<center><a href='https://postimg.org/image/833bdum0b/' target='_blank'><img src='https://s9.postimg.org/dr9m4qqcv/1470806130458.png' border='0' alt='1470806130458'/></a></center>

<b>Update for current voting system - A proposal. </b>

@condra recently posted <a href=" https://steemit.com/steemit/@condra/high-reward-for-low-hanging-fruit-steemits-curation-problem-needs-to-be-fixed">High reward for low-hanging fruit</a>, an article addressing  the temptation of up-voting popular content over lesser known, lower rated, posts. This is an issue I've also been brainstorming about for a while, and I have a solution. 

<b>THE CURRENT ISSUES</b>
Up-votes are increasingly being given solely based on how successful a post is <em>predicted</em> to be, in order to receive some curation rewards and increase personal Steem power. They are not necessarily given based only on quality content as deemed by the individual's tastes. I forsee this becoming a big problem for Steemit. 

As I see it, in conjunction with the above problem of skewed allocation of up-votes, another issue developing in the community is minnows not getting <em>exposure</em> for their content. 

<center><h2>Let's stop whinging and be <b>solution focused. </b></h2></center>
 
Minnows are constantly writing good quality content, <em>I assume</em>. I have to assume because unless I spend hours scrolling though all the new uploaded content, I won't ever see it. The rate in which posts are uploaded means posts, good and bad, submitted by minnows are quickly lost and buried in the depths of the feed. And to be honest, if I have time, I may as well spend it, and my precious 'up-votes' on finding posts that I think will become popular in the eyes of whales, not necessarily my own eyes. At least then I may see some reward. Sadly, but somewhat understandably in this cut-throat community of Steemit, that appears to be a common attitude. It's an attitude that, when acted upon, compounds the problem. If minnows cannot get exposure from their posts, they rely on being calculated with their up-voting to increase their Steem power. This mentality furthers 'popular' posts exposure and creates a cycle whereby new, quality content is overlooked because it offers no reward. If everyone is voting this way, regardless of what they actually enjoyed the most, <em>how do we know what is <b>truly</b> popular</em>? 

<center><h2><b>I have a proposal to update the current voting system</b></h2></center>
It it consists of three parts:

<b>PART 1 - 'Vote' option</b>
The 'vote' would be a simple tool with no Steem power attached to it. It is given by the reader at no expense or risk, similar to Facebook 'likes'. This would remove the pressure and incentive to only vote on content that is predicted to do well. It is a simple action to say, 'this is a good post. I enjoyed this post'. 

<b>PART TWO - Up-votes</b>
Up-votes continue to be used as they are now. In essence, as the 'powerful' vote. Up-votes can continue to be given as a calculated judgement in attempt to get a share of the pie, <em>or</em> for good content. This allows the whales like @dantheman and @ned to continue to steer the Steemit ship in the direction they want, encouraging and financially supporting the content that supports their aims.

<b>PART THREE - Visible post views</b>
Visible post views would allow the author to compare the portion of their readers, who read their post, against how many of those 'voted' or 'up-voted' it. This would give the author an indication of how good a quality post they have written. Eg. If you can see your post received '100' views and '100' votes, it's fair to assume that it was a good quality post. On the other hand, if you see that you got 100 views but only 5 'votes' it's an indication that you missed the mark. If you got 0 views, you know that you have no votes because it has not been seen. 

The system above, particularly 'Part 3', could further be used to help drive exposure. If a post gets a high ratio of votes to views (only votes, not upvotes) there could be a <b>non-steem reward given</b>. For example, if 80% of people who read a post also voted for it, the author would be rewarded for legitimately creating quality content. 

The reward could be in the form of:
<ul><li>Extended payout time</li>
<li>Pushed into a higher trending position</li>
<li>Entrance into a separate 'votes' category (like 'trending' or 'active') only for posts with high ratio of votes to reads. </li>
<li>Higher user rating</li><ul>

This system would enable inclusion of posts with low initial readership, but with high quality content to rise up through the ranks. It would give a chance for minnows to gain extra exposure and also encourage readers to vote based on what they enjoy, not simply on what posts have the potential to increase their personal Steem power. 

<center><em>What do you think? Leave a comment below. </em></center>