Crowdholding

How would you want to incentivize voting?

How would you want to incentivize voting?

task

EXPIRED


YUP icon 3200


How would you want to incentivize voting?

Rewards

No YUP/tokens awarded

Weeks back we had a task regarding voting rules and now want to follow up. With more voting and commenting on a task it can in fact dilute the reward pool discouraging voting for other people's comments.  

While we are a small community, voting structure is working. However, once we get larger we will need to make sure we solve problems of incentivizing voting, but also preventing spammers from creating numerous accounts to up vote their own comments. 

Chat and debate. What solutions can you think of? Should we incentivize?






29 COMMENTS 17 VOTES

Most recent Most voted Most verbose

For gta 5 on your mobile phone or tablet. it also like the game, where you http://gta5moneyonline.net evade the law in order to have some fun.

3 months ago

Hii friends

3 months ago

3 months ago

This comment is not available, it has been removed for violating the code of conduct

4 months ago

I think their needs to be a balancing between vote reward vs comment reward, as right now their seems to be a heavy leaning towards comments, the basic algorithm needs to be adjusted i think, perhaps tieing comments and votes together more tightly

12 months ago

As a general matter, it would be good to know how you decide to upvote comments and award bounty. For example, I posted a comment (that I thought was thoughtful and helpful) in the most recent campaign on lockups and didn't get any votes. Why?

1 year ago

Ethan Clime

CEO of Crowdholding.com

Sometimes we are participating in the voting but we try to wait to see others to vote, so apologize missing that. One idea is maybe after a comment, a commenter must also upvote to activate to receive Yupies. Thanks for the feedback.

12 months ago

I agree that voting at the current moment in time seems to be counter productive for a poster. You make a comment, put in the work and effort. But if you vote on another comment, you will lose a part of your share.

This reminds me of an old riddle:

"An Arab sheikh tells his two sons to race their camels to a distant city to see who will inherit his fortune. The one whose camel is slower will win. The brothers, after wandering aimlessly for days, ask a wise man for advise. After hearing the advice they jump on the camels and race as fast as they can to the city."

"The wise man tells them to switch camels."

The riddle's solution is relevant with regards to the voting system; in that the individual should be rewarded for up-voting an idea, not "punished" by reducing profits.

Some suggestions:

Option 1. If the idea/comment you voted on is also up-voted by the company who created the query; you receive a (small) bonus or other incentive. (This way people will actually try to find a good comment which is useful to the company.)

Option 2. Member votes have no immediate monetary value/impact on share sizes, only the vote of the company issuing the question will pick the winners. Once chosen by the company, the votes will impact share size. e.g. A comment might have 5000 likes, but it was a spam comment. In this system, although the comment has a lot of up-votes, they will not affect share size because the company did not pick it as a contender. In this system it would be important that the company issuing the reward cannot opt out and not chose a winner. However, if there was no satisfactory comment made within a set time-frame, a company should be able to adjust the time the bounty is active; And should be allowed to specify the demand. On a side note; certain comments will have higher likes because they were first to respond; but aren't necessarily the best comment. A company should therefor be able to weigh in a bit more. e.g. by giving an additional bonus for an extraordinary comment but with little likes (due to the time frame).

Some considerations:

When promoting people to vote; it is important that the emphasis should be on the quality of the vote and not the quantity.

Hope these ideas and suggestions might be of help and/or inspire better ideas.

Kind regards.

1 year ago

joe Šovčík

Experimenter, Goal to understand humans and delight them (I'm human, too )

Helps a lot mate, thanks :).

7 months ago

An option in Reddit is to hide upvotes for a given period of time. You might try the same.

Similar to StackOverflow, have an accepted answer that is chosen by the person posting the question. Answers with the most upvotes on SO are not always the accepted answer. This approach will make fake upvotes irrelevant.

As mentioned by another, incentivize all behaviors that are required to make the app useful for its intended purpose. Gamification (e.g. badges) maybe instead of currency as an alternate reward for voting.

1 year ago

Think less about "financial" aspect and more about the experience itself.

1 year ago

Ideas are living stuff: Voting should be the result of a reflexive thinking. I think that Opinion Groups should be encouraged. I think it could be like inviting people to group in "clusters" around an idea, a position, a geographical area, and so on. Debate and deliver the result. "Cluster Opinion Moderator" could become an occupation.

1 year ago

> While we are a small community, voting structure is working. However, once we get larger we will need to make sure we solve problems of incentivizing voting,

I don't see how this follows. If it's working on a small scale, it's even more likely to work on a large scale.

1 year ago

Votes are critical to this platform as it is turning into a pay for vote/pay for opinion (parallel to yelp) website/

I think the dilution of the votes will be necessary for the future success of the platform. Currently, the rewards are high therefore there will be some scamming. But the higher reward is necessary to bring in more votes and attract more people.

Once the platform gets more publicity the true (mean vote) of the community will be automatically visible. The reward for each of the vote will be less and therefore there will be less incentive for scammers to use multiple accounts.

I think the time itself is the solution. Lets focus on the quality of the platform and getting more business. With more business coming in .. everything should solve on its own.

1 year ago

I think you might instead incentivize positive contributions through comments. That is, reward comments that receive a certain amount of upvotes, but limit upvotes to one vote per user per comment. That way, you provide structure around the system while also not just giving away free tokens to anyone who just randomly upvotes comments.

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

Imagine 1000 people commenting. 100 people say the same thing.
And the goal for the business is to find out what is right for them.
Woud you want to pay someone to go through all those comments?

How would that provide any value to the business?

They'd still need to sort through all that noise.

I do get your point, but then it does not solve the problem at all.
Do you see it differently?

1 year ago

If I understand correctly, you are proposing to instead incentivize voting - how does that solve the problem? Fewer comments, more votes?

1 year ago

When I say about Crowdholding as about crowdsourcing 2.0, I only mean using blockchain and crypto in general. But from the point of view of crowdsourcing as the crowd technology and its conceptual functionality, the platform is at an embryonic level, as it was at the beginning of the appearance of crowdsourcing in 2006. That is, for a qualitative solution of the issues that arise in this discussion, it's essential to deploy the system substantially. It should be adaptively apply some solutions that have developed long ago for multi-level and high-quality business interaction with the crowd, when in the crowd there are more than 1000 participants. And qualitative solutions of facilitation play a special role in this.

p.s
It's curious to observe that in the task with such question only Ethan votes :)
Personally, I didn't vote for someone else's proposal because almost everyone offers to stimulate voting by paying for it. I don't support this at all.

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

@Gil
Yeah.

@Cat
So what do you support? It's great to have opposing views.

1 year ago

@InSomnius
I already wrote my proposal. You can see it among the comments :)

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

Please, discuss with me and let's find the ultimate solution

Current Problems
- people are incentivized not to vote because when they vote they get lower reward
- people are incentivized to comment and this can lead to an overload of comments of the same "content" just so they can get a share >> This makes it hard for companies to get a proper insight once there is a "crowd" here.

The power of the crowd shows with upvoting ideas you agree with and not repeating them so the businesses don't have to spend lots of time going through and categorizing all the ideas.

Here's a list of solutions that should work together.
Some will be in the comments as otherwise this post is too long and would be deleted so please check those out, too.

Potential solution
- Give percentage of the reward to the voters.
Let's say 20% - as comments probably offer more value and took more time they get more. But Upvoters also have to offer their time (for reading, evaluating, etc.). And if there already is a comment that'd be the same or similar to what you'd write, chances are you don't get any extra attention so it's better to vote for it, and potentially comment on it to offer certain clarifications. You still get rewarded for your time, you help to raise an idea you like towards the business and business does not have to sort through tons of ideas.

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

- Game theory will deal with people gaming the system (can be a rule)
If everyone votes for everyone then everyone gets less. It's therefore better to vote just for few people, eg. 3. This can be also coded in so people can vote only 3 times per task.
- Automatically detect people voting for the same account all the time and offer the crowd to report people gaming the system.
If someone is not providing any value and is just gaming the system then people can report him. The task creator can cancel rewards for this person. This should be public so the person and the crowd knows what happened , the person could justify themselves and it won't be abused as it'd be visible to everyone if the Moderator does this to everyone.

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

- Show most recent with combination of most relevant first,
This would get rid off the bias that people vote for people who commented first or have the most comments. Other thing would be to incentivise people to come towards the end once other comments are published and go through all the comments in case someone else posted the most amazing idea. (eg. letting moderator secretely pick their top comment that helped the most and people who voted for it get extra rewards)
You might think the Apple is the best fruit ever as they are everywhere around you, but maybe you've never seen an Apricot.

1 year ago

InSomnius Joe

I solve problems for a living - combining knowledge from many areas of life

Idea to think about
- Democracy 2.0 principle. (as Democracy is broken)
Let people vote more than once on something they really value (in combination with 3 vote limitation per task). Some people value some things more than others.

1 year ago

Rosario Colletti

Power is nothing without control

Well this sounds nice, so the best 'commenter' would share 20% of the reward with his 'supporters'. But the system should give 0 reward to a user voting every comment, and full reward to a user voting only one (two, three?) comments.

1 year ago

> people are incentivized not to vote because when they vote they get lower reward

This assumes that every person is commenting, or at least commenting in a competitive manner. Unlikely to be a significant portion of users.

> people are incentivized to comment and this can lead to an overload of comments of the same "content" just so they can get a share

This could be an issue, but it should be dissuaded as a raw comment (with no votes) should not get any reward. Those which are blatantly spamming without effort should be reported, and potentially banned.

> This makes it hard for companies to get a proper insight once there is a "crowd" here.

Exactly what the voting system is meant to solve - the companies should only need to look at the top few comments.

1 year ago

I would suggest such an approach. Voting is an activity. The activity level can increase your one of the indicators that affect your "rank" (a separate topic for discussion). But there must be rules. For example, you can vote only once within the task. Any other comments that you like you can support through a separate "like" button or answering the comments. «Likes» also should be considered as activity. What to do with those who abuse it? The moderators should ban them, having determined the conditions in advance. Users can help moderators through the function of anonymous complaints.

Concerning the coins distribution. I think that at this stage it will be correct if 50% will be accrued from the users votes and 50% from the team votes.

1 year ago

Voting should be incentivized!

But the way things are done right now voting is punished and has 0 reward. Having a reward and then splitting it up between votes is an awkward way of doing things.

The solution is the reward size for voting, it's a sweet balance between the hassle you have for making a vote from another account (IP checks go a long way here as there are very FEW people that would bother with VPN for peanut reward) and the reward from it.

I would try to go the other way with reward pool structure though. You can give weights to different tasks according to their importance/difficulty and calculate total reward from engagement (comments and likes) then distribute the reward to the best contributions. This can be automated and takes into account only votes and comments or done by a mod or a group of them and rewarded according to their judgement.

If you have a fixed reward with votes splitting it people won't vote for other posts.

1 year ago

:D Yep, I vote @Fatalninuda

1 year ago

I think you should - I mentioned this in a comment a few weeks ago, right now, I could just post comments and never upload anyone, and the way I understand Crowdholding, voting up a comment on a task I also commented on might actually reduce the amount of YUPIEs I get, but I might be wrong here.

I think the incentive could be twofold - reward people for upvoting (up to a degree, not just a flat reward per upvote), and possibly limit the amount of tokens they can get from other people's upvotes if they never upvote themselves. I'm sure that's not the most popular opinion, but I think it could prevent people "gaming" the system.

1 year ago