn't get. I've removed my witness vote from him and given it to @ura-soul instead. That's a very useful resource.
Ura had a downvote problem for a long time, too.
Thanks, I appreciate it. Unfortunately, some of the other top 20 witnesses even ridiculed me building the downvote table!
I will be rebuilding that entire website soon and improving it quite a bit, just need more spare time.
I personally have no problems with the downvote table, more information is a not a bad thing, the crying about downvotes in every single channel on every platform was what I found annoying, but I ignored most of it. Everywhere I went, it was you ranting about downvotes for quite a while.
I wasn't actually referring to you with this comment. A couple of others seemed a bit nervous and leapt into attack mode.
I know, but downvotes are constantly complained about, but it is rarely a real issue, and the community has the tools to easily counter them. Upvotes are far more poorly used by a factor of 10,000x.
You have no way to know the lost growth that has occurred due to public perception of the presence of misplaced downvotes. I feel I have a better perspective on that because I am aware of the people making the comments and their reach. I feel that you can't be hearing them or you wouldn't be taking the position that you are taking here - assuming that you want Hive to grow.
I'm sure you do.
I am probably the most downvoted person here, I also give out the most downvotes. I can't even post right now because I am downvoted for $60 on every post and I can't curate because whoever I upvote gets downvoted. Yet I still support downvotes.
I think your logic suggests that you don't have a burning desire to post and to be read on Hive, otherwise you would just try to rebalance your relationship with the community to stop the downvotes you receive.. Plus would feel the frustration of not being able to post and would be more likely to view the situation as a form of censorship.
A network that offers 'uncensored' posting has a powerful selling point in the wider world, but not if perception of it is negative for other (and related) reasons.
The people who most want to be heard and who are censored a lot are going to do what they can to go where they aren't censored. If they get 'demonetised' in any way (including through excessive downvoting) they will tend to label it as censorship. I personally agree with them because I can't logically view the situation in any other way without denying something.
LOL, it's one party who is mad that the abuser he was upvoting got downvoted. It has nothing to do with the community. You can read about it here if you care, but it's just nonsense and I just don't give a shit anymore I got better things to do with my time. It's what comes with dealing with abuse, and it is one of the rare cases downvotes are used maliciously. For everyone else, it's extremely rare and not even remotely a large scale problem. You seem to have recovered just fine with your $100+ posts, yet you were going everywhere anyone would listen to you screaming bloody murder about downvotes.
During the Steemit.com days, there was a general agreement to only use downvotes to combat blatant spam and abuses that the community generally agreed on. It worked reasonably well as I recall.. Then things got 'organised' by way of 'enforcers' taking on the job of network cops. No-one really asked for it, but they bravely stepped up anyway.
I don't know exactly what is motivating the continuing downvotes against you, but I presume that it is possible for you to do or say something that would change the situation. If I had to guess I would say it's likely that the downvotes continue because of your unchanging opinions on the topic. As far as I can tell, you make enough money from being in the top 20 witness spot that you aren't really bothered about some author rewards or the downvotes involved.
I took a long break from posting here and put my energy elsewhere instead of helping to directly grow Hive. I guarantee that there are many people who would have put their own time into marketing and growing Hive, who didn't, specifically because of the lack of restraint on Hive with downvoting and the top-down attempt to control the network for 'safety' that didn't exist so much on Steem. It's sad that we had to leave Steem due to top-down control and yet the first thing certain people did when creating Hive is to add a bit of that in themselves. I don't personally think it has helped and those who mock the 'anarcho' aspect of the design behind Steem and Hive are clueless as to what makes it work, why Steem was the once number 2/3 chain in the world and why Hive will never get anywhere near that as long as their behaviour continues.
Again, I'm not really talking about you with this later comments - but you do seem to share the view that none of this is a problem.
I was there on Steemit in those days when certain people decided they had to protect the rewards pool and went on downvoting sprees to do just that. And then there were the downvote wars. Entire groups of people attacking other groups with downvotes just to prove a point. Was it widespread? Probably not. But it was ridiculous watching it happen.
I do recall that too, yes, but the overall 'guidelines' for what was 'fair game' for downvotes was far more open at that time. That being said, yes, ultimately anyone could downvote anything in any way and face the consequences.
That doesn't fit the agenda in their head, and they don't want to hear it.
I see that, too.
Too bad they still had to read it.
Maybe their illusion will shatter.
Nah, people are incapable of changing their minds.
Alot of them, for sure.
There are techniques, though.
Yay! 🤗
Your content has been boosted with Ecency Points, by @allentaylor.
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for new Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more