Ah yes, the Steemit gift economy... which was always one of my favorite concepts here. Bot upvotes remind me rather of writing a book, and then going to the bookstore and buying 100s of copies of your OWN book in order to make the best seller list and earn more royalties. It just feels bass ackwards.

What is interesting about those experiences is that they are in keeping with the idea of Steemit as a "gift Economy." Someone else bought the vote FOR you. And that's cool! 

The problem we seem to be facing here is an increasing tendency to create garbage posts nobody's otherwise read or interact with... and then paying a dozen services to upvote them. Essentially... "paying oneself for empty content." Maybe we can argue that it is "allowed" as the code is written... but I question the validity of that if the result is that the site pretty much sinks into obscurity and real content stops being created.

This is where the discussions of the large stake holders delegating their SP to active manual curators instead of upvote services sounds interesting. I have nothing against the idea of upvote services if they were used like your experiences describe. But when they are just to line one's own pockets as a reward for garbage? Not good.

@personz, I think they harm the overall credibility of Steemit as a social content venue... and they discourage both sincere quality content AND authentic engagement. 

It may be a non-causal correlation, but I have been watching the metric of "average number of comments per top level post" decline, as the number of upvote and resteem services have increased. 

That's a double whammy. If you consider the fact that upvote bots leave thousands of automated comments and number of comments per post is STILL down? Then the number of HUMAN comments per post must *really* be taking it in the shorts.

I find that really problematic because it takes HUMANS to build communities, not bots. Is it "harmful?" I suppose that depends on whether the Steemit social front end is "valuable" in the greater context of the growth and stability of the Steem token. If Steemit is just a "sideshow" in the greater ambition to rule the world through SMTs, maybe this whole argument doesn't matter. On the other hand, if we still harbor hopes that Steemit could be a viable decentralized "facebook alternative" then some changes will need to happen or we'll end up dead in the water.

I actually feel exactly the same way @mammasitta hence my long comment underneath yours...lol

I agree!! Wish those bots go away, or at least be used only by a third party, like @curie or "steemstem projects.

I have been watching them for a while... and what I found a little sad the other day was clicking on a post that seemed like it had a somewhat active discussion (by number of comments) only to discover that the author had "created" 11 comments simply by virtue of ordering a bunch of mechanical upvotes.

So here's this very mediocre piece of content with 11 bot comments and only TWO (both spammy) human comments... and $7.00-ish worth of rewards no human would likely have given it. 

As a HUMAN, using this as a content publishing venue AND social platform, that's discouraging.

changed for the very very very worse......

I applaud you for doing that... my voting and curation remains 100% manual, which sadly means there are sometimes some great content creators I don't get around to, all the time. But I just believe that a *social* content site is about people, not about automation. Now, if everyone used an upvote bot with as much discernment as you, maybe we wouldn't have issues... I'd like to think so. 

The other thing I try to make a point of doing is to *curate my own content.* Since I create a lot of posts around the idea of "engagement and interaction" it would make no sense for me to not come back and respond to interaction. Whether that "earns rewards," or not. Engagement is a two-way street...

>It is the Steemit Patreon.

@kyusho, that's actually a very reasonable way of looking at it. And I'm not principally opposed to bots when they are used in such a way... as an extension of someone's actual manual curation efforts.

I agree! 
I started using steemvoters but my VP drained too fast and then I had to wait for 2 days to refill. I curate mostly manually again. Sometimes I use @buildawhale but for the fact that I am on this platform for over 1.5 years its kind of a joke that I am buying such votes.

In its earliest incarnation, I used randowhale (I think?) a couple of times, simply out of curiosity... actually got an $11 upvote once, but that was long before we hit "maxium saturation."

Even though it felt like a nice boost, I decided it felt wrong... like writing a book, and then pretending it was "selling well" by going to the bookstore and buying copies of your own book.

Yes @jsantana, there are definitely good uses for bots... cheetah, spaminators, steemcleaners and so on. And bots are also OK as used by manual curators to "fetch" a reading list of new posts from "trusted" content creators.

That says it quite simply and accurately... but for many it seems like Steemit is NOT a "social site," but rather a glorified "cash dispenser." Which I find sad...

I fully agree with that sentiment. Now, I know I have some people who follow me and upvote my content via bot... because they trust that I create good content... and I know they are "real" because occasionally they show up and comment. I don't have a problem with that, because there is still a "connection" there.

However, the eternal upvotes-for-hire thing I am increasingly opposed to.

And I will gladly reward you with 11 cents for your two cents' worth! 

Alas, I think it leaves us looking at the great divide of Steemit... those who are here because "Steemit is a great social content site that happens to pay" and those who are here because "Steemit is a giant cash dispenser and I would still be doing this if it involved making tacos."

@zappl, appreciate the comment... coming on a post launched from *your* platform!

I would submit that this short form post DID create value-- as it generated interaction and had 50+ comments. So that's on the plus side. 

But we also have to look at the "signal-to-noise" ratio. Does someone who posts an endless stream of every bite of the taco they are eating "add value?" Or is that just noise/static?

Things don't have value simply because "they exist." 

Zappl is somewhat modeled on twitter. I *use* twitter. But twitter is also home to millions of people who claim to have "100,000 followers" none of whom ever read or interact with a single one of that user's 500 daily tweets. Does that ocean of 256-character word soup have "value?" Translated to Steemit, would that just amount to so much "dust" on the blockchain?

NOT a criticism, by the way... just a question in the discussion!