Open discussion on how to handle the issue of vote soliciting. Collecting opinions and ideas to vote next week on how to best handle this issue to improve our experience.
I think if people soliciting vote are reported everyone involved in doing that will stop as it will affect their proposal from been approved.
Let proposals be genuinely approved because it’s actually needed. And not by means of your ability to reach out to people to vote for your proposal.
I still do not understand how the vote is weighted. Last week, it was 12, this week is 18. Next week may be raised again, which mean some proposals may never see approval even if they get voted. When a bank marketer is given unrealizable targets, impliedly, they’re told to do whatever it takes to bring deposits
Why the voting system is biased
No standard and communicated weighted system to determine how many votes should get a proposal approved.
Substandard proposals are likely to get voted faster than ones that meet guidelines. By default, there are very few people that read proposals in-depth, so most sages are not after filtering for quality but how to get their proposals approved.
Emotions also is a factor that’s difficult to fixed with the vote system. There are quite number of sages that have crossed the path of another. When they stumble on another’s proposals, they are likely to ignore them.
Giving power to flag will amount to concentrating power for more corruption. We are creating more problems with that.
Carefully select moderators without bias to filter for quality proposals that meet guidelines or simply revert to the old method. That was very effective with no issues. If we’re to use moderators, they may be very few, whose jobs are mainly to curate proposals and filter for quality, they may also act as reviewers just like @ishan.pathak2711 and @Kunaldawar do. S in nce they may not be able to create proposals, their focus will be to main quality on the platforms. In simpler term, select content/proposal curators.
Just to be clear all the proposals which be approved were selected by community and i know people did wrong approch of interchange there votes with others .
We moderators has done nothing wrong and we are trying to solve this issues as soon as possible its still early stage of celo academy , i hope everyone will coperate with us.
It’s always going to be biased if we leave the voting to some certain members or reviewers, people will misuse power after all we are all humans. I felt this present voting system made the sage community bond together and interact with each other because at the end of the day we all need each other’s help as a community. Most people having trouble with the voting system is because they couldn’t reach out to their fellow team mates if we are being honest.
If we say nobody should solicit votes then a whole lot of tutorials won’t get approved because nobody is ready to dish out their votes for free when their own tutorials is hanging up there and in need of votes.
The best method so far was what Joe proposed, tutorials with high votes that doesn’t meet the standard will be discarded as well as sages with more than 2 tutorials in the high vote section. This solves all the problem. We tried voting with no solicitation yesterday and only 20 people turned up. it says a lot!!!
We definitely need to fix this voting system issue
I agree with @bobelr ,
The Voting system right now will never be fair, it will only help people who can solicit for votes. And soliciting for votes is not something we should really encourage.
If we say the proposals where selected by community but the majority of people selected are people that solicited for the votes, then how is that a fair system?
No one will vote for another proposal when he needs votes himself/herself.
Why not have a few people review the proposals each week and filter for quality? Having reviewers will not be biased, the reviewers have no stake in the game as such, no one needs to ‘bribe’ them, so there wont be any bias.
I really will prefer a system that does not rely on soliciting for votes. A system that allows soliciting for votes, only to now discard some after they have gotten the votes is not sustainable.
The voting system really needs an overhauling
Ok to put my issue here, I didn’t voted any of the proposal for this week, because for me to vote even a single article I had to go through each new request by then only I think i will be able to make a proper decision to vote , because for me my vote is like a authority and I can say that I would not misuse that authority, if you will see, I have not written a single article in past two months, just to make sure that I don’t want to divert my mind in other stuff when I am moderating this beautiful community.
And to be honest I totally agree with what @bobelr is feeling, and believe me we are trying to solve that as soon as possible. If you ask me personally I loved your articles, I would never want to your article not getting selected but due to my liking I cannot let that affect the other authors, as I said I was not having time this week to go through each new request, From the next week, I will be genuinely, giving the vote.
Now to address the issue,
- Let’s say only few of us have the authority to vote in proposals, then according to me it would be easier to break the system(which I don’t want), for example let’s take a scenario, an author DMs me hey, approve my article per week instead of that I will make sure that you get my article for review, we all are aware that in we all reviewers are eager to get that card so that one can have some few extra dollars.
So because of this reason, I would avoid this.
- Now let’s say that we chose a guy or girl like who is not reviewer nor a writer, what will make a author stop to offer some bucks and ask for votes
And I am not saying that anyone will try or not, but it is a possibility and we don’t want that too
Because both scenarios will be worse than what we are facing right now .
But believe us we all are in this together and will definitely solve this out.
To be honest, I can see that your intentions are pure, but they are connecting for each other’s votes, and I don’t want to have a friend just for votes,
for me I see @bobelr a big brother like guy , who will help me in out in my developer journey
I see @phenzic as a neighbour with whom you bond and sometimes argue to but a bro at the end
I see @Kunaldawar as a friend with whom I discuss the harsh Indian summers
I see @maxwellonyeka2487 as great content creator who can help me in giving me tips about curating a good content
I don’t know his name here but on discord he is southpaw I see him as my small brother, whom I love to guide same feeling for @Micholn
I have my great mentors @0xviral and @joenyzio , whom I always look out too for guidance
There are many others here for sure whom I forgot to tag, but because of this such pure connections, I love moderating this community.
And this what I want everyone to feel, so I am glad that you are able to find positive thing that fellow mates are messaging each other, but I know many developers friends personally who are great at coding but they are introverts, for such developers it can be a setback which we don’t want.
So at the end would just say that will be looking forward to change this, would love to have engaging community
I can understand what you are feeling right now @layinka , and believe us, no one here would like to see you guys going through this, but we will surely try to solve this, and will help you .
I solely agree with with you
First and foremost, I appreciate that we are discussing this issue, which illuminates various points of view, but I also want to point out that the term “solicitation” is subjective. For example, someone contacted me and said he read my tutorial and thought it was a good fit, so he voted for me, and it would be nice if I checked out his, which I did and thought was a good fit as well. Wouldn’t you think that’s fair?
Most people will not vote unless you “call them to action.” That’s what I meant when I said “solicitation.” We are open to better solutions that will allow us to pivot more effectively. Community teaches us to reach out and participate. I’m glad to have you all as my team mates
Thanks for the active discussion on this topic!
I’ve ready through everyone’s thoughts and had a number of discussions over the past few days. It’s been really insightful to learn more about everyone’s perspective and I’m really encouraged by having a better idea of everyone’s goals with the Celo Sage program and Celo Academy.
Here’s a post An Update On Community Communication & Contribution Guidelines for the Celo Academy along with additional resources (linked at the bottom) to help guide proposals, writing, reviews, and propose opportunities for growth in the community.
Thanks again for all of the time and effort you have put into helping improve the community!
Thanks for this perspective @maxwellonyeka2487. I revised the title of the discussion to better reflect this. If approached correctly, this is the early stages of a very vibrant and sharing community that I’m really excited to be a part of.
I agree with @maxwellonyeka2487 . “Soliciting” of votes is subjective!
I asked various people to check out my articles if it is worth voting for and I did many others reason being nobody is going to sift through 300 new requests to see which is worthy of a vote if we are being honest!
If we can’t go back to the old way because it isn’t scalable, and having just a few reviewers to vote projects is not a very good idea!
I personally think that the reason the voting system is having issues is because of the few spots available each week making the platform highly competitive which in turn makes the aim of the platform to be diminished.
I feel there should be more spots open per week according to the rate of distinct new proposals.
Hence only one user can get a proposal approved then it’s only fair that in this new system, more tutorials should be approved per week.
Because the aim of the platform is to provide the best resource possible!
The scarcity of spots would not achieve the same effect it did when there was one reviewer!
Selecting persons to approve requests has to be done efficiently!
I would suggest having up to 10 persons who have been active members of the community from the beginning to form that board and they get rewarded for each approval, let’s say $1 - $3 as incentives for the reviewers and they would be under strict rules to ensure that the tutorials approved meet community guidelines or they are kicked out of the committee and they must be available each week or they get replaced!
A tutorial can only get approved if it has about 50%-100% approval rating from the reviewers!
This might not stop “soliciting” in the sense we are referring to but the strict guidelines for the reviewers would keep things in check!
A dispute resolution system would have to be put in place so as to ensure fairness and then any tutorial that gets appealed gets to be reviewed again and by probably @joenyzio
This is a long shot but I think it could work.
Either solutions have their pros and cons but I think they should be looked into
Unfortunately not everyone spends time to look out for new proposals and vote for them, So i can understand why most people would go into private chats looking for vote… I’ll admit i did vote for most of them
Saying can you check my post is a different point of view and saying you vote for me and I vote for you is different.
If we support this kind of disturbance then for sure in the future only there will be 10-15 people who will write others will just think that it’s not worthwhile because posts have to interested not just post.
And I am totally opposed to this exchanging votes.
Good point @bobelr from where I stand
The current standard of the voting system, It doesn’t necessarily have to be a fixed number of vote targets… If it were so considering how almost everyone went into private chats to get more votes and the number of members on the cummunity currently, we’d all be meeting that required voted number. “So i guess your right, It is flawed for this reason”
Also right @bobelr , Like I mentioned in the previous comment, We’ve got more head counts that actual contributors
- I’d agree to solution but, It would only revert back to the points you made earlier “why the voting system is flawed”, Giving that role to certian individuals, Noice pick by the way , would olny foster the points you made earlier about the flaws…
Nope, they weren’t by community, The votes were made by similar writers too @Kunaldawar
I agree @maxwellonyeka2487 it will be bias especially if a writer know who votes for his/her proposal… So safe to say VOTES SHOULD BE ANONYMOUS…
You almost got my Idea there @layinka but you lost me, But your very much right too though. The counter thought is we are trying to make the system:
As decentralized as possible. A DAO - which would nolify the suggestions of having special reviewers or curator for approving proposals.
More Automated and Constructive - Not having to but that work load on one Individual but rather the community.
Hang on everyone I’m heading somewhere
- Noice point you got there @ishan.pathak2711 on your number 2 proposed solution, you got my Idea there, but I’ve got something more elaborate in mind… (‘rubbing hand ambiguously’)
Hang on everyone I’m heading somewhere
That’s a very strong point of view @maxwellonyeka2487 about solicitation
Nice point too @danielogbuti but I’d gladly look through almost 300 to vote the unique and relevant proposals , and at the same time we really just want only relevant, unique and standard piece published out there… So yeah we can have more spots but only for better quality not for quantity.