Thanks for confirming what I thought. I suspected that was why they are creating so many accounts even paying for them. Ah well, if you can afford it, make it work for you, I suppose. The accounts are usually operated by voting bots so it's easy money.
RE: Open Letter to all Steemians - Hardfork 21: Culture Change
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Open Letter to all Steemians - Hardfork 21: Culture Change
Don't be misled by confirmation bias. The information @timcliff gave you is correct and the information @valued-customer gave you is not correct.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Okay, thank you for your info.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
So a big fat upvote right after the timer runs out doesn't capture all the curation rewards? I'm sure all the curators and guilds using that principle to gain financial rewards will be surprised to hear it.
I'm not much of a curator, and I could be wrong I suppose. I just upvote what I want to encourage. Doesn't pay much, and it won't after HF21, but that's because real curation isn't undertaken for money.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Voting after the timer only works if there are no/few votes already during the timer. That's generally not the case for well-known content, so if you do have the chance to get in the first vote after the timer, this is lesser-known content for which curation should be more rewarded, but where you are also likely taking a chance on whether the content will get significantly more votes anyway. If it doesn't then you get some curation share from your own vote but it isn't much, relatively speaking.
There is nothing wrong with some people curating for profit and others doing so in a more casual manner. It is exactly the same as anything else in life where some people will devote a lot of effort to optimizing and strategizing and generally get more out of it and others won't.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am sure you will not be surprised that I disagree. There are very good reasons society effects rules intended to prevent selling votes, and other valuable aspects of society.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
The types of votes you are talking about (political and governance type votes) are quite different where there are generally only a small number of choices. When searching a sea of content, whether that is Steemit or Facebook or google, the task requires significant resources, which means it is always going to be paid in some manner. Reddit is somewhat of a counterexample, where most first-level curation is done by uncompensated users, but even there the front page is curated (and the entire site is moderated) which means Reddit (the company) is paying people to vote.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Reddit, Facebook, Youtube, Insta, etc... I have no idea how many up and down votes are cast without financial compensation, but the number of votes cast for financial reasons on social media is certainly miniscule in comparison.
There is demonstrably no need to financially compensate votes on social media, and it is insuperable to claim doing so creates incentive to vote content according to it's merits. The reverse is provably true.
Museum curators aren't paid for curating particular additions to collections, but for creating valuable collections. Where adding particular items to collections are individually compensated, it is obvious that corrupt influences degrade collections. The first example that comes to mind is the Payola scandal.
History is the best teacher.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
On most of those sites (reddit being a partial exception) curation is not done by user votes. It is done by the companies themselves, partially via algorithms and partially via paid human curators/moderators) all of whom are most assuredly doing it for financial compensation.
A decentralized blockchain is fundamentally different. It is users playing the role normally performed by the company/operator in performing the curation. At scale, regardless of who is doing it and whether they are a company or not, this is a task which requires resources.
Once you recognize that (some) Steem users are performing the same function as paid company employees at centralized social sites the idea of paying users for their work is not at all perverse or surprising, but it does require a bit of a broader perspective to get ones head around.
Museums are one particular non-profit model generally funded by tax dollars and/or a foundation. Another model is art galleries where curators are definitely paid for performance. If the gallery doesn't generate sales based on their curation, they go out of business or get fired.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit