Quality, engagement, popularity, and professionalism appear to be pillars of the Hive blockchain. I've learned it's an incredibly flexible system with the goals of decentralization and financial benefits for its users. Like any system, however, there are benefits and disadvantages. The intent of this article isn't to touch on the blockchain in general.
Quality and the Eye
I see someone's article as a presentation of themselves. You are putting your time and effort into something, and you want to display it to the world. If it follows some basic rules, and I see the article, I'll curate it accordingly. I will rarely if at all now, give a 100% vote.
I'm hesitant to write what I find to be high quality because I understand that not everyone sees things the way I do.
- What I'll do, instead, is to write down what I find to be the baseline.
- What is the minimum I look for that drives me to upvote a post?
- What drives me to downvote a post?
Before I get into this topic, I'd like to write about the support I receive.
Voting Trails and Delegation
I rarely vote at 100% because I see people in the Hive community working to improve their standing. Sometimes community members get support; other times, they don't. By reducing my voting power per article, I'm reaching a wider audience. It makes curation for a very long day, but I feel it's worth it. Doing this feels right to me.
Proofofbrain granted me a delegation to provide funding for managing the Word of the Week (WOTW) contest created by @Calumam. The competition is unique in its evaluation of articles and transparency. The community gets to see exactly how we evaluate and how the rewards and curation get issued.
Another reason for reducing my VP per article is because I've learned that I have people following my voting trail. It adds additional strength to my vote, and I must use this responsibly. The intent of the people following my votes and the delegation I have is to spread the wealth to those responsibly that I can reach.
When I use what I've been given, I have a set and repeatable pattern of curating that I follow. If I can't follow it, I ask for it to be removed as I have in the past. Voting trails and delegations are for people who intend to use them for the betterment of the platform. At least, that's how I'm handling mine.
On Moderating
I support the use of downvotes and upvotes on the Hive blockchain. However, my view on these actions does not necessarily align with others.
Upvotes
In my opinion, upvotes can be as bad as downvotes. If you consistently vote high on an article that doesn't deserve it, you reduce the value of the produced content. How would we feel if something we've worked hard to create has a fraction of what it's worth?
My employers ascribe a high value for my work in the real world and pay me accordingly. If they paid me a fraction of this value, my world would be a different place.
When upvoting, the Hive community and the POB tribe appear to have mixed feelings.
- Point #1: If an article receives an upvote, then the perception is that people like it and encourage you to produce the same Content.
- Point #2: If YOUR article receives an upvote, then Point #1 applies for various reasons.
- Point #3: If YOUR article DOES NOT receive an upvote, then Point #1 may NOT apply for various reasons.
Remember that just because you do not receive an upvote, it doesn't mean your article isn't worthy of it. There are a lot of factors in play. It's essential to bring up your concerns if you don't receive the support you feel you deserve. Some solid reasons may apply:
- Engagement
- Topic of writing
- Tag use
- Following
We can talk about these in the comments. Please remember, though, that I'm not an expert on Hive or POB by any means. I'll answer honestly and seek help if I can't respond intelligently.
Downvotes
Again, in my opinion, downvotes can have the same impact as an upvote. A difference is that there is a negative stigma attached to it. On my end, I use downvotes against certain behaviors like plagiarism. I have also used it as a disagreement with rewards.
However, I won't apply a downvote without explaining the reason for it. The reasoning is crucial because:
- It lets the user know about the reason for the downvote.
- The user can challenge the downvote or accept it and change the behavior that led to the downvote.
- Both people can agree to disagree and move on.
If both parties do not agree on the downvote, the Freeze Peach option is available, but I don't know much about it personally. You can apply for a counter to a DV and, if they approve, counter a downvote you feel is not justified.
If you disagree with a DV in the POB tribe, you can bring it up to my @scholaris.pob account, @trostparadox, or @proofofbrainio. I don't know that we've countered a DV before, but we'll look into it. None of us like downvotes, but we have an understanding of them.
I could probably write indefinitely about the pros/cons of voting. However, I'll keep this topic short for now. Don't forget to share your views on the topic.
The Basics
When I read an article, I avoid voting on articles that have the following:
| Criteria | Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Plagiarism | Images are not referenced with a link to the source. |
| Content is not referenced where applicable with a link to the source. | |
| Content appears to be spun or rephrased. | |
| Content Writing | Trolling, singling out people, abusive or violent language. |
| Spam in the article. | |
| NSFW in the article. (I've got kids, and I'll get fired at work) |
I hang on use of markdown, referencing, and citations because of my work in STEM in the real world. It would be best if you used it. I have seen careers end because of someone's inability to use it. I have seen worlds rocked because something so simple to understand got compromised by a moment of fraudulent behavior. If I find fraud, I will downvote.
As far as NSFW, I can't read that stuff as I have kids, and they're nosy. At work, most of everything I do gets monitored. I'm not losing my job, lol.
I haven't been notifying people that I can't curate their work for any of the above reasons. I should do that, and I will, but only for those articles that aren't earning. I won't do that for pieces that have made a reasonable amount of POB. People have the right to vote on what they like. It's not for me to downvote an article because I don't like the content.
Take Splinterlands, for example. I don't know a lot about the game, but I am fascinated by the lore, and I'm reading more on it. When I see some articles about stats and what they earn sometimes, I disagree with it. However, I won't negatively affect the rewards either. It's not my place unless it becomes fraudulent. I'll learn plenty about it in time, and I do not doubt that my disagreement will go away.
My position on content creation and quality are very similar to that of @nonsowrites who stated very clearly:
There is more to becoming a top creator on hive than creating quality content. For example, your stake, reputation, and contribution are important aspects to your growth/patronage/support on the blockchain. These things are all currencies and add value to your account over time.
It takes time to earn what you want. Let's work together to get there.
In Closing
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Let's continue to build POB into a platform that supports its content creators. I won't define quality for you. We have to do that as a community and then apply it.
I look forward to any discussions in the comments. Please keep them professional so we can use the conversation to build the community we expect.
This article was inspired by @insight.pob and @onealfa in their POB Street series. If you want to talk Proof of Brain, I would recommend starting there if you haven't.
