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.
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 .
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
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.
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.
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
Your suggestion
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…
@maxwellonyeka2487 That’l sort of put a whole lot of more work on @joenyzio hands considering managing the whole DAO and all.
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.
Y’all have no idea how intruiging it was reading through your Ideas, point of views, It was really fun
Great minds guys… great minds
So from all the tiny points I could gather from everyone’s suggestions, I think i can bridge into all of them and suggest something more cummulative
And the way i see it this has more pros than cons if any…
So i was thinking, why not this:
I did a little digging recently and found that we have about 160+ members on the community a lot of which are inactive on the community. Firstly we can’t all be writers , we’ve got devs (hold that thought) etc. I mean how many way can you possibly deploy a smart contract. We need more standard and unique pieces right, ones that meets our readers needs and not just ours.
And we’re creating these for the comunity right?, at the same time we need everyone’s hands on deck, why don’t we share roles
Lets have: Writers, Writers and Reviewers, and Voters, Devs (who aren’t writers) as distinctive roles.
Afterall I don’t think any one ever thought of writing about a bug while building on celo, something a lot of dev. must have gone through, So for a dev. role for example you can come up ane be like (Hi I encountered a bug while working on this, although i got to solve it,…You can drop an description and maybe pictures about your bug and how you solve it and if It’s something a lot of people “beginners” happens to be facing and would like to know how to overcome you get an incentive for proposing a solution, and then a writer picks it up as a short topic to write on and explains about it.) that’s just by the way though.
If we are really targeting the audience why not let them decide (including the entire web3 community out there) which also brings us to inviting the web3 community out there to join the celo sage and become voters to vote on what contents they’d like to see being written and maybe get incentives too if it their unique idea gets approved by a lot of (voters not writers) they also get inncentives. and not just that (their reasons for wanting that content being written).
So as reviewer or writer or both you cannot vote. Let the community decide what they want to read on, which also means creating the role for voters, (who are not writers) but can also pitch proposals on tutorials they want. That takes away the biasness entirely so far.
The distinctive roles can be determined on activeness on the community “Cheers”. Either ways everybody benefits from the system
I know this is a lot to process, and still not structured too. I had it in a rush myself …
But I’m pretty sure this sets off the idea of the solution we reallly need for the whole voting system and some other solutions we are looking to improve to help the community in terms of more roles…
And as always please bombard this comment with those great minds, We’ll have to solution we need in no time, still on this Idea, Just more neatly standardized
I think it is not about reporting that matters. Those who already foster that relationship will never report a fellow who does that since they give themselves one on one votes even if their proposals never meet guidelines. An example is when I come to your dm to ask for a vote, and you send me yours to vote. At that point, I have committed myself to vote for your proposal otherwise I may not get yours. This is exactly what we are saying. I cannot also blame someone who asks for a vote. This is because you see less-standard proposals have high votes and you are going to fold your arms watching yours get washed down the drain?
It also depends on what and who put it out for voting. If Joe sends out proposals, they will obviously get high votes very fast because he is with the “leader” tag. I resonate with your suggestion. It sounds good to me though.
On a second thought I feel pity for those soliciting vote. It shows they are desperate. On the other hand I feel cheated for not getting any vote simply because I don’t like to go into people’s DM soliciting for vote.
In the long run the whole voting thing looks a little bit childish especially because of the way it’s been handled currently. And I think it’s not ideal for determining proposals that will be accepted. We might consider scrapping it off.
, would olny foster the points you made earlier about the flaws…
great minds