Introduction
I don't normally like posting about internal Steemit matters but I think this is an important issue that has been a problem since the very start.
One of the central problems with Steemit is that of curation.
It seems everyone wants to write articles and create posts but few people want to read them, let alone actively curate content.
We have a fundamental economic problem here - there are too many producers and not enough "real" consumers.
Further there is an even greater scarcity of one of the most important types of consumers i.e. the active curator.
In my opinion, high quality active curation is of equal importance to good quality writing and content production.
They are two sides of the same equation.
We need to have good content rise to the top - or at the very least to do better than spam.
Everyone is time starved and if we want to attract more readers to consume the content they need to be able to find it.
Sadly it seems there is little incentive to carry out actual active curation.
Why is this?
1)Real curation requires a lot of work and effort.
You have to search through huge amounts of crap and spam to find the odd gem. This can take hours of work and it is not guaranteed you will find anything truly valuable. You are searching for the proverbial needle in a haystack and it requires a lot of effort. So people stop bothering, they vote either randomly or tactically, neither of which involves what most people would consider true curation. I think we have all fallen into this trap and to be honest it is to be expected as the current economic system encourages it.
2)The reverse auction system actually rewards the using of bots.
This has been discussed many times before. The reverse auction was created to discourage bots claiming the majority of rewards by immediately voting on new posts. However it may actually disincentivise people voting manually. The cognitive load of calculating whether you should vote or not based on the timing is an extra hassle for people.
3)There is little reward in curation unless you have a massive stake.
Unless you have a whale level account there is little to be gained from actual curation. Further if you are a whale it doesn't really matter if you curate or not since you vote will likely be large enough to create a bandwagon/swarming effect on a particular post. If you vote for anything often enough others will notice and you will become a "good curator".
This is not because you chose good content, but because others will follow after your vote in an attempt to gain curation rewards.
One solution might be if you are a good curator you should buy a massive stake and that way you will profit from it.
This would work if all good curators had the money to put behind and back their curation efforts but just because you have a lot of money does not make you a good curator.
The Albert Einstein of curators may be out there but without the financial means to be a whale there would be little incentive for him to use his talents on Steemit.
Further as I mention above if you are a whale you can make any content become successful due to the bandwagon effect, so why would you bother to work to find good content when you don't have to?
In fact you may still be better of spending your time writing posts rather than actively curating. So we go back to the lack of incentive to curate versus writing.
4)Only 25% of post rewards go to curators.
I'm not sure how much actual difference it would make if there was a 50:50 split, but the current breakdown only serves to emphasise the greater value that is placed on writers vs. curators.
Whether the actual financial difference is big or small, the psychological signal it sends out is that curators are not as important as content creators.
There are also likely other issues that disincentivise manual curation that I haven't even thought of.
What is the solution?
I would love to say I have some kind of ingenious solution to these issues but I don't.
If it were that simple to find an answer it would already have been implemented. That is not to say that we should not try.
Here are some possibilities for consideration:
Switch back to 50:50 rewards for curation.
Remove the self-vote option for posts - or remove curation rewards from self-upvotes. Yes people could game it but why incentivise them to do it?
Look at extra rewards for top curators. The question is where would they come from - perhaps they could come from the extra 20th witness that was created by the removal of mining. I think it is worth looking at. Curation could be considered mining good content.
These are just a few things to think about and likely have multiple problems that will need to be refined. Even then they may not work.
As has been emphasised many times before Steemit is still a work in progress and we need to test out and iterate things to find out what works best.
Avoiding change paralysis and the problem fixation trap
It should also be considered that there may not be "perfect" answers that solve the situation, but there may be adjustments that make the situation better overall if they are put into practice.
Real life and human interactions are not fixed, ordered systems like computer code and I think it is often a mistake to treat them as if they were.
This is particularly so on a platform like Steemit/Steem.
One of the big problems I have seen whenever a platform change is suggested is that some people will negate it by highlighting problems.
This makes sense if it refines the solution, however all too often a particular solution is shot down and further discussion closed.
Either the solution is "perfect" or it cannot be used.
I would call this "problem fixation" and it can lead to a form of paralysis because in many cases it does not take account of the magnitude of the solution in comparison to the actual initial problem. People become so fixated on the negatives that they lose sight of the potential gain.
Just because a potential solution could be gamed by bad actors does not mean it will be. Further even if it is one must consider how many people will do it and the real world impact.
A small negative effect is acceptable if the overall gain is larger in magnitude.
For example it would not make sense to take a medication with dangerous side effects to cure a minor illness.
On the other hand if you had terminal cancer you would probably tolerate much more serious side effects because the potential gain (saving your life) would outweigh those negatives.
The real world is often like this. It is a balance of risks and rewards with few "clean" solutions that solve everything.
If we just abandoned every potential solution the moment we found a problem with it we would never make any progress.
Anyway, these are my thoughts on the situation. I think with we should keep exploring ways to improve the platform and discussion is an important part of that.
Thank you for reading
As an active curator that most of the time strives to vote on content I know will probably not see many votes after mine due to it being new users, etc. I have thought about this for a long time which changes would help out to incentivize curation more for all accounts involved.
Even though curation has a much bigger inventive here than say on other platforms such as Reddit it can still be finetuned more and I hope it will become better over time and experiments.
The curation penalty for voting early should be changed somewhat. I know this was put in place because of bots voting on the same second a post was released by authors they knew will gather a lot of votes but this was also done at a time when people were already using bots for their 40 daily votes. Now with only 10 daily votes and a bigger inventive to vote manually this could incentivize curators to check through the 'new' section more often in hopes of finding the gems that people don't already have on automatic bots.
Combined with that I think we need to rething the curve of rewarding curation where the first voters receive a much bigger piece of the pie than those voting last. I've noticed that often even if you are the last to vote you still make a decent amount of curation rewards if your stake is big, this would at the same time discourage curators from voting on friends and the popular authors if they notice it has already garnered big amount of rewards and they might consider voting on something newer or with less rewards instead.
At the same time, increasing the curation reward pool and decreasing the post reward one would activate more authors to start voting.
There are a lot of things that can still be improved on and experimented with and I'm sure we will be able to find a better balance over time.
I also noticed the lack of mention of delegation in your post, having read a post of @benjojo recently I have to admit that its like a superpower and in the right hands it will make curation even more effective on the platform.
I am for instance delegating my own SP further to the curators of @ocd and we are looking to growing over time in amount of curators and delegation with the platform and its userbase to make sure that less and less quality and new authors get overlooked.
Steem has a lot of incentives and even though not all of them are being used to their max extent yet I believe it will get better and better over time.
Sorry for possible typos, wrote this on my phone with a Swedish keyboard. :P
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with most of the points you made. In my opinion the real problem is with the content discovery. Since whales already have enough followers their posts generally gets upvoted if the content is good. The problem is with the content discovery for the new authors. Not many people are ready to spend time reading the posts of their friends and followers. They are constantly looking at the posts by whales so that they can upvote them in the hope of getting some curation rewards.
So we will need to turn the tables around give more rewards for the discovery of content by authors whose average earnings are low. Since whales with large number of followers already get enough votes and rewards, the curation rewards for discovering their content should be reduce. Adding curation rewards for resteeming can solve this problem to a certain extent. Remember that an upvote doesn't increase the visibility of a post, it only increases the rewards for the author of the post but it doesn't help in making the post reachable to others. If possible we should identify who are having a network effect in making content more popular and reward them accordingly. That will create a level playing field. Irrespective of whether you are a whale or a minnows you will be in the lookout for the good content and resteem them to make sure that it gets the visibility it deserves. Wildspark is already doing this successfully and may be steemit can learn from it.
If we don't address this problem Steemit will turn out to be like the Ghost cities of China where there are lot of high-end skyscrapers that have no occupancy at all. Just that in steemit there will be lot of users writing posts but not enough people reading them even if they are worthy. I hope Steemit addresses this problem by the earliest :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice input! I like the idea of curation rewards for resteems!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Monkey Nuts
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I had no idea that posts were not made more visible by upvoting them - I assumed that was part of the point of upvoting posts. I think most newbies to the site such as myself will assume it is a 'reddit' sort of situation where highly upvoted posts are more visible. Are the 'hot' and 'trending' posts not there based on upvotes, then?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm fairly new and still trying to wrap my head around all of this. My only reference is youtube where a like equals profit and a like on facebook acknowledges that I read the content.
I've been trying to raise my reputation and only voting while at 90% or better and my votes are still worthless. My posts are only bringing in less than 10 cents. I know it will get better with time.
I assumed that by voting for content that I enjoyed, that my vote would somehow propel the writer forward. I'm just plain confused.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I was thinking the same @ashley-ghastley.
Please read my post at https://steemit.com/steemit/@pjprivett/little-known-or-noticed-2
It deals with voting as a newbie, I'd be interested in your comments!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I will say it is a little surprising to hear some of the things you mention, and thank you for making that post so we can all be aware - however I'm sure there are reasons behind why these things have to be how they are. Your post is a little overly inflammatory - as in, it tends to be a little along the lines of "THE SKY IS FALLING!" whereas I'm sure there's lots of reasons for why these things work the way they do - if every new user could be super effective as soon as they signed up, then creating fake accounts and botting would be way too lucrative, and it ALREADY IS lucrative in some ways from what I've seen.
Thus although I DO wish there was a much more comprehensive guide to how Steem works for new users, I think many of these things exist for good reason and although it's frustrating, most of this stuff seems to come in time and be for the better, in the end.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent response. I agree with everything you say.
Yes I think it needs adjustment.
Yes in fact people have suggested this before.
I forgot about delegation - that is one way to help I suppose this creates the whale issue again though. If you have substantial voting power does that reduce the need to actively curate? I suppose we would need data to assess this in practice.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It might reduce it if you become lazy and because of the rewards not changing too much cause of the curve, yes.
Since we also have the problems with distribution (not too many having a bigger stake to actively consider curation a way of earning), and although it over time is getting a lot better (and with new investors and curators coming to the platform its being spread wide even more) it could become a lot better if the delegation is spread among more curators and with the change in curation curve in mind it would work wonders for curators actually being rewarded a lot more for being the first to stumble upon great new and undervalued content.
Would also be nice if delegation could have more options for reward allocation so that inactive investors and whales would not need to rely on the curators sharing the curation rewards with them but it being done automatically instead thus incentivizing them to delegate more actively and to more users.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes in fact I think it was a big mistake not having this built in. Delegators should get something in return even if it isn't a 50:50 split they should still get something, as they are basically making an investment.
They shouldn't just be expected to do it as a charity service.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly, especially since it only takes 10 votes daily now so any greedy investor will just throw em out quickly without care if its going to the right place or being distributed nicely instead of handing them over to a good manual curator knowing its doing a lot more good for the long term of the platform while still seeing some rewards from them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
you and @thecryptofiend raised so many good points
the sad part is no one up there seem to have even read this post
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A lot of these changes have been / are being discussed. I was really in support of the idea of a delegator receiving a portion of the curation rewards that were earned from the delegated SP. It was discussed with the dev team, and unfortunately the math/computation to make it work was too complex. Something like that could be formed 'off chain' though via some type of delegation market. It is still early in the game. Something along these lines is still a possibility.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Would "Fabric" be able to do this? I think it is really important in order to make delegation truly viable.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
great comments, great discussion / as a relative newcomer I enjoy the idea of curation and do try, but there are virtually no rewards. I'm all for a better system, probably about early, non-bot votes getting rewarded, yes !!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I completely agree. The way things are now, curators might be scared off by the penalty, which means they wait a few minutes to upvote a post. By then, the post is so far down the feed, never to be seen again, that the author misses out on a lot of eyes on their post. That's because people are more eager to check out a post with some upvotes already in place (though reputation plays a big role there too).
I think that's a really good point. It might help people who don't earn a lot with their posts to re-think their strategy and start upvoting more. Actually, maybe it would even get rid of some crap posts in our feed, because these people will be upvoting, instead of posting... Or is that wishful thinking?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"wrote this on my phone"
you deserve hazard pay
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How do i uses the rewards to further my chances of making a little more. Any tips? And thanks for the guides on stuff
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks a lot for the info I'm still trying to figure out how this whole steem thing works and this was very helpful
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Is anyone aware of any accounts that do a daily best of summary. I think these have the potential to become very popular accounts but I am concerned that there is not much of an incentive to do the work. Maybe there could be a bonus for how the post was viewed? Whether it was found via your blog? Ie the more quality traffic a curator is able to send to a post the more rewards they receive as a curator? That would encourage community building....but once again, bots would probably be deployed in droves.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How much adderall do you have to take to comment 1 pagers
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
lol on the phone even xD
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
ATS token i.c.o offering free 75 tokens worth 10 $ , here is the link
https://steemit.com/ico/@kingjan/ico-for-authorship-com-tokens-is-open-for-investors
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have a reasonably large amount of SP and, though I'm capable of creating quality content and probably earning far more, have spent the last year or so mostly curating to try and help spread rewards.
Here's what I've found:
You need at least 200,000 SP to make curating worth your time, in the sense of earning a decent hourly wage (say, $25/hr). Which is why so few people are doing it
Curating + commenting + self upvoting your comments is the only way most people can justify the time spent curating
I find 5-7 posts each day that are valued at less than $5 and that I feel are deserving of more rewards. I write a comment, upvote my comment and upvote the post. As my upvote is worth about $5 I get paid about $15/hr to curate.... but I can only work about 1hr a day due to the SP drawdown. I have about 37k SP.
Now if STEEM would just hurry the hell up and go to about $5/$1Bn cap - which is where it should by by any valuation - we would see a whole different game. But the ironic thing is that Steem's success is the what is keeping the price down - people are actually making a living and selling Steem to cash out and the pay the bills. There is very little incentive at this point to power up, so more sellers than buyers.
I think we need to increase curation rewards in a way that cannot be gamed by bots.
Perhaps we have a timer. We know how many words per post and how long it takes the average human to read that many words. If the upvote is given before the timer expires the curation reward is far less than if the upvote is after the timer. Then we kill the bots and encourage people to actually read.
Then we go one step further and increase the curation reward if a comment is written. And the longer the comment the better the reward.
My $.02
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting. I suppose it is a paradox of sorts but at some point one would presume the situation would go viral and that would result in a rise in marketcap which would be sufficient to negate the cashing out. I think it happens with all (successful) cryptocurrencies.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
thinking about it....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I manually curate, and haven't ever made a bot vote on this account.
I not only curate for good posts, but for good thoughtful comments.
Once you get away from the trending page, the comments are as scarce as the rewards.
The thing is, I don't make rewards by seeking out excellent minnows or voting on comments, which is fine, but I think it is part of the problem with how the curation rewards work.
I wish I had some solutions, but people are going to chase rewards, and I don't blame them a bit. ROI is a good thing and I know it is time for me to figure out how to use the site differently as well.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We could just ditch the trending and hot pages. Then people would have to sift through all the spam to get to the good stuff. That included those who want to game the system.
And keep the new posts page. Then we know where to find fresh content.
There is one other point that @scottsantens made: sometimes it takes more than a week for your post to be discovered. What if your post goes viral on the 8th day?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Most of those who have votes that matter at all are not sifting through anything. They setup their voting bots and make a few comments on their friend's posts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So, basically, some people are treating, Steemit like a nepotism network, right?
Another question comes to mind then. How can one be objective about quality if they're voting on the work of a friend?
I'm not so sure that Steemit is looking to create that kind of reputation, but if enough people see that happening, they will see automated curation among a network of friends who are just passing the rewards between themselves.
I guess the word that comes to mind is "disappointment".
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly and this where the reverse auction perversely incentivises bot use.
It is easy to do that and also when you want to earn curation rewards using a bot you have to do it based on past success.
Yes very true.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
[deleted -- decided to reply to parent comment]
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I learned a lot, thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thats life!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
True... and given that we're a decentralized structure, it strikes me as an open invitation to take a long hard look at structuring rewards as "tool" to guide how the site develops. In short "Put the carrots where you need the work to be done."
If course, that would require a lot of people to step OUTside their short term interests and instead look at big picture/long term benefits.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is the hard part!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's true
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In short "Put the carrots where you need the work to be done."
^this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think this depends on your following a lot too, judging from what I've seen on some posts from people who joined my contest. There are some vibrant sub-communities here on Steemit.
I also get a couple of comments on every post I write, though ofcourse, it's hardly anything compared to Trending. That's mostly because posts on Trending simply get so many extra eyes on them, so it sparks a lot of discussion. I've noticed the same thing on most 'Steemit' tagged posts though. Mine never make anywhere near Trending/Hot rewards, but they get a huge amount of comments.
Yes! I try not to bother with timing too much and simply upvote when I read a post, but sometimes I catch myself thinking 'Hmm, maybe wait a minute or two...'. That's so wrong, because it takes away some visibility for the author. He/she needs all the votes he/she can get at the very start, when the post is still visible somewhere in someone's feed.
I also chase rewards sometimes, though most of the time, I try to be fair and upvote what I like. Either that, or upvote those people I appreciate here. Comments/posts alike.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hello playfulfoodie, you do get excellent interaction on your posts, and because I look for comments to vote for I can attest that you are out there interacting in the community. I appreciate that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you @whatsup, that's a very kind thing of you to say :-)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, you do bring up a really important issue, here.
There are a lot of things about the original Steemit "intent" (as I interpret it) that I really appreciate.
I manually curate quite a bit-- but yes, it is time consuming. But I enjoy reading/interacting with quality content. This is a social platform to me, and I really like the "social" bits. So I curate both content and comments I feel are valuable or add something. The latter seems to be becoming rarer and rarer, sadly. I also really like the idea of Steemit being a sort of "gift economy" where the primary thing we do is "pay it forward." I like the idea that I can reward a content creator for something well done.
I DON'T like the whole "reverse auction" thing... and frankly, I just ignore it... probably to my detriment. When I have a response to a piece, it is NOW... I don't want to sit here and ponder "Oh, I wonder if my timing is right?" I don't like being under gun by a TIMER... sometimes I'm inspired to leave a 300-word comment... that takes TIME, and I don't want that to have an "opportunity cost" because now it will post "too late."
And that's another thing I DON'T like. The excessive reliance on automation and bots by many strikes me as counterproductive. Communities are built by PEOPLE, not by code, automation or bots. I'm not saying outlaw bots... but perhaps we can benefit from rethinking how they interact with the system. I know some bots are "human activated;" they retrieve a specific type of content for their operators who then curate manually... that's a great use of a bot. Others... seem like they only serve to add "dust" to the blockchain... a 0.3% bot upvote from an account with 3000SP? What IS that?
I am not a developer, but perhaps we can find a way that lifts-- not necessarily financially-- content that was "human upvoted/curated" as opposed to bot serviced to greater visibility, things might change. A sort of "This content was reviewed and approved by an actual HUMAN" stamp of approval as a mechanism to land something in "hot" or "trending."
One possible solution-- although I am not sure how to implement it-- would be the "gamification" of curation. Literally find a way to track and monitor what's being manually curated and have a "What people are reading" category next to "hot" and "trending" that is generated (again, I am NOT a developer!) by some weighted-average-algorithm that looks at manual curation and the SP behind that and comments being made and so on... a sort of "this is the best content if there were no bots" list. Just throwing it out there as a brainstorming topic...
Edited to add: To wit, this comment was probably added "too late" and I found this post "too late" (and that's not a complaint, just an observation) and as a content curator all I really care about is "is this content WORTHY?" not damn timers and clocks. Either the content is "good" or it's "not good." That worthiness doesn't increase or decrease with time. And that's where the curation system has "issues."
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great points not much to add really.
True and that is usually how I vote when I vote manually.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I ignore the "reverse auction" for the most part as well. From my understanding- the portion that you miss out on will be rewarded to the author instead. What a perfect way to give people a more rewarding upvote when my sp is so low!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post received a 3.8% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @thecryptofiend! For more information, click here!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think what we need is to develop some type of system where we can use the wisdom of the crowd to identify quality posts / gems, and provide the information to the larger stakeholders so that they can review/upvote it.
The challenge is how to do this in a way that doesn't spam the stakeholders with non-quality posts.
I think that if there was an efficient way to provide the stakeholders with a list of actual quality posts, that many of them would happily vote for them. Changes to the actual platform may not be needed.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes although in some sense this is what is supposed to happen already, with the quality posts rising to the top. I think some of the curation guilds were also trying to achieve this but they also have some inherent problems. One alternative would be to have paid curators who only curate and don't actually post - not sure how you could guarantee that or indeed fund it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree that it is how it is supposed to work, but the inherent problems outlined in your post are preventing it from working as designed. "The crowd" does not have enough SP to make any difference with post ranking, even if they find quality posts. Most of the stakeholders who can make a difference do not have the time to filter though all the content.
Those suggestions may work. I think we need to continue brainstorming on ways to channel the wisdom/efforts of the crowd into effective curation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@timcliff & @thecryptofiend, I think we're starting to get somewhere, now... there might actually be a possible workaround that possibly could be modified to work here. Please indulge this quick "brain dump:"
Back "before God invented dirt" I was part of a content for rewards site named "epinions;" this was circa 1999-2000. User generated content; peer reviewed/curated. Pretty much the same issues we're facing here... after a while curation ended up being largely in the hands of a few hundred people who really "cared" about the site... NOT a viable system for sorting millions of posts. So an improved system was devised.
Now, my memory is a bit hazy, but here's the general gist: Using Steemit terminology, we would have a separate "curation reputation," earned literally as a result of interaction with content. It was simple-- you were either a "member" or a "bronze," "silver" or "gold" curator. Your curation status was independent of other activity... A gold curator could have 17 posts or 17,000 original posts. Anyway, the incentivizing part here was that your rank was basically a multiplier on your rewards... and (as I recall) there was also something built into it to where if you slacked off, you could lose rank as a curator.
I should add that the system was NOT "game proof;" there were always some people trying to beat the system, rather than use it. But it certainly DID get a lot more people involved in the "read and rate" process.
Now in the context of the Steemit ecosystem, a minnow could work his or her way to Gold curating level while still being a minnow from a posting perspective. Let's arbitrarily say that a "Gold" curator would have to read, vote and comment on at least 50 posts a day over a 30-day period to get there... and then maintain that to stay there. Which sort of addresses the issue of having both content creators and content consumers on Steemit. We could potentially attract people to Steemit who say "but I don't write," who could still earn viable rewards as curators. Mind you, for this to be financially viable, we'd probably need to go back to the 50/50 split.
As an additional wrinkle-- and look forward-- with "Communities" on Steemit becoming a reality down the road, the top curators in certain topics often ended up as "Community Managers" (which we may discover we need here), tasked with such things as recategorizing (in our case, re-tagging) content that was grossly miscategorized in attempts to falsely gain visibility... not sure how we'd do that here... maybe an authentic use for flags? These were completely voluntary (and unpaid) positions, but they rewarded indirectly because your name would be everywhere, leading to increased exposure to your content, hence increased rewards.
Again, I am NOT a developer, and NOT a blockchainiac... so I'm totally OK with you telling me to sit down and shut up! Just tossing it out there....
Edited to add: The reason I bring up this particular case is that of the 100s of attempts of "rewards for contents" epinions was the longest lived and most spam-resistant of all... I got my last royalty payment in 2014(!) before then owner eBay pulled the plug on paying contributors. 15 years is an eternity in "web years."
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Really great ideas! I will have to think more about how this could be adopted to the blockchain technology, but it is a great place to start and gives lots of food for thought.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
($171.00 PROMOTED POST GOT MY ATTENTION!)
"Put the carrots where you need the work to be done."
Does the [WALLET] [PERMISSIONS] [POSTING] in each Steemit account ONLY allow voting and resteeming capabilities without sacrificing Active and Owner keys that would give FULL access to that person who lets say was TEMPORARILY working on a shift to help CURRATE for 24hours or possibly weekly?
Given that person would get a pecentage of the rewards for the work and time and effort after his or her shift was finished and curation rewards paid out MANUALLY or AUTOMATICALLY.
TL;DR
Cuaration/Curator Position (FULL TIME or PART TIME)
Freelance Temporary with possibility of handling the Rented or Delegated Steemit Account after say 3-6months of Curration Performance.
Any wrong doing or misuse of this Rented/Delegated account would have the Permissions revoked or changed. (The posting key is used for posting and voting. It should be different from the active and owner keys.)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The posting key would give the ability to vote (curate), post, comment, and resteem without access to the account's funds. Giving the user delegated SP and asking for a cut would accomplish basically the same thing. smooth used to hire curators back in the day btw - pretty much exactly what you described.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Having a separate account NOT a personal account which may be seen to play favorites with having a particular steemit user name showing they UPVOTED or RESTEEMED a CURATED post. For example:
Newly Created Steemit account name
@curationteamsteem1
@curationteamsteam2
@mondaycurator
@tuesdaycurator
etc
These handles can be 25 rep with delegated or funded SP which can be recycled to the next Freelancer Temporary Curator. (a set of new POSTING keys would be recommended)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I suppose the question is, if such a system works most of the time does it matter? By trying to only find solutions that are 100% game proof we may end up with generally subpar systems in reality.
Further if such a system were found I am almost certain some person somewhere would figure out a means to exploit it
Bad human behaviour can never be completely eliminated. All you can do is try to mitigate against it where you can but it isn't always possible.
This is the difference between how many people who work in computing think vs what we see in biological systems.
Biological systems work optimally most of the time and in most situations, whether they work in exceptional circumstances or not is somewhat irrelevant.
I'm not saying we should ignore potential problems or risks only that we should not lose sight of what is important and the vast bulk of common circumstances, merely to mitigate against exceptions.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
From where I am sitting, "mostly works" is a LOT better than "sometimes works."
Perfect solutions seldom exist outside of intellectual think tanks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly. Yet it seems some people are stuck in this form of thought.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Something I agree with
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I see examples with this solution every day. There are curation guilds, trails, and groups of people who compile lists of quality content. It serves a purpose, is thoughtful and rewarding.
The problem arises where these people are paid to present someone elses content while the original author receives minimal rewards. No doubt due to similar reasons that you've outlined.
Another function that could fill this roll is resteeming. The issue here is that it's not rewarding at all and can be misused without even realizing it. (at least in the minds of your audience)
I think there are indeed better solutions and we should keep thinking to see what we can come up with that is fair, rewarding and effective.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly. Thanks for you wise words mate. I'm just glad that there are people in the community like you who understand such issues and are thinking about it too. I am confident that it is a problem which we will find better solutions to through such discussion and probably some degree of experimentation. This is one of the reasons I find behavioural economics so fascinating - things don't always work out as expected and incentives are not always a simple thing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@timcliff I described a filtering system that can allow us to do that and help curators a great deal. If you are interested: https://steemit.com/steemit/@borislavzlatanov/proposal-make-it-easier-to-find-quality-posts-on-steemit
@thecryptofiend I think my proposal addresses a lot of the problems you raised, too.
I would be happy to get some feedback because I currently don't know if people don't see my proposal as good or the post just doesn't get noticed amongst the flood of other posts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for sharing I will give it a look when I have a moment. It is hard to get things seen in the sea of posts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Would be honored to have you onboard
https://steemit.com/eos/@cyberspace/whitepaper-for-our-8-new-steem-projects-by-steemcentral-ml-a-new-steem-sub-platform-coincentral-and-cyberspace
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It seems like an interesting project, but can you please explain what it has to do with our discussion on curation? The way it is randomly plugged as a reply to my comment kind of seems like spam.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The developer think tank has a dbase for centralizing these types of issues and solutions at http://developmentcenter.ml (linked in that article)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Cool, thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have a pretty good solution I think. Let people do what they want with their steem power:
By which I mean allow a 100% SP vote instead of a max 2% vote.
Kindof a jumbled mess of my thoughts now, I am working on cleaning this up and adding more arguments for it.
https://steemit.com/steem-ideas/@donaldtrumpfan/allow-a-100-sp-vote-the-best-voting-problem-solution
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think that would work. The slider already doesn't allow enough granularity and making it more sensitive to allow smaller gradations would make it even more fiddly to use. Interesting idea though - would be great if there were some way to test the effect like a pilot study assuming the granularity issue could be sorted out.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
interesting post
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post received a 3.4% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @maxsteem! For more information, click here!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for posting
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post received a 3.0% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @mountrock! For more information, click here!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good information and point of view on things here. Resteemd
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All of these arguments have been made for a year. At some point those of us who: a) objected to a lot of these poorly-thought-out and overly-reactive changes from the start, and b) have repeatedly argued for reverting them, just give up and move on to spending our time where we can actually make difference (ie. other projects).
BTW, the current system is not 75:25 but more like 88:12 given the effect of the reverse auction. Returning to a true 50:50 system that meaningfully recognizes the essential and valuable role of curators would increase curation rewards by about 4x. That's a dramatic difference and would make curation a lot more worthwhile even for people without huge accounts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice to hear from you mate!
Yes I know you have been arguing to fix some of these things since last year but nobody seems to listen.
Exactly and that is really important for the system to function correctly. The current imbalance (writing vs curation) means it is just not worth it for most people. So we have more and more people writing and fewer and fewer curating.
I don't see what the barrier is to at least trialling it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice to hear from you too. Hope you are doing well.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes just very busy - I suspect you are the same!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The one thing I noticed about the fallout from Hardfork 18 was that the minnows with sliders on their vote button, grew very conservative and rarely voted at 100%. After the first few days of abnormally high payouts, my rewards substantially dropped - now, if a whale or dolphin doesn't vote for me, I'm back to getting $2.00 per post regardless of content or quality. Also, if some of my followers do not auto-vote, but vote manually and delay or overlook me, it's even worse. If a post isn't up-voted within an hour, it's usually a lost cause - after 4 hours, forgeddaboutit. Rarely, does much happen in terms of rewards after the first day
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've noticed the same trend @johnjgeddes. On the other hand... I read and comment on a lot of content (including comments) in the course of a day, and my objective is to burn no more voting power in a given day than I can come back the following morning and start over with at least 95% power. In a sense, I like the current structure because if I see something truly amazing I can give it 100%, but if it's just average-to-good it'll get 15-30% and that still makes it feasible for me to look at 50-60 pieces per day.
Which isn't to say that there's aren't a bunch of people out there who aren't just outright fearful of "voting too much" so they sway in the opposite direction.
I would say that few of my posts move significantly after the first 24 hours... but before that they can; perhaps the result of publishing at "odd hours" so I hit many different time zones.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks, @denmarkguy - you made some good points - publishing at odd hours I can try so as to hit those other time zones but publishing at set times also so I don't lose my base. I like your rationale for allotting your voting power - I think I'll adopt that, but don't take it personally if I only vote 25% on one of your posts LOL!!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes. It also seems a lot less people are voting in general and I'm not sure why.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't have a lot of steem power, but as a level 65 rep, and experience on this platform, I curate in the way of comments, suggestions, and guidance.
Not always do you have to affect the reward pool to make someone feel better about the work they've done, or to correct some misbehavior by a new user who thinks they can game this system unnoticed.
I don't have a large roster of people I've curbed who started on the system and started copypasta posts, or blatant spam. But I can count at least 6 people, I, myself, got them to either change their ways or abandon their efforts when they were abusing the system.
Now imagine if those 6 people were to proliferate and continue... this place would be an even bigger mess.
If people would do similar things, of any scale, we'd all win. We don't need just me doing it, but hundreds more.
[not that I suggest I am the only one doing it. I'm just giving a conceptual example]
...so if you have significant steempower, yes, absolutely, please help curate both good and bad content by upvote/downvote.
...if you have little steempower but a good reputation, yes, absolutely, please help curate both good and bad content with simply words on people's blogs. It is quite effective.
..finally, join and seek out and support curation groups who do good work in this area. At least part of the time... even if it means delegating a tiny portion of your steempower to the cause [if you are technically able to figure out how to do it]
Thanks for this post and bringing even more awareness to this issue. Curation continues to be one of the challenges of this system.
There is absolutely no way to "code in" a perfect botted solution, or algorithm to do what humans must do...
Proper curation will always need human labor to be involved.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think nothing will work unless curation reward is higher than self-voting reward.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good point, but I'm not sure that will be possible from a mathematical standpoint.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Within 30 minutes, already 120 upvotes, and they are still pouring in by the minute...
like u rightly said, the power of the whale is immense on the steemit platform, the bandwagon effect it has is worth commendation
back to the topic of discussion
I have been following the myriads of problems steemit is faced with, and observing how blue whales, are doing their best to fight off the rampage caused by sharks and piranha fishes here on steemit... Once again the efforts are commendable. Without these self-styled heroes (i wont mention names today) our precious steemit as we are enjoying it now, would be in total disarray.
So what solutions can we proffer? First of all i will offer a way out of the headache, and this is from an excerpt of one of Jack Sparrow's movies, where one of the english soldiers trying to capture him, and being so amazed how he slipped out of their fingers said something like this "how does he do it? Does he have it all planned out, or does he make it up as he goes along?"
The movie makes us believe he makes it up as he goes along of course....
Relating that scene to our present steemit case scenario, i think the best way out is to observe trends, analyse metrics, and then build defenses, and make necessary adjustments as we go along, for the overall good of steemit, as these threats to the well being of steemit become more apparent...
On another note... Curation is an integral structure of steemit, which has been largely marginalised...
I am really happy i read your post, you just put in writing what i have been battling with in my mind for some weeks now, since i actively got back on the steemit platform.
one thing i know, is this, in the real world scenario, our governments are able to successfully fight of, or to an extent incapacitate worse threat cases than we are facing here on steemit, and even though the world still faces all kinds of unfriendly, hostile activities, the world has not come to a grind or halt, we have learnt to make do with the good and the bad together in society....
steemit is another 2nd life society or world, if it can be done in the real world, i dont see what makes steemit any different.
When forces of evil are on a rampage, there are always forces of good that will rise to combat and repel them back... We also have that here in steemit
Since issues with curating so far have been identified, lets keep observing, anlyzing and making recommendations, as you have so well done and i know very soon, a viable solution will crop up... That will stem this tide of curation injustice.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Brainstorming
(i) Make it into a competitive game? Whales could sponsor and reward "curation contests" among individual or teams of curators, using their own preferred metrics for what it means to be a good curator. Someone could even make a "fantasy curators" game, modeled after fantasy sports leagues.
(ii) Modify rewards to let authors, instead of directing shares of rewards to a designated account, delegate a share of rewards to whatever curators vote on the post.
(iii) Consider redoing the payout algorithm to use something like a second price auction for determining rewards (Google found this style of auction to be more appropriate for their digital advertising sales. It tends to encourage bidding to stay more in line with perceived value.)
(iv) As @sigmajin suggested quite some time ago, put reverse auction penalties back into the curation rewards pool instead of giving them to the author.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great ideas. I like the idea of creating a game. Delegation of rewards is also a good idea. Second price auction is interesting too.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Delegation of rewards to a post's voters might be vulnerable to abuse, but I think it's more transparent and lower friction than the various post-boosting bots that are emerging. I have thought for a while that authors should be able to customize the percentage of curation rewards on their posts, so that would be a way to accomplish it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Please stop spamming the comments here and delete the duplicates - you are likely to end up with flags.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok. Your call. How else to make people aware? The idea is to collect all good ideas for developing the Steem platform in one dbase. As it is now everything is splayed out in comments across many articles. You really see it as spam?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not sure but posting it under each comment will just annoy people.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly !
I was just going to flag it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I know this is an expired post, but I just wanted to say that this is the primary reason I pretty much only post my photography now. In fact I consider it to be pretty brave these days to write a post like this one, @thecryptofiend, because as soon as people see how long it is, many of them likely immediately roll their eyes and move on. Photos are quick and easy to digest, though, and I've found that if I have a handful of daily projects, it gives me new content to post every day.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes it is sad.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok, there's a lot of comments here already, and this one will probably just get lost in the din, but did anybody mention @the-traveler's ideas about content curation? I think it would solve some problems if more curators were doing something like this.
It also helps generate more revenue for the curator as they get upvotes from their curation posts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for sharing. There are some good ideas there.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You can add this issue and solutions to our new Innovation dbase at http://Developmentcenter.ml at SteemCentral
https://steemit.com/eos/@cyberspace/whitepaper-for-our-8-new-steem-projects-by-steemcentral-ml-a-new-steem-sub-platform-coincentral-and-cyberspace
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks I'm not familiar with it. Will need to take a look.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It might not be an easy fix but I think if a few of the bigger curators were to start doing weekly curation blogs like that more people would get on board. I know it doesn't really address all the issues regarding finding and rewarding quality curators and content but it could be a step in the right direction.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
hm i was considering buying steem to give more visibility to my posts, but if you want to remove self-vote then this incentive to buy steem disappears...and the whole attention economy collapses.
even if you increase the curator rewards (could be a good idea) very few will buy steem to be curators as very few have time for it.
also self-vote will still be done by proxy bots.
as long as people self-vote genuine posts that took time to write I don't see a problem (they paid by buying steem to get the attention) but it's another matter when they automate self votes towards spam bots.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@simoneighties/welcome-bot-proxy-self-vote-abuse-in-introduceyourself
this is clear abuse yet nothing is being done about it .
In any case the Steemit team needs to define the rules of the game once and for all, or it is difficult for Investors to enter the market without knowing exactly what steem can be used for. there's an hardfork around the corner every month with rule changes and the investor never knows where he stands . And without the investor this platform dies. The investor is never mentioned in these discussions. yet its the most important aspect in keeping Steem alive
my personal feed is where i find the information i'm interested in, while I know the trending page will always be dominated by capital (i rarely look at it, and when i do just to see how much ppl are making)
by increasing curation rewards maybe better content will make the trending page, but i wouldn't count on it. worth a try though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very good point. It is certainly something that needs to be considered however if you read further I suggested an alternative would be to exclude curation rewards for self voting.
As for the numerous people abusing the system I agree something needs to be done about it but there is no simple solution just as with this issue.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
yeah removing the curation rewards would be fair, but I don't think it can be done. The user can simply delegate or move his steem power to a proxy and self vote with the added curation rewards that way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
He/she could but it would be better than what we have now. Not everyone would do it and more of the curation would go to other people.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that is a pretty good problem which we experience the most. Despite the fact I do post sometimes it is hard to find consumers and curators. I don't know if that is because after HF 19 people have been reserving their upvote due to voting power or because of the numbers of users joining creating content and ultimately creating this flood of posts.
It seems like here on steemit if you spam you do better than me. I don't envy these people but I've seen people who are small and post purely memes and earn a couple hundred dollars a week. I understand why they would do well as it is a social media platform and no one wants to bored with lectures and essays leaving good content to dwindle while the rewards pool is reaped by this spam.
I try to look through the new section finding good content and upvoting them. For the platform to thrive, rise and prosper we need to work as a community and help each other grow.
Maybe we could get rid of self upvoting as well as integrated a system where relative to how much you curate, you reach different levels which allow you to earn more and more of the curation stake.
Let's hope some of these suggestions and answers are taken forward to enhance and promote curations which the site needs to thrive @thecryptofiend
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Absolutely.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Now that I have comfortably read all the comments and joined in the ones I could relate to, I will now leave my comment.
The truth about manual curation is that it is time consuming (speaking from experience) and most people simply want to avoid the stress of added responsibilities hence the bots have to do it all, but the reliance of bots/autovotes have made certain individuals lazy to actually curate posts.
An example is when someone is on a fixed percentage of autovotes from whales, the person's contents might not be carefully evaluated and yet will be given "free" votes. To such a whale, he is curating, so when people shout for votes,`he feels o well, I am voting a couple of people so I am not selfish.
Now the downside is some might put a good author on autovote, but on something like 1% because of the reputation score of the author. Such a person no matter how well he/she writes has been condemned to a fixed vote and has to compensate by messaging people and practically asking for the votes which might/might not amount to something.
The voting system is filled with so many complications like timing and all that deserving posts get missed.
Now if we say let us employ the services of manual curators who won't post but vote, I will tell you what will happen, the curator's friends and favorites will end up getting more votes plus the numerous alts of the curators will be enriched.
The truth is this is more of a structural/organizational problem than a logical one, because for everyone plan made to reward authors, the current system of voting/rewards creates more issues why there will be more complications.
Solution
The top members should really sit down and answer this question: Is steemit a money making Cow or a vision? If it is the second, then certain things need to be reviewed like the voting/reward system which favors just a few and neglects the many.
More people should be groomed and raised to at least Dolphin like level to match the amount of exist minnows and red fish. That way it becomes a system of helping each other grow because the only a few receiving good rewards with decent SP actually take time out to also reward authors. Some are concerned with making and powering down only.
This brings me to my third point. The power down mechanism could be a tool for curation. A system where each powerdown is only successful if you have attained a certain level of curation and engagement in the community (I don't know how that will happen but it sounds good).
Think of it as locked SP that can only be unlocked with curation and engagement.
A buddy system where whales and Dolphins with a decent SP are encouraged to delegate to 5 apprentices and the apprentices must vote a specific amount of people daily. The donor can then channel his attention elsewhere and curate more...
My two cents tho
Edit: That being said, I resteemed and upvoted this because you spoke my mind.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I hope that something changes here as neither authors, nor curators receive any real return on their efforts for many weeks or more after starting.
I myself have worked day and night posting, curating and commenting, and only continue because I have high hopes for my future on this platform.
But this is very similar to my experience as an artist in meatworld in general, if you are not running with the in crowd, you will not be the in crowd ever.
And in steemit the fact that your work is basically negated seven days after you post...
makes a mockery of the time a newbie can put into a post, similar to the way that selling an artwork makes a mockery of the time spent creating said thing.
Yesterday I sold an artwork in the real world, out there in meat world. It was part of an exhibition of pictures that I worked on for around six months, full time. I then invested 500 euros in frames (cheap although reasonable frames is all I can do these days) and 100 in fuel to deliver the artworks to the gallery, (in another province)
And the artwork in question started at 1200 euros, and I was asked if I would like to offer a discount price which I did at 1000 and then sold for eight hundred after a call making that offer.
and I have to be pleased.
And I am of course, but I would be pleased to sell my soul lately, the thing has gotten that way.
and only 400 of that is for me of course, 400 goes to the gallery.
so I still haven't broken even on the series, and that's working full time for free, as I do on steemit
lol
keep up the good fight
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wow thanks for sharing your experience. I suppose what your real world experience shows is how many extra costs and middlemen there are in the real "meat" world when it comes to selling content. The blockchain world is supposed to cut out a lot of those costs and it does but as Steem/Steemit show they have their own different problems which must also be solved.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You make some excellent points here. The balance of producers to consumers is indeed way off. I wish I had a solution but sadly I don't. I wonder if the situation would improve if it were easier to sort content. Not everyone is a "jack of all trades". I'd argue that most people prefer posts about a certain topic specific to their tastes. Clearly I love Star Wars. It would be cool if my feed could be filled with all the Star Wars posts for the day. I know I can search tags but it would be much easier if that were my home page. If we all had more personalized feeds, I wonder if people would actually read more.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent points.
This is one of the reasons my feed is a nightmare - I follow a lot of people who post on various topics but only some of their posts are about something which I am interested in. If there were a more intelligent way of constructing the feed - perhaps as you suggest using tags and maybe even other ways to personalise it, it would make the job a lot easier.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is currently the challenge here on this platform when we produce not just quality but unique content but are not getting seen because we are not paying users, or do not have that whale ability yet. Letting our precious 3-hour masterpiece get drowned in the abyss of new tab. Not for the money, but some people out there deserve to see our content too. We also come here to find like-minded individuals and the right people who will read. It's not their fault if they don't find us, it's just the system. Then the post will become old after 3 hours, just like that. But then we are judged and frowned upon if we use / invest in bots to push our posts / or as a temporary solution to the system. But why don't people frown at those whales who self-upvote or posting the same old topics being recyled everyday on the trending page? I agree with the solution - remove self-upvote. Use rep as a factor for curation and for pushing posts up.
I can see steemit is still in beta, but perhaps there might be other improvements or solutions that need to be done than just having the ability to change the cover photo? lol
Yes, some people gave up complaining as we want more solution here. Some are just in-denial, are here for the community or to showcase their talent. If that is what steemit is all about, then hide the $ sign that taints my fellow writers' mind. And add more features that cater to those who don't write for money such as blogger.com features, tags on our own feed for easy search, filter, custom views, archives, date search. These are more useful improvements than being able to change the cover photo.
Unless we post about positivity, success in life or in steemit, then we get auto upvoted by the whales, otherwise, be ignored if not. Good for those who have regular support, keep inspiring them with those topics so they can keep the money here! :) Unfortunately, some people don't write/live up to other people's expectations.
What's your take on this curation thing going on, rewarding /luring the very talented writers only at the beginning, then being abandoned later? We can't blame these talented new writers for being frustrated in the end when $300 at rep 25, becomes $0.06 at rep 57. Quality content then becomes a myth. Then people judge those who write for the rewards? And the suggestion of the mediocre is to leave the platform, or don't write for the money? Excuse me, we also have our wealth here, cannot be erased from the platform anymore, unlike those who can take their wealth back after 13 weeks.
Here's the good part most people here want to hear, now there are a few people staying for the community and not sacrificing the quality of content (old and new writers here despite losing the drug given to them). For the love of writing, and for the community. I'm staying because I have few readers who curate my content because they genuinely like or read what I create/produce. I appreciate the 0.03 cents, and the engagment. How's that for being positive. :)
Sorry about this, I should have turned this into a post lol. But I don't want to taint my travel memoirs portfolio with anything about steemit's internal matters anymore.
Meanwhile, I'll write away....
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great points. I think a lot of people probably stay on just for the writing!
Do you mean curation guilds? I think as more people join it becomes less and less feasible for them to vote for the old people so it is an inevitable result.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I be quite new and am just getting the "feel" of the steemian culture, which is currently evolving.
It just occured to me after reading through this post and comments that as bitcoin is proving to be the "gold standard".
It seems like a social media like steem is seeking to find a way to measure "quality" for a lack of a better word.
So it occured to me that just as we have Bitcoin as the standard of currency, perhaps the next step is Bit-Citizenship. Which is the direction the Steemit seems to be going and where many of the questions seem to leading.
Anyway to avoid being long winded boring, I will just throw out there the notion of the measure steem might be about is the idea of consuming less.
This is the opposite of the conquer and consume mentality which envelopes most current global cultures.
I am sure many here are thinking along similar lines.
As the concept of curation has us looking for a measuring device, but a device to measure less, not more.
Just some food for thought as this has got me thinking, I'm sure others are thinking similar ideas.
Cheers...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting thoughts. It may well be that the reputation management and quality control aspect of Steemit is one of the most valuable aspects and it will be interesting to see how it evolves.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
2)The reverse auction system actually rewards the using of bots.
This has been discussed many times before. The reverse auction was created to discourage bots claiming the majority of rewards by immediately voting on new posts. However it may actually disincentivise people voting manually. The cognitive load of calculating whether you should vote or not based on the timing is an extra hassle for people.
Even worse:
I log in, go to my feed, see a post I like!
"Shit... it's only 2 minutes old. I'll be denied any rewards if I vote on it now, I'll come back in a little bit and upvote it further down the auction. "
4 hours later:
Crap, I forgot to go back and upvote that post... ah well, no point now... too far down the voting pool to make my vote worth any of the rewards. Best to save it for something fresher.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What's worse... SO MANY don't even know about or understand the reverse auction. Especially minnows. So there's a high chance they will be blowing their votes, seeing very little return, and just giving up on curation. Wrote a whole post on it, but I'm still fairly new and my exposure hasn't really grown. Glad to see others fighting the good fight and getting the message out, lol.
I think a lot of talk about it happened when it was implemented, and a lot of the people who have been around now just assume everyone knows about it since it was talked about THEN so much. I didn't find anything about it until well after a month of being here.
Having a full on "Here's how everything actually works!" page on the site itself would likely be a really good start.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes lack of understanding how everything works is a big problem.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Also, the ability to follow a category/tag as well as individuals.... would make new author exposure more likely.
I could go on and on with these ideas.... lol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think that will come with the communities feature which is supposed to be this year.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A very simple way to help make the reverse auction less problematic, is to distribute the forfeited curation rewards to the OTHER voters instead of the author.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, in the end as long as the positives far outweigh the negatives then change is good. Nothing is ever 100% perfect, we should strive to get it closer to that target though.
I wish I had ideas on how to improve this dynamic, but it is well out of my technical realm too. I do my best to curate though. I start and end my day going through my feed manually, upvoting and commenting. It is quite time consuming though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@blueorgy you must read this. It can refer to your recent post:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@blueorgy/what-needs-to-change-now-in-order-for-steemit-to-survive-partial-payout-declined-self-voting
@thecryptofiend
"The real world is often like this. It is a balance of risks and rewards with few "clean" solutions that solve everything"
Vaccines are great examples. Some of them have some certain very low probability side effects but the risks are so low that they come nowhere near to outweighing the enormous benefits from using vaccines.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly. Thanks for the link I missed that post and will check it out.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi @logic, I see you have mentioned me.
This is automatic response so that I may respond to your mention later.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with this and your whole post completely. We should always be working towards an outcome that is most favourable to as many as possible and content curation is equally as important as creation.
Good solutions provided to one of the many ongoing issues at the moment! :)
Have great day my friend!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Agree with your possible solutions. You've identified the problem really well. Too much supply and too less demand. I think I should take some time off posting and focus more on curation. But at the level I am in right now, would it really help?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It all helps the community, I suppose the question is, is it worth your while and I can't really answer that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly. Its not like I am not learning many new things over here; from cryptocurrencies to cultural exchanges. But I think I've just had to skim too much and this problem is growing day by day.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I totally vote manually and have explored many aspects of voting. After writing for many years, as a contributor here and there, I had thought with that background I would mostly write here on Steemit. It became more and more obvious that to do much of that I needed to "make friends" and get to know Steemians through common interests.
I have written a few short posts but I agree there are "tweeks" that could help the platform.
Having to time your vote in order to receive the best benefit is a "pain" as people are busy and using Steemit as social interaction and not their main job. ROI is noted as part of the Steem package when one joins and patience is a must as we work as a community to make adjustments for a more level playing field. It frustrates me that I cannot come up with immediate solutions. As the platform evolves I feel that they will appear in good time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes I think it is a process of continuous evolution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just this weekend I was asked if I wanted to curate for Curie. I've spend many hours wading through the crap and I still didn't find any post that fit all the requirements. Granted, Curie has many requirements (some I don't agree with, others I do), but it is an example of how right you are by pointing this out. It takes so much time to find good content when there is so much crap being posted.
I'm not sure how exactly we can rectify that situation. One thing that comes to mind is an option to sort by reputation. That, however, makes it very hard for newbies to get a foothold. Especially since everyone is so afraid to flag bad posts, so they'll be on the same rep level as cat picture spammers.
What is a 'top curator' in this scenario? Is it the person who uses most of their voting power/percentage (excluding on themselves)? Is it the person who upvotes posts with a combined highest rewards payout? I hope neither by the way. I'm not sure how to define a top curator. Someone who's serious about curation and actually upvotes good content, no matter what the potential payout/reward for themselves is, but how do you measure that?
I love your post and agree with it. Like you though, I have no clue how to make curation a more thankful job whilst remaining 'fair', or as fair as things can be.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That is a good question to ask. According to the current system it would be the person who upvotes posts with the highest combined payouts at the earliest stage.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think you're right. This would most likely mean many bot votes for known authors who always earn a lot, so it wouldn't promote a system where new people (or anyone besides the lucky few on Trending) could thrive.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I did not like it when I found out the rewards auction. If I see a piece of content I like, I want to upvote it right then and there.
When I started using Steemit, I browsed through the "New" feed a lot. But I had to go through so many spammy posts to find ones that I liked that I eventually I just stopped. Now I mainly stick to Hot and Trending. Reading this post though makes me want to go back to being a more active curator for the good of the community.
One thing I think could help would be creating "Publications" like there is on Medium. There could be some Steemit accounts dedicated to resteeming posts. The key is that authors who believe in their posts could send them to these Publications to be resteemed if they approve. That's the main way Medium solves the issue of putting unknown content in front of more readers and I think it would work here too. Of course, people could start spamming requests at the publications but, like you said, we shouldn't dismiss that solution because people might abuse it.
I think the stuff @sndbox is doing is pretty interesting. They're gathering a group of people tasked with finding interesting entrepreneurial content for them to resteem.
Also, I mentioned you @thecryptofiend in a recent post I wrote about the pros and cons of using a username vs. real name on Steemit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually the idea of publications is a really good one. In some respects I think the communities function may fulfill a similar role as people will be able to create their own communities (if I understand it correctly).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What's the communities function? Is it like Facebook groups?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
To a degree - I heard it would be more like sub-reddits on Reddit - although we don't have much detail on it yet.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hm, interesting. I thought tagging was supposed to be like that but I guess not because you can add multiple.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If we need more people with more power to make a difference with their curation votes, then maybe there could be a method by which Steem Power was given to certain curators via a lottery. The more you curate, the better chance you have at winning enough Steem Power to make a difference in voting rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how viable it would be but it is worth exploring.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yeah. Not being able to program, I couldn't begin to imagine how you'd implement that sort of system, but variables could be brainstormed, like maybe you need a certain reputation score or a certain level of curator activity and then the software itself chooses someone out of a pool of similar users. I think it'd have to be a trustless system and baked into Steem to remove corruption.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Switch back to 50:50 rewards for curation.
Remove the self-vote option for posts - or remove curation rewards from self-upvotes. Yes people could game it but why incentivise them to do it?
The first point could be ok but then people will use always more bots and the earning will increase.
Second point... maybe limit the % of self voting if the % of curation will increase. For example self vote will take 5% of voting power and decrese the % of voting other account.
People will try hard to get more money as possible. The third point is not easy to put in place.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
People use bots already. I think this will encourage a better balance between curation and posting.
That might discourage voting for others though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok better clarify. I would love the idea of increase the % of curation reward at 50%. It would be great and believe me I am voting as well myself to increase my SP.
Regarding the 5% lost self voting means that ONLY if you vote yourself your vote power will drop down of 5%. Believe me if my voting power will drop 5% i will prefer read more posts than I usually do instead of voting my posts.
For the other part of the coin... we will have much more curators than writers and will be good or bad having only bots voting.
Ofr the other
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
it will be great as I am voting my posts as well but the majority of my VP is spent voting other people posts. would be amazing
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dear @cryptofiend,
I agree with everything you write here, also it's so good to see how @acidyo reacts. I feel that indeed the author rewards compared to curation rewards is off balance. Let's compare two scenario's where you only have 50 SP:
Scenario 2 would add far more to the value of Steem as a platform, but Scenario 1 pays out 10 times more.
At the moment, bad behavior is rewarded, so that's exactly what we'll get. Whatever behavior is rewarded in the short term, that is exactly the behavior that we will see, it's only human nature. It seems that curation at the moment is only effective and rewarding for accounts that already have very large amounts of SP...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
One simple desicion - restrict self-upvoting
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think the main problem is that it's quite hard to browse the site, in relation to reddit, etc. There needs to be more automatic curation before the user sees posts. I have to go through pages and pages just to find something that piques my curiosity to click. That makes curation time consuming and less fun.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes that is definitely an issue.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm new, is it possible to follow tags in a useful way?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not yet. There are some tools like Steemwatch that allow it but it is not part of the site yet.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think removing the self upvote option is a good start. I have done it, but its not really worth doing when you are a minnow anyway! when you are trying to get your posts seen but competing against self voting whales, we don't really stand a chance. It's a hard platform to progress on when you are starting out now
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Steemit is at a critical point when spam and abuse are becoming a real issue. We need the community to decide what they want it to be. We have the power
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is truly a gem of a post, and I just couldn't agree more with you. Im kinda new in steemit (45 days), I join here because it looks fun and interesting to be part of. I love to write, I love photography, and here I found a place to mix both of them. I have some stories to tell, and try to make always 100% original content, I even try to post daily, in two languages. And after doing this, games one of the parts I enjoy the most, that is reading and try to learn more and more about what I'm interested. I start to read about crypto a couple of weeks ago, since I start "playing" on bittrex, and try to read as much as I can here on steemit. And as you said, a lot of people are writing and no one seems to be reading, and the problem is the big gap in between the potential profits as an author and as a curator. That only means that a lot of people are here because of their own interest, and just trying to make some profits from here, most of the people didn't want to read, or are too focused on the authors part. I don't have an idea to solve this problem, the self vote as you said should be forbidden, and also it could help that more people with high voting weight help the real readers to make their own vote worth more, it could level up the SP for some of the people who are actually willing to spend time finding and upvoting a good post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well delegation is a way to do that. The problem is currently delegation of SP doesn't earn the delegator anything at all - they just have to do it for free which is clearly ridiculous.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I actually like curating and I think for most people if they dont really see much in gains for doing it they wont, but then again in order to gain more in curation you need more SP and I think the problem is we dont have enough people with much SP yet. I think hopefully with time more people with SP will be available meaning others will have a chance to grow also and eventually also have enough SP so that their votes became more valuable. I myself wish I would get slightly more votes so I could vote and curate on others here more often but its a very slow process, I am maybe going to look into more someone willing to delicate but atleast I reached the 75k kings badge for curation not long ago.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not convinced that using bots is the correct way to go on what is supposed to be a social network site
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It certainly isn't ideal and I don't like doing it myself which is why I keep switching my bot off and on.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I just think you lose something taking the human element out , I like to vote for things I read and like. Thank you for taking the time to reply cheers
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Is it possible to identify voting bots on the network? If so banning voting bots would make Steemit a much better experience. Comments and votes should only be real human interaction.
Bots should only be used as admin tools for stats and diagnostics.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think there is any effective way to do it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think curation of tags could help also. This is when final tags set of every post is up to curators (all users). And the person whose set is most popular gets most curation reward and finalizes tags for a post. This solution is financial incentive for content structuring and categorizing.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You've hit the mark.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That's a good idea.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
finally, I'm super glad someone covered this problem. I've definitely been subconsciously thinking about it myself.
I have a potential partial solution for #Steemit - on the post listings, allow a preview of the post on the right side. For people with large monitors they can scroll through content, and hover over, read it and decide in an easier manner if it's valuable rather than having to open a new tab, read, decide, go back, or scroll and vote
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My post earnings is actually in the crapper if not from a support and mercy from friends like you and I believe some serious steps like incentivizing curators a little more to encourage them and a check valve for self votes too can make a big difference.
Problems in steemit is too noticeable.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent Post. Your article and heart for the platform of Steemit made me want to go back to trying and taking the time to curate good content. Your suggestion of "Curation could be considered mining good content" is very intriguing to me. It would be awesome to spend time on being a mining curator. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on curation's role on the Steemit site.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
One problem you mention on top, there are not enough readers. Interesting constellation, normally it is the opposite.
I believe knowledge about Steemit is still very limited, and entrance barriers e.g. registration are way to high to attract a broader audience. These have to resolved first.
Hope that could be done soon.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes me too.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Curation Rewards should be coupled to the Reputation of the User. The higher the Rep, the lower the curation reward. If an user's rep is below 25, there should be no curation rewards too, to avoid gaming the system with worthless sock puppets.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes - this does sound like a really good idea. It would also give people a reason to work on improving their rep.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If Steemit had a sticky post function, this should be on the top of the list.
There are some great points discussed in the article. One thing I'll be doing different from now it more curation and less creating. For Steemit to succeed, we need quality content reaching as many readers as possible. I shouldn't matter if the content was produced by oneself or others.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It is possible that curation may mean actually adding depth to the content. Maybe the curation needs to have curation ... if people upvote at random hoping that they will hit the lottery. If I read content that is rated highly but find that it wasn't hot - just lukewarm I could vote on the performance of the raters. This would lessen the value that their curation was worth. If a person up voted at random (or by bots) than the quality of the curation becomes a factor.
Looking at this post: https://steemit.com/wallpaper/@superbing/daily-bing-wallpaper-bing-2017-08-22
It is currently "hot". Yes it has pretty pictures but I do not understand why it is any more valuable than others with more reads and only receiving pennies. While the original content doesn't deserve to be down voted the value of the voters or their curation rewards should be less.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This post makes so many good points. Curation is incredibly time-consuming--I did it for a living for a while. But it's a vital service and should be incentivized, as you suggest. Thanks for this thoughtful breakdown! Upvoted, resteemed, and following. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am the Great Cornholio! Would you like to see my portfolio? I have a portfolio in my bunghole, with my óleo!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I love to read so count me in as a curator!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I realized I was in a hurry to fill up my blog with content. I got a bit let down last week, because it was going unnoticed. Good quality content that I poured my heart into. I realized, I needed to get out and curate more. So, that is a solution to this issue as well. We should all take a break from content creation once in a while and observe, read, curate, get to know people. Teamwork! I'm having fun reading :) I'm also engaging with good comments that are well meant and forming connections!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Personally I dont believe in voting bots. Everyone will be using them soon and no posts will ever be read. Starting out as an author will be totally unrewarding because bots that can award monetary rewards will all be following the top authors. Whales will become bigger and minnows minute.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are absolutely right. There is a lack of good curators on this platform. This has a negative impacts on the articles that authors post daily. I have notice that too many good content remain unnoticed on this platform due to this issue. I think that the developers should actually work on an innovative way of curation system that will benefit all users of this platform.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hello ... Great article and awesome comments ...agree with so much of it...
In my few months here I have learned so much about crypro and steemit ...
But I don't like bots ... I think the steem power should have a little more life to it as you run out far to quickly as a minnow ...I curate far more than post so I read through a ton of posts ..and find great stuff like this but have squat for steem power to even give you a vote let alone the great curators here ...
as a whale you can spread it out a bit as a minnow there is nothing to spread lol a few upvotes and you are out of gas ....
I think self votes bots and multi accounts should be done away with ...
Minnows given a few more votes before running out of power ..
But it still makes youtube twitter and face book look like a bad joke even now in its infancy ....
And most of the big pay posts are from whale share and other things like it ..not sure this gives a lot of posts a fair shake ... no hunting for gold just log in upload you post link and the club member upvote ... no one has even looked through the new post list ...and a huge amount of the daily mined steem is made this way .... not from me or others curating .... the curation rewards are not that great ...thinking of just dumping some cash in so I can at least get one upvote on my curation lol
well steem will grow and change with time .... and it will be fun to watch ... a gret social experiment to say the least..
Cheers to all great post and discussion ...would love to give you all a thumb up...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fantastic post! And surely no lack of curation here. I believe the solution to the curation cunundrum lies in users posting engaging through provoking content such as this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great article. As a new user, I'm trying to follow guidelines and am writing all my own content and trying to make it valuable, mainly on Psychology as that's my field. I find myself frustrated seeing posts by users that seem to have ignored your etiquette guidelines or the Get Started guide and are quite obviously just copy pasting from news articles or just posting YT videos without mentioning the original poster (who is often a Steemit user) or adding any of their own wording to the post.
I have 'policed' a few of these today in the comments.. but wonder if it's wrong to do so. I feel I may be wasting my time but perhaps I should have pasted a link to your etiquette guide when doing so. Anyways.. in an ideal world it would be great to see original posters being rewarded for their work, and is it always right to flag users that don't write their own content as per the examples I've given above? I think I read somewhere we should avoid flagging where possible.
I find your input to the community essential so far.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think if people are just cutting and pasting entire articles from other people without their permission or adding anything substantive, then that is a good reason to flag.
How you use the flag is quite subjective but I think most people agree on that.
You can also report such instances in the Steemcleaners:
https://steemit.chat/channel/steemcleaners-linkdrop
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent. Thanks man!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As the smallest of minnows, still with barely a week under my belt, I love to create new content. But I want that content to be commented on.
If we are not here for interaction with other people, what are we here for? Okay, yeah, for some people it's the money I suppose. Duh!
Anyway.... If I want my posts to be commented on, then I have to be willing to go out and comment on other people's posts, right? That's the way I see it anyway. And I am not talking about "great post" kind of comments, but something that says "I read your piece and this is what I think about it."
I'll be honest, I haven't read all 364 comments on this particular post, but I definitely see the point @thecryptofiend is making in the original.
For those of us who aren't sitting at the table, I guess all we can really do is look ourselves in the mirror and ask if we are doing enough to support curation, and if the answer is no, then do something to change it.
Thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
True but I think we need to make sure that the platform incentives are also striking the right balance between writing and curating.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Upvoted, although I somewhat disagree on how serious this problem is.
I think this problem will go away as Steemit rises in popularity. We have to realise, that of Steemit were to go completely mainstream, new posters would probably never get the kinds of money they get today. I think the reason there is such a disproportionate amount of writers is the fact that we are, after all, beta testers.
Imagine if Steemit began as big as people predict it today. There's going to be a lot of older people and just in general, content consumers , people who use the site casually. They come on the site after their 9-5. They don't want a second 9-5. At that point, the proportion of creators will probably come down to normal levels, levels seen on other platforms.
Imagine, if the YouTube account of anyone who wasn't a YouTuber was deleted, and the only people left are the creators. Thats how Steemit is right now. As it becomes more mainstream, that situation will change
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's fine to disagree but I think you are wrong. It is not a size issue it is an inequality issue. More people will not change the balance they will simply create more content which will require even more curation.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A 50/50 split in post rewards would increase the amount of upvotes received on average.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Possibly.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Puppies and kitties.
Being a new user only a few months into Steemit, I don't feel qualified to offer any profound solutions. I can only give you insight into my own experience.
I have found my enthusiasm for creating content waning as of late. The reward system is so arbitrary and the prevalence of spam is disheartening.
To attract new users and gain mass adoption we need something to change.
I don't know what the answer is but this is an important discussion to have.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks, yes I can imagine it is disheartening for new users.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I say all that but I do see the value in the platform over the long haul.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am actually very happy you posted about this matter because it seems to be a real concern to many including myself . It's getting tough being on this platform because sometimes I put in a lot of work for my posts and it seems like they have no value , what's .20 to someone posting a picture of food where they could get $500 . Why does that seem to happen these days, I felt like if I put more and more work , the less it becomes noticed .
I try to do everything , I try writing and reading over what I wrote over and over . Post it . Then I begin to comment on newcomers , anything that is interesting , and literally everything . I may use my voting power always , but I put in a lot more time making an effort to connect with other individuals and it seems like they wouldn't ever do the same . I'm not asking them to do it , but it's just a feeling . Some days are good and some days I literally have no hope left . @cryptofiend , do you have any advice for me
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not really you just have to be persistent I suppose.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you , I guess I'll keep pushing until one day , where my work and others work are recognized
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for posting and sharing. Great opinion that makes sense. I'll still keep trying to curate and post as much as I can :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great. It all helps I think. I try to curate at least a few things manually every day but it is tough when you are busy so I can't always do it..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I 100% agree with everything you said, yet I also play this curating game, since it is the most profitable right now... I really hope to see things changing in the future though. Kind of sick to see the same people being advocated. But yeah, I am only a minnow so what can I do about it... And yeah I think curating needs to be revamped entirely although I have no idea how...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes that is the problem. I think if we discuss it and keep trying more things we might come up with a better way of doing things (although it will likely never be perfect).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I came to Steemit not as a side job or way to work from home. I originally opened my steemit account just to have the ability to purchase Steem Power. The fact that I get rewards for my "likes" is a bonus for me. On Facebook, I did almost nothing. Here, I'm incentivized to interact a little more.
That being said, the curation rewards ARE pretty puny, and lately, I'm not finding a whole lot of valuable content that's worth upvoting. Maybe I'm not following the right people...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with almost everything you've said here, especially the nature of people to try and upvote and curate only 'big fish posts', instead of looking over all channels and curating things that could genuinely be good content, as well as to focus on positives as well as negatives, as opposed to only on the latter group. I myself make a practice of both, where I like to keep a balanced approach when dealing with negatives and positives, and my curation efforts take me through my Followers list, the Hot and Trending sections, as well as the New section, so I think I'm putting out an even spread there. I also spend lots of time on each post, making sure each piece is constructive and at least informative. I'm hoping this gets me somewhere, since I'm playing the game as fairly as I can. My comments on people's posts are usually also relevant to the post, and offer insight and difference, as well as praise for points well met, and typically an upvote.
Where I disagree with you, however, is on the point of author-curator rewards being straight up equal, because while it could actually be perceived as a lack of value being given to a curator, when genuinely amazing posts are compiled by an author, I believe the bulk of the reward should go to them for their splendid work, as opposed to the curators claiming half of it for simply showing up, reading, and possibly offering advice, opinion, or anything else. If someone writes a genuinely thought out, well conceived post, and then someone else simply upvotes and comments with 'Nice!', or something else as simple and basic, surely that doesn't merit them 50%? Unless a system can be devised that specifies the rewards given to those who make meaningful curations and those who are simply fishing for rewards, I believe the system should remain as it is, with the larger portion going to the author. When I post, and when I curate the posts of others, I assume I am being upvoted and followed for the quality of my work, and when I curate for others, then too I am doing so based on my recognition of theirs.
In a talent show, the judges should get a fair amount of recognition, as they're there to recognize good talent and promote them, or move them up. But they shouldn't be given leeway to hog half the limelight with the talent.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That 50% is not going to one individual person.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
True, but when the author sees a comment of that sort on a post he or she spent a great deal of time on, might not a reward split of 50:50 in the face of that send its own psychological message to the author?
Even if it didn't, the author in this particular scenario would very clearly be doing a lot more work than the one who comments or upvotes. Chances are, it is the same with most other posts as well, just less obvious. More work should merit a higher piece of the cake at the end.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No because someone who is curating is also spending a lot of time doing work and without those curators the writer would probably get nothing.
Not clear at all. Curation requires work too. I refer you back to the previous point.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The curator who shows up may very well be doing 'a lot of work'. However, the author has no way to know if this is the case or not unless he or she actively follows the movements of said curator, and chances are most authors don't follow every single one. Most of the time, an author is more likely to do so if the curator actually puts time into the curation effort on his or her post specifically, or if the curator happens to be a dolphin or whale.
And if there were no curators (suggesting, it seems, given the size of Steemit at this point, that curation itself becomes non-existent, failing which there would always be people available to comment on, upvote and resteem content), then one of Steemit's central, natural functions would be rendered deficit, and compromise the inherent integrity of the system, and possibly collapsing it as well.
And as for the work curation entails, Steemit is a free, open world to rove around in. How much work a curator puts in is up to the individual curator. Just because one is a curator doesn't automatically mean they put in great amounts of work into the process. I'm not saying there aren't curators who do spend noticeably vast sums of time picking through the agglomerate repository of content here in pursuit of the 'gems' you spoke of, and who contribute extremely meaningfully to the community. Hell, my Steemit Debut post was picked up by one such individual, to whom I am hugely grateful. That said, there are curators who simply upvote and drop one-word comments namesake for curation. While I would love to be allowed personal control of the payout for each curator who looks through my work and provides input (maybe that could be the trick...a slider that allows the author to choose how much each individual curator on his or her post gets within the range of the overall payout), I simply believe that those curators that actually contribute, deserve everything they get from that 25%, and those that don't, well...the limit's there for a reason. Even if the curator does spend a lot of time fishing for the gems, it might not always be the same author's gems, so the former has plenty of other places to look for gems besides that one author. And if the curator does contribute somewhat singularly to one author's post, chances are still high that his contribution won't necessarily match the effort put into the post itself. In either scenario, however...the author in this example has put in a great deal more work. This wouldn't apply as much relatively to an author who just uploads a picture and quick caption for a majority of his or her posts, obviously.
Also, I might possibly be seeing only one side of the picture here, because while I do curate all across the board, delving deep into whatever pockets of posts I can find here on Steemit, I'm still only a one month old minnow. If there's something I'm not seeing, show it to me, because all my posts have usually had some thought and planning go into them, and the curation only seldom complements the post or its content as well as I'd think it should.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The exact same argument could be applied to a writer.
Further as I said before the percentage for curation is the sum of multiple people's work. Even if it were smaller amounts of work, multiplied by 50 or 100 it may be the same or greater.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
On the first part, we agree.
And parts of my understanding of how Steemit's blockchain works is a little defunct, so I'll defer to you on that one. As someone who puts as much effort into authoring as I do curating, I personally believe it is fair the author gets the larger piece of the pie. Maybe its due to this that I think primarily from that perspective, and not so much from that of an author who does not. If authors didn't put as much effort into their posts, and neither did the curators, or if authors did and so did the curators, then a 50:50 setup would look more in place in such a system.
Also, how are you quoting my text?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Just cut and paste it and put a ">" in front of it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I found your blog very interesting @thecryptofiend. In fact, overall it's all true. Uneven distribution of the rewards in which curators became not attending much of the content nor the whales are really so attractive for many because of their voting power, nor being a minnow, can't really understand that there is this divisions. Where in fact I thought would be a flat form helping those who deserved and had really posted a blog that has a sweat and blood with it. I, myself, don't know what to do because my voting power had reduce to just .01 after joining the steemvoter discord. I quit knowing that the vote just went to 2 persons, but they themselves didn't bother to return the vote. I auto vote for them but not for me doing the same thing. So, this may have something to do with that losing my voting power. How I wish I could curate more but without voting power this is just a waste of time.
Anyway, this is a very good discussion and interest because, I definitely need informations or updates of what's going on.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I get your point about discouraging manual voting, but without the reverse auction system bots would make way more., which would encourage more ppl to use them which would make it even harder for manual curators to find posts in time to earn significant rewards/.
The reverse auction is necessitated by the real disincentive to manual voting -- the heavily front-weighted manner in which curation rewards are assigned.
Front running bots, in spite of sacrificing 90%+ of their curation reward to the reverse auction, still do better than practically anyone else in terms of curation reward return on stake.
If you get rid of the RA without changing the front weighting, literally all youll be doing is taking money away from authors and giving it to bots.
also, unless something has changed, you already don't get curation rewards for self upvoting. the self upvote doesnt count at all toward weighting of curation rewards.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nice to hear from you mate! Yes I think the front weighting is something others have talked about before - I would favour changing it but I suspect some kind of modelling would be required to figure out what would work better.
I'm assuming that is if you tick the box when you post but I would presume that if you vote later you would get something.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I find it interesting that there is all of this talk of "manually curating" and "actively curating" content. I was under the impression when I joined that Steemit was supposed to be a "social network". If that were truly the case, no one would be going out looking for posts to "curate" they would be looking for posts that are of interest to them. That's not a social network, it's a job!
If you aren't interested in the subject of a post, why read it? Just because it's new or trending? Or because you need one more post to curate?
BOTS shouldn't be allowed to collect rewards and posts shouldn't be "curated" only by whales. Everyone who belongs to Steemit should be able to upvote a post if they like the content.
Spammers should be rooted out, it's usually easy to tell if they read a post or not; they almost ALWAYS comment with something like "liked your post, come upvote mine" without making any useful comment on the content of the post. I don't think Spammers upvote without commenting, it wouldn't be productive for them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I wish I had seen this earlier today. I just today posted a small rant about the voting system here on Steemit.
I'm a newbie, and yesterday I realized that my votes weren't counting for ANYTHING! Here I was thinking I was contributing to the community by reading posts, looking at photos and participating in contests only to find that I was in fact hurting my own voting power and not helping the author of the post at all.
There has to be a better way! Just because someone is new doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to have votes count for something. There isn't any incentive to vote more than 1 time per day if it only counts the first time. I'm trying to build back my voting power, so I did not up vote this post.
If you would like to read my post, please view it at https://steemit.com/steemit/@pjprivett/little-known-or-noticed-2
I would love a comment, or opinion. An upvote would not be bad either, but of-course, only if you appreciate the post.
Thanks, @thecryptofiend for posting this! BTW, I don't think BOTS should receive any rewards. JMO
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is a very good reason for that. If you could just start out and your vote was worth something then you could create a hundred or a thousand accounts to vote for your own posts - thereby taking a large amount of reward for little to no contribution. It is not a perfect solution but the alternative would be too easy to scam.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Maybe it's too easy for people to create several accounts. I don't know what the solution is either, as I said, I'm new here, I'm having enough trouble grasping the rules for running with one account never mind multiples. Thanks for the reply though!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok, I see your point, but why does our vote only get to count when it's 100%? Maybe after the 1st vote, the new member would just see their vote's value decreasing. How about allowing them 10 votes a day before it goes to zero? Then the new member would have to think about where they want the 100% vote to go, next 98%, 96%, etc., or even 100%, 85%, 75%, etc. Whatever seems fair. It's just that only letting it count at 100% doesn't seem fair to me because it doesn't give us any wiggle room at all. The way it is, a new member has to make a choice between having voting strength and expressing their appreciation of a post. I'm sure there are a lot of new Steemians out there who upvote a post and then provide a very eloquent and thoughtful reply as to why they appreciated the post. If it happens to be their second upvote, then they haven't benefitted the author at all, except of-course by the thoughtful reply (which is worth zero in the area of "payment").
I also had the thought that there could be a requirement set up in the system for a reply after an upvote is cast. No reply, no value to the vote - reply then you get to count. I'm not a techie, but I wouldn't think this would be too difficult to code.
Thanks for reading!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not sure what you mean. You get 10 votes per day at a 100% and if you space them out your voting power doesn't decline.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
According to this that I read in the FAQs:
"How many times can I vote without depleting my voting power?
Every 100% vote you cast will use 2% of your remaining voting power. Your voting power will recharge by 20% each day. You can vote more than 10 times per day, but each vote will be worth less, and it will take longer to reach full voting power again."
If I start the day at 100%, and I vote once, I lose 2% of that 100. Yes, I can vote 10 times in one day, then I get 20% to get me back to 100% the next day.
The next paragraph says that "New members can only upvote with 100% power."
Am I reading this incorrectly?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm not sure what you aren't understanding.
If you wait before you vote again your power recharges so you don't actually lose anything. If you keep voting then it will obviously go down because you aren't giving it a chance to recharge.
You only get the voting slider when you have one megavest which is about 500 SP.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks for that! I'll give that a try tomorrow when my power's back up!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Resteemed! Is there anyone actually working on these issues?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't know. I think the main Steemit team are probably very busy with other more technical issues right now.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No hay mucho que decir, lo has dejado todo muy claro. Totalmente de acuerdo.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Only manual curation coming from me!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
After I will receive my delegation in few days I will Start curating! And I will do it manually!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Great.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Resteemed!
I totally agree with the many things you pointed out specially the solution - #1 in particular!
It's true that not many are reading but there are too many writers and yes mostly crap - how dare I say that but it's true - Im not often here but I read - yes I read the posts some even before I go online during my breaks and make a list of ones I like mostly from the authors that consistently write their best and we could get value from.
I curate manually but I can't say my voting system is perfect - no it has flaws surely but the only reason I've changed my voting style which is totally different from how it was before is because of the situation that we have now. I'm glad you wrote this - and yes you are right - we have to find balance and solutions.
The HF18 moderate voting system for the whales and large SP holders actually did good IMHO perhaps if we could get that back without the flags - the whales have shown that they all could do it so we don't need that flagging shit back - only the moderation of votes and perhaps the distribution of rewards would look closer to fair (which my definition would probably be different from others).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks! I have to use a bot in addition to manual curation because I just don't have the time to vote manually all the time. I do think it is important that people who do only manually curation or spend more time manually curating should be rewarded better for it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Manually is the best. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
oh yes! :D
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very nice post Sir @thecryptofiend, and also really helped me as a newbie. I agree with your discussion above that there are a few things to note in the posting. Therefore it is sometimes most people because in their opinion the posting they provide nice already, but there is no response from a curator. What's more in our area #Aceh Sir, in fact many users steemit here, but very unfortunate absence of curators who can guide and trial novices to become a good blogger at steemit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hmm,
You just described my thoughts in a better way :) I have recently joined steemit and paid my attention to the fact that platform is full of low-quality content. I had a feeling that something is wrong, questioning myself - why so many people write and there is such a low amount of views. Your article explains it. Perhaps competition will fix this issue in the future, but not by itself. It is our mutual responsibility to find a good solution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes I agree.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
48 votes, but only 30 views right now, underlining the points you raised.
Are the view counts actually accurate?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The view count is not accurate. I post can have views from other interfaces such as busy.org, chainbb, esteem, etc and those views will not be counted by steemit.com. Furthermore some people have their browser setup in such a way that the views will not be counted anyway. As an example my views are never counted because of this reason.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't know how accurate they are - one would presume so.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
As far as I understand SteemPower works like a very good long-term bank deposit giving from 10 to 20% as curation rewards, maybe I'm wrong still being a newby, but it works like that at russian platform.
So curation system even now gives a good profit, but Steem is too young to get that as a long-term investment. And in fact is not for putting all savings here )))
But one of the ivestments it can be and voting 10 times per day choosing something interesting is not so time-consuming.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'd like to see where you got those figures from.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
For example, yours.
I see 72 steem power as curation rewards in your account for the latest week. That's a 72*52 = 3744 amount presuming that your steem power will not change, but in fact it works like compound interest and will be much more.
But even this simple calculation gives me 3744 per year from your 37411 steems in power, which is 10%.
Sorry for looking into your wallet (we all do this from time to time) ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting - That is where I think you are mistaken though.
In my experience the curation rewards are highly variable.
What you are seeing is the effect of me turning my bot voter back on for the last week (maybe slightly longer). It makes a huge difference.
If I didn't use a bot to time my votes I would getting basically zero.
When I manually vote I don't pay attention to the time - I just don't have that luxury, so I vote whatever the time on the post says..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm new here and trying to figure this out. I actually came because of DTube. I have no idea how this really works, so I thank you for linking the SteemitHelp link!
I have followed a few folks, but have no idea how to get my articles/vids viewed. There seems to be a learning curve here, yet I haven't been able to figure out what that curve actually is LOL
I will be following you here as well as twitter.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm so happy to see this suggestion on the trending page.
I wrote about a return to an even split between creators and curators a week ago.
It works on a lot of levels, and would end the scourge of self upvoting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @thecryptofiend! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPDownvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think everyone wants to get rich too fast .
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Not rich, but I think there are some talented writers here who write for hours in hopes of putting something on the dinner table, because they are trapped in an economic crisis in their countries, and the $5 can go far in some countries. It must be the ads on the trending page saying 'you too can make money'. They have to put a slogan up there reminding everyone 'not for those who want to get rich fast', or get a job, if you have a choice
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There are a lot of choices, Which may be a problem. But It's important that we do not greedy .
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
For example, in Venezuela I almost traveled there, but I know the economic crisis they have been experiencing, because I have friends from there. And we all know that they are here in this community, because most of them don't have other choices. As long as of course, they are talented/capable writers, then they deserve to have some piece of the big pie. There's a difference between earning a lot of money and earning some money to survive. There's a reality to be faced here. They are not being greedy (I think we all know where the greedy ones are), they simply just want to escape the system that enslaves them. It's so easy to tell people to chill out, if we are just sitting here comfortably and looking at the real issues from a distance.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I know some one too there I was try to tell him to use this steemit . But she will not take it seriously.
I wish many would come here and use it, Because living there is very difficult now.
And the next year may even get worse.
What i can say about this country... The problem of this country has been produced...
Produced from the United States. Because it is unacceptable to them that their power ( Central bank ) did not reach the country. And, of course, large mineral resources.
I'm wondering more who is the next who leads the country?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Pretty sad the situation there, I almost traveled there because they told me dollars worth a lot there, that you can stay for $10 in a fancy hotel. I didn't go, doing that seemed pretty crazy and obviously selfish. I would probably just end up smuggling food, or distributing it to people.
And also it is dangerous there.
I heard they try to use bitcoins instead.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes i have heard it too :) But the dollar will soon be the same Because the American government does not pay off its loans, this is even worse :)) The worst thing I can say right now for me what I see, is that where I live, 99% of people are not aware of what's happening there. Or they say that is not my problem ... this is sad :((( One day we have the same problem, and then they will say the same to us.
Yes some there use bitcoins ... But not lot of . Many have no money to go to the internet. This where it starts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I know, people just don't know... it is sad.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The eternal issue ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
A curator have to work hard and he needs more much times to review all the posting of steemiters. It will be better if he follows your solution points on your post. I totally agree with you. Thanks
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I try to do my best in my posts they seem to stick around the same amount, I haven;t seen a whale in forever and don't expect to be up there with the top curators or authors but I do my best, its annoying when you see a meme that makes no sense gaining more rewards than a good post. That's Steemit, hopefully this will be sorted soon. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Very nice info dear friend Up&Resteem
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
My pleasure dear friend :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree to all the pointers mentioned above. Every steemian are always checking whether their post is being upvoted and always looking out for reward either recieve for their post or curation. Many of the steemian users don't earn much attention, those who does are either witness or those who has strong connection to steemit platform operator. This is my point of view.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's really tricky especially for people who are just starting. People just post for the sake of posting. I'm not really sure how we can maintain the integrity of this platform with too many low quality contents and a problematic voting system. Thanks for pointing out these issues.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Awesome post and very well put, that is what I struggle the most with steemit. I have a really hard time finding content that I really want to read. And maybe if Curators were made more important than they are today we would get better content available.
Other thing that I think it is failing is that the design does not help. They should follow a more facebookesk aproach a less of a 9Gag one.
I am not a content producer. I need notifications on my comments. I need updates on the posts I liked or upvoted. I want a feed like facebook with the people I follow and the promoted content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Excellent insight. I also identified that as being a big problem early on.....however, I still spend a lot of time trying to discover the "gems"......but I have a bigger stake than a lot of others, so it's worth my time.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
another really great post. Lots to consider and again my favorite part is how valuable the comments are. This is due to you posting such quality content for so long and building connections with other people who actually think and care.
Ur posts are almost always worth actually READING.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@thecryptofiend and everyone else that have been commenting. I am glad to see someone who is thinking of these problems and is trying to find some solutions (although they may not be granted).
my first question is:
How were you able to make this amount of money on your post?
I would say, most likely because you are known and voted by people with high sp.
my second question is:
I have tried multiple solutions (promote, use bots etc) just to be noticed. It doesn't work. Even if someone with high SP votes my post, most of the time they use only 0.01%-5% of their voting power! even the bots! Why? IF you are voting, why dont you give a decent vote and make others follow your lead?
Maybe I am new here and I don't know the politics. Maybe my post contents are rubbish, but at least if I get comments to know what I am doing wrong and to learn how to do it right, then I will progress and provide better contents.
I think that there should be a system to make SP a little bit better than it is at the start. Or a system that makes things a bit easier on minnows until they reach a certain SP. So at least when minnows vote, their votes would worth something. It is sad to see posts with 100 votes only to make 1 or 2 SBD.
Sorry for the sudden rant. But everything said here is correct. Yet, there are no active solutions to help. And the spam posts are increasingly covering many decent contents.
Thank you again for all your efforts. Please pass by my page and let me know if you think my contents are bad or need improving (even if you don't want to vote). I rather have constructive criticism than not bee seen or be ignored.
Thanks a million one more time :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Communities seems like to best direction to go. As theses communities get stronger they will self curate and give a good home for curators. I am starting to worry that the bots are taking over Steemit as the only way for people to get what they feel is a fair chunk of the pie for their work. But I want people not Bots to view my posts. Remove the possibility of voting unless the post is actually opened and remove self votes, that seems unethical in my opinion. These are just my two cents. Great post as always Mr.Fiend.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks:) I don't think there is any way to eliminate bots - you just have to try to make it so that people feel that they get more by not using them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Maybe im a stubborn romantic but i do believe that in the end the goodwork will rise to the top. Maybe some sort of tipping system for posts past their payout would be an idea to explore.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is world-class material.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you for sharing this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You've exceeded my expectations.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is an important discussion to be having. You have pointed out some glaring issues. However, I am wary of making any changes before communities arrive, as these may change the nature of the activity on Steemit greatly. So I don't see any point in re-arranging the furniture before then, but there's no doubt we need more ways for people to participate and earn (other than producing the mostly long form content we see now).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well I think a switch back to an equal share (50:50) between writer and curators would work in both instances and send the right signal but I think it unlikely that it will happen. It can certainly be revisited once we have communities but we have no certainty on how long that will be.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What about designating official curators that are delegating steem power from the steemit.inc account.
With the sole purpose of rewarding "good" content.
People that would not post, like you said, and then bumping curation rewards to 40% from 25%, is that enough?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting idea. I think something similar was suggested in the past but there are some old agreements about the way the Steemit account funds would be used which may prevent that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes - I think an AI could certainly be used to assist. Not sure how technically feasible it is right now though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hopefully the bots will attract the bots. I hoping to find good community here. Ok I brand new, naive and everything else to boot. There are more things going for than against. It'll be darn hard to fool all of the people. Really enjoyable post thanks.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You're welcome.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You've made a lot of good points. I'm just sticking to the advice I'd received when I first joined and that was, 'vote on things you like'. I have noticed a lot of spam and posts with less value than others but...I pass them by and look for things that I'm genuinely interested in. Otherwise it's just another popularity contest like facebook....but with money.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't think there is a way to get rid of that though. People are people:)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit