I've been a member of Scorum for around a month now and today was the first time I've ever had an issue with another user. I recently started a series called LFC Final Word. It's a post-match analysis series from my perspective as a Liverpool supporter.
When I started this blog series I had the intention of providing an honest opinion directly after each game had finished. For over a decade, I've been posting this kind of thing on Liverpool messageboards but thought it could be a way to get people talking in the comment section here at Scorum. The series is pretty casual and focuses primarily on Liverpool rather than the opposition. At times there will be more to discuss than others but I tend to give an overview of the events of each half of the game, some player ratings, and then a final word about my feelings after the game. They're simple reaction pieces.
With that in mind, I am well aware that these posts aren't ever going to be considered pillar content of the Scorum platform. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, pillar content is the kind of thing that holds a website together. It's the foundation upon which the platform is ranked on. Under normal circumstances, pillar content will be in depth pieces that users will consider relevant for long periods of time. For example, consider a comprehensive overview of the rules of a sport, how the Scorum platform works, or advice on becoming a successful blogger. A post about the full history of Lionel Messi's career would be thought of as having greater longevity on the platform than a post about something he said on social media last week.
Does that mean that we should only create posts that we think would be considered pillar content by others? I don't think so. It becomes a question about whether there are different levels of quality besides good or bad. And this is where my issue began today.
A Difference of Opinion
I was spending some time this morning in the Scorum Writers Telegram group. This is a great group and within it, we share our posts with each other and also chat casually about all kinds of things. A user asked for interesting posts about the Napoli vs Liverpool game that took place last night. I wasn't sure if my post would be of interest to him but I posted the link to my most recent LFC Final Word post just in case.
Almost immediately, the user responded by telling me he'd already read it and that there is nothing of value in the post. He was 'talking about quality posts' only. It shocked me a little but I understood that everyone has their own opinion and he's well within his rights to not enjoy my post.
I ventured over to my post to give it another read. I pride myself on trying to add value to the Scorum platform so I was a little upset to think that people thought I wasn't doing that. After reading it over again I came to the conclusion that it wasn't anywhere near my best post. It wasn't a bad post but I had written it late in the evening and probably could have dived a little deeper with some of my points.
I then thought about the purpose of that series and decided that while the post wasn't for everyone it was of a pretty decent standard for what it was supposed to be. It was a reactionary post to the game, included some overview of what happened, contained player ratings for the Liverpool team, and a little bit of analysis at the end. Not pillar content but also not poor in my opinion.
It shocked me to see that this user, holding over 6000 SP had decided to flag the post with an 80% downvote. I want to preface this next section by saying that I believe as a decentralised platform we all have the right to do what we want with our voting power. Does that make it the right decision though? Not in my opinion.
There was no plagiarism, no spam, no abuse, and it wasn't a case of the post earning more than it was worth. It had earned a mere $12 at the time of the downvote. This irritated me somewhat so I ventured over to the user's profile to check out posts of his that must surely be of great quality. What I found were posts that demanded upvotes for a chance to enter a competition to win 10 SCR. One of these posts earned over $700 for something that could be considered platform abuse. Yet, this user had decided that my analysis piece deserved a flag because he didn't enjoy it.
Levels of Quality
The purpose of this post isn't to gain sympathy. I am not concerned about having earnings reduced by the flag. Everyone has the right to use their vote power however they like. However, I thought it would be an opportunity to think about the idea of what a quality post is.
I don't believe it is as simple as a post being good or bad. There are levels of quality and this is usually reflected in the earnings of the post. I wasn't expecting to receive large upvotes for my LFC Final Word post. I don't put as much time into that series as I do some of my longer, more detailed posts. But that doesn't mean that it deserves a flag. If you don't think someone's post is top quality then you have several choices before having to resort to a flag:
- Don't upvote at all
- Give a smaller percentage upvote
- Add a comment to encourage more in-depth discussion
This is my personal opinion but I believe flags should be reserved for plagiarism, spam, platform abuse, and that kind of thing.
Reaction
I will openly admit that I felt attacked by this user. It wasn't about the fact that he didn't enjoy my post. That's perfectly fine. It was the way that he informed me that he flags bad content on the platform. When I headed over to his profile I saw that he had over 96% vote power remaining. What he was suggesting then was that my post was the only 'bad' content he had seen on the entire platform in days.
Initially, an immature desire to seek revenge crossed my mind. I thought about trading in a lot of my BTC for SCR and flagging anything he posted in the future. But that's not the way to go. It would turn this place into another Steemit, full of flagging wars and petty behaviour. I felt ashamed for feeling this way but I didn't do it and soon calmed down from the incident.
It's a fact of life that we won't always get on with other people. We won't like other posts and at times we will clash. However, I feel it's important to try to remain fair in how we behave. Just as I thought it was unfair of this user to flag my post, it would have been equally unfair for me to flag him in response. We're better than that here at Scorum and I hope I'm better than that as a person.
I would like the take-home message of this post to be that we try to consider our actions before carrying them out. Let's think about different levels of quality before we start throwing unnecessary flags around at each other. Not every post will be considered pillar content but there is room for all kinds of different things here on Scorum. As long as they're on topic and not trying to abuse the platform then they should be accepted as a legitimate addition to the website.
I want to end this post by sending an apology to the user I've spoken about in this post. It wasn't right for me to want to flag you in return. I haven't mentioned his name and this post isn't really about that individual incident but more an overall consideration of platform behaviour.
Let me know what you think in the comment section below. What is your idea of a quality post? Do you agree that there are different levels of content or do you think it's right to flag anything that isn't of the highest possible level?
Comments