I've read many posts on the so-called "Whale Experiment", which was announced and largely represented (lead?) by @abit and @smooth. It's another fine mess we've gotten ourselves into really isn't it?
For those who don't know about it (what rare fish you are!) some whales decided to not up vote any posts for a while, and counter the up votes of nonparticipating whales with down votes. This post by @liberosist is a good overview.
With Dan's resignation hot on it's heels, uncertainty ahead, people are calling strikes and leaving the platform. I thought I would take a moment to summarize the arguments and objections to the whale behavior, criticising where necessarily, in an attempt to sort the rants from the good points.
About this post
- Challenges issued to the experiment: catalog the general challenges, with my own concession and / or refutation.
- Posts issuing challenges - summary and detail: identifying challenges in a large selection of posts, 22 of them.
- Honorable mentions: some examples of counter-challenges and good attitude to the ups and downs of Steem
- Closing - wrap it up
It is exhaustive but by no means complete.
Challenges issued to the experiment
Requisite of communication
Proposition: whales should have explained what they are doing, to whom, why and for how long - either before commencement, at start of or on demand.
Refutation: whales are free to act according to their own will, as are all users, in accordance with the tools of the Steem blockchain. They are not officials of Steemit Inc. and so no explanation of their actions is required.
Concession: it is of course nice for the larger stakeholders to let the other stakeholders know what they plan to do with their stake when it affects them. It's nice to be nice but not required.
Don't experiment on me
Proposition: subjects and participants of experiments should be consenting.
Refutation: the "experiment" should not be held to scientific standards, as some have suggested, as it did not purport to be that, nor anything else for that matter (it was not communicated). In any case, Steem in it's entirety is experimental and in pre-release AKA beta. However whales are not nessecarily representatives of Steemit (only a few are) and are free to act as they please. Evoking scientific experiment ethics in this is absurd.
It doesn't work
Proposition: the experiment just doesn't work.
Refutation: several users have reportedly seen their relative voting effect increase, as well as curation rewards. It is working, in the sense that influence among non-whales has increased. The other effects are related but separate.
@papa-pepper claims here
Today, however, for the first time ever, when I voted first on my own post, it went up 2 cents.
@lukestokes claims here
I'm quite fascinated by the experiment and am curious to see what happens. I've seen my normal $0.01 vote go to $0.04 which is kind of neat.
@exyle claims here
I also have noticed that my vote is worth (a lot!) more and that’s great fun.
@meesterboom claims here
But suddenly I am finding that my vote carries weight
I can influence other people's payouts!
@neoxian claims here
So far I've seen that my vote has gone from 2 cents to 5 cents, and that's kind of cool.
And I claim here! 😆
My vote looks to be worth 4¢ now.
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
Note: this also includes the challenge of "Quality / hard work does not equal continued votes".
Proposition: I rely on whale votes as a writer. Without them I presume I will make very little and thus am disincentivized to write at all. Perhaps I depend on Steem rewards in some way. I may go on strike, or even leave.
Refutation: At best this betrays a lack of understanding that rewards are allocated by freely cast votes. More usually it is an objection to this voting freedom, mostly on the grounds of quality control. At the worst it is simple entitlement to so-called earnings based on an irrelevant judgement of the merit of their own work.
Some facts: the reward pool stays the same regardless of user action. Allocation of rewards are still done based on votes proportional to voters SP. High reward is not an indicator of quality. Prior reward does not guarantee future reward.
What does change is what I'll call the "Kissed by a Whale" effect, where a post which has been voted for at relatively high power by one or more whales will have high payout. Without these kisses, payouts will rise much less per vote.
The idea of "having an audience" is a bubble which has just burst for some authors. I believe this stems from being mislead that writing well and working hard will result in rewards, if not in the short term then definitely in the long term. I think it does improve one's chances of high reward dramatically, but it does not guarantee it, and the platform is not to blame when you rewards decrease. All voters are free.
This is probably a greater social issue and perhaps why this thinking is so insidious and persuasive. It's classically the "American Dream". From a recent article on university graduates' difficulty in finding work (note that they are Canadian, not from the US!):
McCrave [an engineering graduate] says he believed in the unwritten promise of a post-secondary education: work hard at school, and you'll end up with a good and stable job.
Concession: it is disheartening to see one's post rewards going down, or appearing random. The Steemit.com UI itself is in need of an upgrade to mitigate reward disappointment and in fact correct false impressions from "raw" data. Any statistician will tell you that raw data must be interpreted well to turn data into useful knowledge.
Flags should only be used for abuse
Proposition: whale down voting / flagging to counter other whale votes is improper use of flagging, which is meant to combat abuse only.
Refutation: I've already made several cases against this here and here, but to summarize, whales are free to down vote / flag as they please, as is everyone. Their larger stake, and so flag effect, does not change this. The idea of down voting for abuse is a misconception which unfortunately is promoted by the Steemit UI. This must be changed. However the facts remain the same.
In the case of the experiment, this is easier to dismiss, because down votes are only cast to counter up votes, rendering their effect neutral.
Bad timing: low price
Proposition: with the price of Steem at (or around) an all time low, the experiment has markedly reduced trust in the platform
???: for me, this one is just too hard to know. I'm not an expert in this area, but from what I know there are a multitude of influences, the major factors of which only become clear in retrospect, if at all.
On the one hand, we see the price of Steem increasing since the experiment from Monday 15 into Tuesday 14th March 2017 on Coin Market Cap dot com.
But then it reduces again. In any case the variation is quite small, and what I do know is that reading inferences from such a small sample is very unwise indeed.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Flags are demoralizing for new users
Proposition: as down votes appear as flags in the Steemit UI, they are understood to be a value judgement, perhaps even something personal. This is confusing and negative.
Concession: this is a problem, not directly of the experiment, but what is termed the onboarding of Steemit.com, i.e. the first experience and learned of the new user. It makes it more likely for new users to experience confusion from flags.
I have to agree this is a valid challenge of the experiment because it is exasperated by it. We need better onboarding for Steemit to avoid a bumpy start for some users. @sneak I think you need to start accepting that so-called drama on Steemit is not just butt hurt, but customer feedback which has value. A wonderful case for this was made today by @clayop. Of course you should not be controlled by opinion but to dismiss it is foolish.
Here's a perfect example of that confusion from user @elewarne in this post
Just lost $3.54 through down voting ...why me?
Why me? Why not the blogs that suck and get $95.00, why aren't they down voted today? A pyramid scheme rigged by a few...
What a waste of time this has turned out to be...
and another from @patelincho, in this post:
If here is someone whu can explayn me why flaging a minow with original content is a good thing
Posts issuing challenges - summary
Of the 22 posts sampled (details below), the following frequencies of challenges were observed:
- (15) Requisite of communication
- (12) Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
- (9) Don't experiment on me
- (8) Flags should only be used for abuse
- (6) Flags are demoralizing for new users
- (4) It doesn't work
- (1) Bad timing: low price
It's clear that most people wanted some communication of the experiment. I believe this shows that among the sampled authors there is a consensus that those with greater stake have a greater responsibility on the platform. This is currently not the case (as I noted earlier today). There is probably wide support for this among users, so it's clear there is a strong case that this should be implemented and that this is one of the results of the experiment. How to do it is a complex question, but the impetus has is there.
Unfortunately there is also a slim majority of sampled authors who believed, in some shape or form, that they or other authors are entitled to whale votes in the common pattern we have been seeing, i.e. the "kissed by a whale" effect I outlined above. Steemit Inc. leadership need to address this extremely common misconception and perhaps issue an apology for indirectly promoting it. It has and will continue to cause a lot of friction. I'll mention @ned and @sneak here for this, who seems to be @dan 's replacement, effective some 3 months ago.
I think the rest have been commented on enough in the categorization outline.
Posts issuing challenges - detail
Note on style: each author is mentioned and their post linked with title (some are shortened for brevity or readability). An additional note may appear in some cases. The particular challenge is noted with a quote supporting it. Often the quote is not the whole story but is the most obvious indicator of it. Reading the posts is advised.
Note on content: this is not naming and shaming, it is a summary of publicly available positions people have taken, and a contribution to collating some of the experimental results. It should be obvious that while I disagree with many of the positions personally, the idea is that this serves as a snapshot of public opinion.
@thegoldencookie with Nervous break down and my take on the experiment
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
Steemit is my only source of income [...] I also found that yesterday I had been down voted multiple times for the experiment the whales are doing.
@karenmckersie with HELLO !?!? [...]
It doesn't work
AND NOW THAT YOU SEE YOUR EXPERIMENT DID NOT WORK WHY HAVE YOU NOT STOPPED WHAT YOU ARE DOING !?!?
Don't experiment on me
WHO ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS !?!?
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
[...] people are loseing 3 or 4 times more then what even half would be !
@kafkanarchy84 with [...] Thoughts on the @abit "Experiment."
Note that @kafkanarchy84 wrote several posts about this. Three appear here.
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
I know a few friends who have been really busting their asses to build an audience on here just to have the votes they have worked so hard to earn whisked away by this "experiment." Again, not saying it's "not fair." I am saying it is not good for the platform.
Flags are demoralizing for new users
Minnows and whales who have never yet gotten a big whale vote may now be punished if they do finally get one! and lose it via this half-baked plan. This disincentivizes new users from giving the platform a real go.
Flags should only be used for abuse
It poorly interprets the flagging system. This is where the "half-baked" part comes in. The platform guidelines give these "common reasons" for flagging a post [...]
@kafkanarchy84 with Bonehead Whale Scheme Now Downvoting New Users and Minnows. Call to Ostracize.
Flags are demoralizing for new users
I just saw a minnow's tiny account verification post about flowers downvoted and hidden from view by this half-baked experiment @abit has going on. Are you trying to kill the platform?
@kafkanarchy84 with Steemit Strike: Apology to Followers and Announcement of Indefinite Break from Blogging
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement AND Flags are demoralizing for new users
I contribute at least one quality content post to this platform a day, and often times 3 or 4 of them.
I am tired and demotivated now, after seeing minnows crushed, and high-quality content providers flagged and punished for the fruits of their efforts in building a valuable audience.
@bkkshadow with Steemit Experiment meet my Steemit Protest - Have a Pineapple!
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
I mean why spend 8 months building up followers and reputation on steemit so that you can be noticed? A small clique will manipulate the rewards to suit their own agenda.
Don't experiment on me
[...] if you want to hold your own vote thats great, its actually quite noble, but trying to manipulate the votes and rewards of others is lousy
@barrydutton with Time for a #SteemitStrike by Content Creators [...]
Requisite of communication AND Don't experiment on me
How is that for an experiment with actual boundaries and timelines actually listed?
It doesn't work
This Downvoting by whales experiment is just not going to prove anything, it is not working.
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
[...] I bet some of the whales DV [down vote] the rest of us regular people building this community as minnows, who clearly post a lot, work hard, comment a lot, build others up, where is the intelligence for those sweat equity hours we put in?
and
Hard working daily people on here are penalized for making good content? Really?
Flags should only be used for abuse
Flags are being used in ways there were never intended and it is driving everyone off the platform
Flags are demoralizing for new users
The new people here, who are learning, have no idea about all the issues and politics and whatnot and they are suffering too.
@dwinblood with Next time you want to do an experiment... [not shortened]
Requisite of communication
The platform is in beta as I understand it though I saw another person refer to it as being in alpha. We can do tests, but PLEASE communicate with the community about it. Don't just start doing it, and don't do it in a completely disorganized manner.
@jacobtothe with "Experiment" Response
It doesn't work AND Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
This "experiment" will prove nothing beyond the frustration content creators feel when their audience is countermanded by self-righteous whales who think they know better than anyone else.
@henry-gant with principles for research ethics [...], duplicated here
Don't experiment on me
Follow informed-consent rules [read paragraph in post please, it's long]
and
But, the participating members are not the guinea pigs for the whales or anybody else.
Requisite of communication
I was not informed about the Whale experiment before it started. It was only through the vocal adverse reaction of affected members did details about this Voting Experiment surface.
@gutzofter with Carnac - Can we eat our own
Requisite of communication
Because of this unscheduled experimentation I've decided to remove some witness upvotes.
@steemitqa with Experiment or Not... [not shortened]
Don't experiment on me
Isn't there a sandbox for the whales to go play in ?
Flags are demoralizing for new users
I mean what a great way to destroy your user base specially with someone new comes aboard and gets nailed with a flag.
Requisite of communication
When does this experiment end ?
@elewarne with Smooth Is Going Around Downvoting All My New Blogs!!!
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
I noticed that was NOT happening, just me a little person got screwed!
@fede93g with How to destroy a social platform
Requisite of communication
What's the point? Why are you doing this?
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
It's like stealing from poor and honest people, acting like a reverse Robin Hood.
and
So, why should original content creator spend time and efforts to create original content just to get a downvote everytime someone gives them an upvote?
Flags should only be used for abuse
Let's use the Flag function to flag copyright infringement and inappropriate content, come on!
@hagbardceline with The whales experiment and its consequences
Requisite of communication AND Don't experiment on me
Apparently, there was no prior communication about the interval, the implementation and the people taking part in this experiment.
Bad timing: low price
The timing seems to be very bad as well as the price of Steems is hovering around an all-time low.
Flags should only be used for abuse
In the worst case people might just get fed up and leave the platform. It might also have a negative impact on new users.
@lifeworship with The Experiment, There's Only One Way Out.
Don't experiment on me
I do understand the aim of the test, but for the extreme, ham-fisted implementation, and lack of ability to opt out, which would blow the experiment anyway.
@neoxian with Clarification: I'm not in favor of the "experiment" [...]
Flags should only be used for abuse
I'd rather go back to having a 2 cents vote with no mass flagging, then to have a 15 cents votes with the flagging and the strife.
Requisite of communication
There is also the issue that the experiment is not being done with any sort of scientific rigor, and again the lack of communication which I've already mentioned.
@neoxian with The Experiment: communication required, this is a social platform
Requisite of communication
Why oh why couldn't these mighty whales have gotten together and written a post explaining the experiment? Why it's being done, how long it's going to last, etc
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement AND Flags are demoralizing for new users
And of course, since now many good posts are being downvoted for apparently no good reason (because again, the reason wasn't communicated) this is going to cause much confusion and strife from many users who won't understand what's going on.
@lily-da-vine with I quit, I think
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
As one of the top original content producers on this site, I am one of the people actively sharing my life with the world, which evidently is interesting as I gain followers daily. I spend a few hours of work on a post like the last one I shared, where I pour my heart into sharing a story that isn't easy to tell. Recipes and things like that do take less time, but the stuff with the real value and content does take several hours a post, on a good day.
and
In many ways, our payouts on Steemit have made the difference when we literally had no other income.
and
It's worth pointing out that there are active articles that have more money made in the comments than in the article.
and again
For me, Steemit is my only means of making money off of my story. If I stop making money, I stop telling my story until I can afford to do so.
Requisite of communication
I also want to point out that this doesn't fit the parameters of an experiment. There wasn't preplanning, no talking before, no heads up.
Don't experiment on me
People are being forced to participate and whales are being forced to stop voting, as content producers get flagged if they do.
It doesn't work
So take this as my public protest, this experiment isn't working. It's manipulation that is going to change the ecosystem completely and it already has in many ways.
@beanz with 4 flags with 500+ SP ; 0 upvotes with 200+ SP
Requisite of communication
How long is this experiment without a hypothesis or scientific method supposed to go on for?
and
I appreciate what you're trying to do but without an outlined theory and method of parameters this experiment is completely blind.
and
Please outline what you are trying to achieve and how you plan to achieve. "Negating whale votes" is not specific enough when I have 4 flags from accounts with 500k+SP on a post with the biggest upvote from a user with only 100k SP!
@fisteganos with The Importance of Communication [...]
Requisite of communication
Really the whole post, but typified by
Nobody loves to be kept in the dark concerning any matter.
Nobody likes to be made to feel/look like a fool.
But these are what happens when actions are taken in a community without proper communication.
Imagine if we knew when this whole "experiment" was going to end.
@dragosroua with When You're Dead, You Don't Know That You're Dead
Requisite of communication AND Flags should only be used for abuse
Come on, guys, no announcements at all? No metrics? No goals, no methodology? Just flagging the shit out of anyting because, well, we can? How the test will be run? When does it starts and when does it ends? What are we measuring? How are we measuring it? Is this unit testing? Is this functional testing? Is this behavioral testing?
Special note
This is patently incorrect:
Under the pretext of an "experiment" you just took over the entire reward pool and you do whatever you want with it.
They did precisely the opposite!
@sirlunchthehost with Details on how this experiment is being conducting please. [...]
Requisite of communication
To those doing the experiment, you should be forth coming and transparent about what is going on.
Don't experiment on me
As a test subject of this absurd experiment, I demand to see the details on how its being conducted.
@goodguygreg with Whale "experiment" hiding content is abuse.
Flags should only be used for abuse
This guy's post was hidden after the downvote bots "corrected" for whale upvotes. @elementm even offered his verification photo here. This isn't right.
@luisucv34 with The need for better communication on the part of the whales (Short article)
Requisite of communication
[...] it is time to establish a communication more clear with the community to avoid misinterpretations. Should be working, to make communication more efficient, and consequently has a communication more direct whales to other users, it is important to go by establishing channels of communication, so that other users feel confused with what is happening, if we talk about trust, it is not correct as is is currently handling.
@son-of-satire with Why This "No Whale Vote" Experiment Is A Useless Endeavor + Some Advice
Reliance on whale votes AKA vote entitlement
had one of my first decent payouts in over a month, thanks to a vote by one of the founders, and my reward for writing an article worthy of 16 resteems and an upvote from Dan, is to receive not one, but four whale downvotes in an effort to "balance" things up. My reputation takes a hit because I posted a good piece? Lol.
@williambanks with How to make Steemit great again in 5 easy steps!
Flags should only be used for abuse
Never flag! - unless the post is a violation of copyright, or it's trolling or abusive. I know the design here is that downvotes/flagging redistribute the rewards pool. But the part that was missed in the design of the system is the emotional impact of being flagged for earning too much money.
Honorable mentions
Some users took the experiment in their stride and added a much needed balance to the general FUD. Some are mentioned here:
@tarazkp with Today was a good day. Sort of. (Test related)
Good attitude here
I am willing to forego some short-term gains for long-term as I see it as an investment in the future.
and lots of very relevant questions
What is significant is the worry it raised in me. Have I become a target? Will any future post that attracts votes (many posts I spent hours creating have attracted massive amounts like 50c, some much less ) be automatically downvoted? Will there be no chance to have a big reward? (My best post ever was about $35 total and anything close to this is relatively rare) Will that kill my desire to develop, create and share my best work? Will the time and effort be worth it in the long run or would it be more advantageous to get part-time job at a fast food joint? At what point do I look for a home elsewhere? Will a rival platform get this sorted out faster or better?
Much of this was expressed by some of the challengers, but @tarazkp chose to look at it with some manner of calm. Kudos.
@kenny-crane in comment on @pipes ' post Steem Chaos Support Here, AMA about flags, whales, rewards, etc.
My question is, why is everyone so concerned about flags and whales and rewards?
You post something here, and you MAY get a reward, which WILL change over the payout period, and whatever you get is MORE than you will get on any other platform!
Maybe it would be better if people just try to enjoy whatever interaction they achieve here and consider any financial reward, however small and however it gets calculated, as gravy! Seems like a less stressful perspective to me. :-)
Speaks for itself, this is what I'm trying to say here!
@ocrdu with The Whales-No-Up-Voting Experiment: measuring opinions
However you feel about The Experiment (I like it) or the way it was implemented (I hate it), there is another way of expressing your opinion besides posting in agreement or anger, and that is by rearranging your witness votes.
Very practical and measured.
@lukestokes with Do You Care Too Much About Steemit Blogging Rewards? Find Out Here.
There seems to be some drama on Steemit about an experiment being run related to those with high STEEM Power not voting with their full vote power in order to increase the influence of the votes from accounts with less STEEM Power. I'm quite fascinated by the experiment and am curious to see what happens. [...]
This early in STEEM and Steemit's life, I don't really care.
I'm here for the long term. I think this is amazing technology, and I love how it has kept me consistently writing since I joined in June of last year. [...]
So let's move on from worrying about the price.
Another great piece.
@uwelang with Steempowertwins having fun - relax and enjoy the experiment
[...] just to clarify - I fully support the experiment! We need this in BETA and I also am happy there was no wide communications / announcement upfront.
Someone who actually supports the lack of communication!
Closing
A final challenge which is subtext to most challenging posts:
Whales should act responsibly
Proposition: whales, as the largest stakeholders, should act in a responsible manner.
Refutation: this is simply against the freedom of the whales, and everyone else, to act according to their own ethics, morals or lack thereof.
Concession: responsibility needs to be either baked into Steem at a systems level, or social policing must be effective. Clearly social policing is pretty effective but only for large stakeholders (see whales down voting other whales' up votes). Shaming works to a limited degree but it's not enough because the consequence of shame is not the same as in real life. If some version of responsibility it to be required, it must be fundamental to the system. Calls for voluntary restraint are often right, in a moral sense by my own judgement, but are ineffective.
Why bother with this post? It's it antagonistic?
I was not sure whether or not to make this post but in the end I felt it was important enough to me to warrant doing it. While some have been demoralized by the actions of whales at this time, I have actually been way more demoralized by most of the reaction to it. It seems there is a large vocal group (probably not a majority, but could be) who oppose self-directed freedom is a very real way. While I have my own ethical and moral positions, I recognize that I can not require others to accept what I believe or practice. If Steemit is a place in which chaos will ensue following what appears to me to be normal operations, I may end up joining @dragosroua in self exile.
As I've noted before, I find myself defending "the way it is" on Steem and Steemit, not because I agree with it, but because of accusations which are unfounded, based on misunderstanding or purely emotional argument, and otherwise do not stand up to scrutiny.
I've said recently that I believe in Steem, enough to invest some of my hard earned cash. This belief is based in part on the thriving and healthy debate culture here. It is also based on the knowledge that conditions can and will change with direct participation by stakeholders. I support change, have called for it, but reject bad arguments.
This post does not mince words - if you feel offended then in your case it was meant to offend you. However I am not aiming to "fight" anyone, though it is meant to provoke the quoted writer and others who are sympathetic to it. I believe self-reinforcing pockets of misinformation and back slapping should be refuted and opposed when demonstratively incorrect.
If you feel attacked it is because we are in opposition. Open critique should be possible within an open society. As a strange microcosm of society, I hope this holds true here, and that this post gave you something to think about which you haven't encountered before.
Finally
Thank you for reading! 😄 👍
Acknowledgements
The main image for this post is based on a Laurel and Hardy poster which is public domain, and thus lacks copyright. You can find the original image on Wikimedia Commons.