more content creators? You gotta be kidding. That's all we have now. We need readers and viewers
RE: Who Needs Steemit?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Who Needs Steemit?
Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
@johnjgeddes seems to be alluding to the chicken and egg problem content creator platforms face when starting a marketplace that is suppose to be duel sided. Patreon solved their issue by focusing in on specific creators who could easily bring their audience to their platform. And they used a semi-campaign on YouTube with their Creators to bring their audience to that platform.
SteemIt in my opinion needs to widdle down their core creator type and target them to bring their audience here in some way. Its all about priorities. A start up must always have a strategy for onboarding users. Saying our platform appeals to everyone with 10 value propositions never works. Even Facebook which is worldwide today started out with just college students. Hope this info helps.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Facebook had an consistent organic audience and that's why it took off (invite only). People were the same age and started finding their friends from elementary school and such. It seems Steem was interesting to crypto and bloggers.. we saw communities emerge over time such as the anarchy community or the chinese, spanish, etc. The problem is - a lot of the content is low percentage - which makes this site niche. I could read an authors first book - or I could read Dickens. I think most people would rather spend the 5 hours with Dickens than with someone learning how to write (but not everyone). We all only have so many hours in our lives and there is already so much great content. That's why Reddit makes sense - point people to interesting content that was created by someone better than you. Steemit content is being labeled as "curated" - but it is a useless task. When the website's owner and some girl eat dumplings - the post trends number one and makes hundreds of dollars. What would that content be worth off the site? Do you really think "Nike" or "Coca-Cola" would come along , see that, and invest a wack of money? Why should I even know who the CEO of this site is? Mark Zuckerberg isnt out there trolling comment sections on Facebook and the only reason most people know who he is - is because his few lines of PHP changed the world - he will forever be a historic figure - I dont think thats what we are seeeing here. Is there value in it long term? Is there any evergreen search value to it? If not - whats the point? This site has always been sold as a blog for dollars platform - its only natural for people to leave when they feel like they arent being rewarded fairly. On the curation end why do we bother voting at all if its an arbitrary action? The "whale" vote is all that really matters - I had over 1800 votes on a post today that made $40. Its a lot like the popular group in high school - except im pretty sure none of them were in the popular group.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Niches are "a specialized but profitable segment of the market". That's a positive thing to be. Even if we don't take on the world in the first few years, a niche is exactly what we intend to be.
Is that what Reddit does??? Reddit makes no sense to me and I've never been pointed to anything worth seeing on it.
You're right that the curators could do a better job. However this particular post is of interest to this particular community. And I don't think that post looks bad at all for making that kind of money. I think it's more important for the trending page to look like a lottery where any kind of content (that isn't complete garbage) could make it. The issue I see (although it's been changing lately) is when the same authors are always trending and it doesn't look like such a fun game anymore.
It is far too early to be talking about advertising companies taking over the site especially those the size of Nike and such. It took Facebook 5 years to realise its potential for advertising revenue.
LOL. First of all, neither of the co-founders have ever been seen "trolling" on steemit. There may be some disagreements here and there, but their opinions are always voiced respectfully. Secondly, I think it's brilliant that Ned and Dan take some of the little time that they have to interact with their userbase. Zuckerberg did do the same when his userbase was as tiny, but Facebook worked in a different way. You had "friends" and acquantances from the same university as you and that's who you interacted with. Zuckerberg was thought to be a figure who would be remembered historically but if he will be he will infamously remembered for monetising peoples data before the blockchain came along and screwed Zuckerberg over by giving people a way to monetise their own data! And then who will be remembered?! Satoshi?? Ned and Dan maybe?
No disrespect but now you're starting to sound bitter... And also, none of your posts ever had 1800 votes... I do understand that the curation is flawed at the moment as the system is only gradually becoming decentralised. As Ned said in his debate this week, steem is just a baby right now, and it's up to us to nourish it to help it grow into an independent adult that no longer needs to be changed and satisfies the majority of people. That's going to take a long time and it's not going to be an easy task. But I believe we have the right leaders and a huge resource of passionate people who will push steem in the direction that is best for all of us over time - even those you might think don't have power.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Your right it was 1825 votes. https://steemit.com/steemsports-nhl/@steemsports/steemsports-toronto-maple-leafs-vs-anaheim-ducks-mass-sp-distribution-game Do you want to see the one where Dan downvoted me?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am very happy to see Dan downvoting steemsports, yes. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It's vote buying and should be considered by the entire community as abuse of the system, especially when the content is good enough and popular enough to get steem without buying the votes. (both from upvotes and from allowing people to bet with STEEM as the currency)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are a hypocrite - You wallet looks like an @SteemSports billboard.. Its such an abuse you just cant help but play? We both play @SteemSports - I knew we had something in common.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What makes you think we don't have readers? We have tens of thousands of active accounts and many of them only ever vote and others only vote and comment. Also every content creator is also a reader (unless you never interact but almost everyone does).
So taking all that into account we have far more readers than creators and those readers don't bring creators. Creators being readers.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There is a 3 to 1 ratio of visitors to posts.. which makes this pool incestuos. Look at the stats below.. 3501 users in the 24h period 1194 of whom were authors. You don't see stats like that anywhere - you are out of your element on this one.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
That would be due to the incentive to participate by posting not just reading. No other platform offers you the potential to win money for your content.
In other words, all the would be readers (who are still readers) are also contributing content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've read that youtubers make $7 CPM on their content on average.. I am in advetising and I think that is a pretty accurate number. Consider a youtuber might get 50k views.. Thats $400 USD. Now while I agree there is little downside in them putting their video up here.. The 3,000 active members a day would be a pittance in comparison to Youtube. If we rewarded them AGAIN - it wouldn't be fair - Steemit would be buying a blog page with a Youtube link. I do like the idea of short links to youtube content (like they do on reddit) - but only if they change the reward structure around (as they have spoken about - a "short content" reward). I've introduced people to this platform - theyve made money on their first few posts - but they think its stupid and leave (honestly). With short content I think there would be a much stronger value proposition for regular non content producing users. I think the people who stay have friends or projects going on - for those that leave other than SteemSports or some of the other games - there is not much to keep the average guys attention (in my experience).
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
50K views does not equal $400 dollars per video, that I know. Not on YouTube. It's closer to maybe $50 and that's only if you've already been made a partner and enabled advertising.
You can ask @allasyummyfood who spoke at steemfest about how hard it is to make money from YouTube. 3'000 active members is far less than 50'000 views, and yet one or two votes from high stake steemians (whales) would pay as much as the 50'000 people who watched her video on YouTube.
I disagree that it isn't fair to reward them for bringing their content here after they've been rewarded elsewhere. I think that chances are, after they get rewarded enough here, and realise the value of steemit, they will actually promote steemit to their own followers which deserves rewards and should be encouraged with rewards!
I presume they are not the people I'm talking about in this post then. - People who are already looking for ways to monetise their online brand or content.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thats it - drink the kool-aid.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'm tempted to flag you for trolling.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I've provided you with salient points - I am not being abusive toward you - I thought we were discussing in a free forum. Jeez - sorry if I pissed you off..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I respectfully disagree, but respsect your opinion
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit