Incentivized To Post, Not Comment
The layout of responses is most productive and easily done via linking to someone else's post right now, such as @richdalton's "My Contribution to the "Voting on Comments" Discussion". I've been curious about the voting system, not in terms of making money, but in terms of how it promotes content.
I made a short post about being able to vote on comments, which spurred a discussion that is still ongoing, with good reason, I'd say. It's next in importance of discussion to that of being able to reply to comments. That's why there's such a reaction about it, as it mirrors in a subtle way the entire environment and idea of this site, as Rich Dalton talked about.
I'm going to focus on one part of what you said, Dalton:
First, the voting for comments concept itself. I have one main concern. Because of the way the curation model already works currently, we are encouraged to vote for things we believe will be popular. Not necessarily important. But popular. It probably wasn’t intended to work this way, but it is the way it works. We are extrinsically rewarded with crypto for voting for posts WE BELIEVE WILL BE VOTED ON BY OTHERS LATER, instead of on posts WE BELIEVE ARE IMPORTANT. This is a flaw. I don’t know how to fix it. But we all know that this is how we are encouraged to vote. If we add the voting feature to comments, we will expand this incentive problem to a realm in which it does not exist currently. I would like to see the problem of perverse voting incentives addressed BEFORE expanding the voting feature to another aspect of the platform.
I don't disagree that we are incentivized to vote on what is popular. I disagree that I'll ONLY vote on what's popular.
Sometimes I vote to increase my earnings.
Sometimes I vote because I think a piece of content is fucking awesome.
The current measurement, at least for me, against focusing simply and only on that, is that it spams my notifications, which annoys me to no end.
"ANOTHER NOTIFICATION! OMFG WHAT IS IT WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING?
Oh. It's just another vote."
I value people's thoughts. I've come to almost not voting on content that I know would be popular because I didn't want to get spammed with notifications, falsely alerting me to more "comments".
Let's suppose that this is dealt with and the notifications aren't a bother.
I still don't see it as a flaw, because I do it both ways. When you have variety in options for input, especially in the experimenting stage, the worst can look possible. The question is, how can the metrics be best aligned with the philosophy we want to see promulgate in a socially viable economic fashion? That's the ongoing question, and it's not a closed one, nor is the current model being suggested as an end-point.
What I'm more concerned about in regards to voting on content is whether that will boost past posts to the front. The reason this is key is that that would include and combine the timeless aspect that is currently possible on minds, and combines both the temporal and "trending" nature of voting that which will be popular, with that which is short-term good, and long-term good, because quality content made a year ago could be trending today just as much as something written 5 minutes ago.
I think the bigger concern, which no doubt will be addressed soon, is the lack of the ability to reply to comments. That incentivizes making a post, rather than a comment, as the more comments that are included (with replies to them on the same space), the less coherent each post is, feeding back into the very issue of creating new content and new posts, rather than working on the post that already exists for higher quality content.
Or do you suppose people just make new posts every single day that are amazing with next to no effort?
That's where I see the crux of the issue here being.
There is a tremendous amount of pressure to put out a polished product the first time, when the economic design of Yours is designed to allow posts to be valuable for an indefinite period of time.
Yes, you'll see improved content, at the cost of burn-out.
Lots of people will just stop outputting content because it's exhausting to do so.
The content that will be producible will be those that are interactive like this one, and of course the higher-quality you can do (with more energy expenditure) the better and greater the response.
But why put that pressure there when it could be so much more relaxing of a process?
Why not figure out how to include or embed older posts, making for a more polished product more quickly, but using what is already easily and readily available here?
Yours - Two Opposite Incentives:
My Body Language: The Stock Market
No one has reviewed this piece of content yet