Will go to the moon,
Dont be afraid,
We will be rich very soon!
As you can see above, I really gave my best, but praising something has never been my strong point so that I better stick with what I am expert in: to criticize. :)
Curation still doesn't work as intended.
At first I would like to express that altogether my experiences with EIP haven't been that bad. I would say that the current state of STEEM is at least not worse than it was before HF 21, and some things have clearly improved (which, however, are not my topic today).
There won't be a German version this time, and instead of that you may read this comment, written in German language.
My point today is that I don't really share all the excitement about how great 'curation' would work nowadays.
Yes, there is the improvement that some whales and former bid bots have changed their voting behavior, but at the same time I think most of them are just auto upvoting a certain group of authors while they could upvote far more different, and especially also not so well known, small accounts. One of the positive exceptions in my eyes is @curangel.
Anyway, it's still the case that well known Steemians earn more money with very trivial and rather effortless posts like "Wow, I sold Steem Monsters today, and their price is so high now!" or "Earn Passive Income with Bitcoin ..." than less 'famous' users could ever make with ever so elaborated and well-researched articles.
Bad effects of the small 'curation window'.
Source: pixabay.
I think one of the main problems is the 'curation window' of only five minutes. Nobody who is upvoting manually rather than in an automated way is able to find new good content within the first five minutes after its appearance ... and if he could he still had to read and evaluate the post within a few minutes (do you really think that's possible? Come onnn!). :-)
That means most curation rewards aren't earned by real, manual curation but by auto upvoting the same authors again and again, and most of the time the 'curator' doesn't even know what he is actually rewarding.
As a consequence I upvote comments.
As someone who only upvotes manually, I have not the slightest chance to find, read, evaluate and possibly upvote new posts within the first five minutes after they have been published on the blockchain (especially as I cannot sit all the day in front of my computer lurking for new posts). I know, I am a very slow person, but be honest: YOU also can't! :)
I can't spread my upvotes over the whole day but place most of them within a narrow time frame, and most of the time when finding great stuff from at least somewhat popular authors, the reward already exceeds ten or more dollars, so that concerning curation rewards it's not really worth it anymore. As people are so triggered to vote as fast as possible, my upvotes often are the last ones at all. :)
As a consequence I started to upvote either great posts of unpopular authors or comments (instead of the posts itself) in great content of popular authors, because anyway I have no chance to compete with all these auto voters and also don't want to further reward them for upvoting posts as fast as possible without reading anything! As I always want to know what I am actually rewarding, I won't use any auto upvote option myself.
From now on it will be an exception for me to upvote posts with a pending reward greater than ten dollars!
Possible solutions.
I think ...
-
Either there shoulnd't be a curation window at all, whereby then the curation reward should only depend on the vote weight but not on the date of the vote. In that case ones decision should depend on the quality of the post only and not on the fact who else has already (not) upvoted the post.
@pharesim opposed that then the 'maximizers' would simply upvote 10 random posts per day, to minimize their effort. Possible ... but then I ask why we are having free downvotes nowadays ...? :) -
Or we could think about a really long curation window of, lets say, a whole day or even more. In that case it wouldn't be so obvious when upvoting would lead to the highest curation reward. So hopefully it would be worth to concentrate on the quality of content again, instead of the date of one's upvote.
I tend to prefer the first option. Anyway, in my opinion the problem how to encourage Steemians to seek and upvote quality content is still not completely solved.
The best (Steem related) post I've read in weeks!!
I could also very well live with option 1, but have no problem with 2 either tbh.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
"Either there shoulnd't be a curation window at all, whereby then the curation reward should only depend on the vote weight but not on the date of the vote. In that case ones decision should depend on the quality of the post only and not on the fact who else has already (not) upvoted the post.
@pharesim opposed that then the 'maximizers' would simply upvote 10 random posts per day, to minimize their effort. Possible ... but then I ask why we are having free downvotes nowadays ...? :)"
But wouldn't be the result of this that curators wait till the last day and curate than the post with the highest payout ?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
If everybody waits, nobody can know which posts will have the highest payouts, :-) and in addition, if a high payout is divided by many curators, it doesn't necessarily mean a very high curation reward for the single user ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
OK good point, but it will be two advantages stay in my opinion:
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, right, but don't forget what my idea is about: to make it less attractive to vote as fast as possible, even without reading anything.
I wouldn't mind if people voted late to get a faster payout, that's alright. :)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There shouldn't be any curation window. We have life outside of the steem world.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good point!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I would like to start with the statement that it was no mistake to vote for this article with the Autovoter and to have read it in peace only a few hours later. ;-)
That's how I've been doing it for many months now anyway. Therefore the update feels rather good for me regarding the vote. So far at least.
Of course you can't study longer articles in 5 minutes. And what is, if 2 good, longer articles appeared at the same time, then one of them would have lost in any case. On the other hand, the 30 minutes were already tight. When I was new here, I found it totally illogical that not even older articles are still to be voted. This circumstance makes the whole thing here a rather fast-moving thing. But it is just like that.... ;-)
I also have to admit that I'm not the expert who thinks about how things could go better, but that doesn't mean that I only want to behave like flotsam in the ocean.
Beginnen möchte ich mit der Aussage, daß es kein Fehler war diesen Beitrag mit dem Autovoter zu voten und ganz in Ruhe erst ein paar Stunden später gelesen zu haben. ;-)
So handhabe ich das ja sowieso schon seit mittlerweile vielen Monaten. Daher fühlt sich für mich das Update bezüglich des Votens eher gut an. Bislang zumindest.
Natürlich kann man längere Artikel unmöglich in 5 Minuten genau studieren. Und was ist, wenn 2 gute, längere Artikel gleichzeitig erschienen, dann hätte auf jeden Fall einer davon verloren. Auf der anderen Seite waren dafür ja auch die 30 Minuten schon knapp bemessen. Als ich hier neu war, fand ich es total unlogisch, daß nicht auch ältere Artikel noch zu voten sind. Dieser Umstand macht das ganze hier zu einer eher schnelllebigen Sache. Aber ist halt so.... ;-)
Ich muß auch gestehen, daß ich nicht der Experte bin, der sich zu dieser Sache die Gedanken macht, wie es besser laufen könnte, was aber nicht heißen soll, daß ich mich nur wie Treibgut im Ozean zu verhalten gedenke.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What if it had turned out to be a very bad post when reading it later? OK, you could have withdrawn your upvote then, but lost curation reward by doing that. Also rather often auto upvoters don't read the posts later but never.
And yes, of course it's true, I also profit from auto votes.
If there wouldn't be a 'curation window' (or a very big one) both articles could be upvoted with full strength.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
On the flipside, you would be 'punished' for manually finding a post early and voting for it, then.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think I have a knack for who I can bet on the autovoter and who I can't. So far I haven't had to withdraw a single vote. ;-)
That means, no contribution was so "bad" that I had to withdraw my vote. And yes, I would like to give out even more 100% votes. A little too low votes I have already increased several times. Then I have renounced the rewards, which is also nothing so much in the weight of my manageable VP. One must die a death, nevertheless, always. I cannot possibly please everyone. My method simply seems to be the best for me, which of course does not mean that my approach is also suitable for other Steemians. If you should consider an autovoter, I can recommend steemauto.
Ich denke, ich habe ein Händchen dafür, wen ich auf den Autovoter setzen kann und wen nicht. ;-)
Bislang mußte ich noch kein einziges Vote zurückziehen. Das heißt, kein Beitrag war bislang so "schlimm", daß ich mein Vote zurückziehen mußte. Und ja, ich würde gerne noch viel mehr 100% Votes vergeben. Etwas zu niedrige Votes habe ich schon öfter mal erhöht. Auf die Rewards habe ich dann verzichtet, was bei meiner überschaubaren VP aber auch nichts so sehr ins Gewicht fällt. Einen Tod muß man doch immer sterben. Ich kann es zudem einfach unmöglich allen Recht machen. Meine Methode scheint für mich einfach die beste zu sein, was natürlich noch lange nicht heißen muß, daß meine Herangehensweise auch für andere Steemians die passende ist. Falls Du doch einen Autovoter in Erwägung ziehen solltest, kann ich Dir steemauto empfehlen.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I use steemrewarding to follow my manual upvotes which I place with one of my small accounts.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have stopped discussing the rules since a long time. You probably are right, but what will be the consequences? The main problem for the price of steem is the absence of big investors. If they won't appear, the value of steem will go to zero and the blockchain has to be terminated, because the witnesses will not continue their work without earnings.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Don't get me wrong, I didn't claim, just to change the 'curation window', and then all problems would be solved. It is an idea which could (but not necessarily would) improve the chances of 'quality content' getting higher rewards (I am curious what other users are thinking about it).
And In theory investors could for example be attracted by a better looking trending page ...
Changing many small things sometimes has an even bigger effect than changing one big thing ... That's why I care about details like this.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hi Jaki,
du magst mir verzeihen, dass ich eine Antwort besser auf Deutsch formuliere. Vermutlich wird es außer dir eh niemand lesen, von daher ist es den Aufwand wohl auch nicht wert.
Meine Laune ist gerade eher auf einem tieferen Punkt angelangt, was diese Plattform hier betrifft, dennoch werde ich mich bemühen deinen Post sachlich zu betrachten und nicht zu sehr eingefärbt von meiner momentanen Gefühlslage.
Zum einen Stimme ich dir zu, das Curation Window von 5 Minuten ist einfach viel zu eng gefasst und macht es bei längeren Texten schlicht unmöglich, den Beitrag erst zu lesen, zu bewerten und dann zu voten, vom Entdecken dieser erstmal ganz abgesehen.
Auf der anderen Seite bin ich mir ziemlich sicher, dass dies nicht die Quelle allen Übels ist, bei Weitem nicht. Ich habe deinen Artikel ca. 7 Stunden nach der Veröffentlichung entdeckt, er wurde zu diesem Zeitpunkt bereits von fast 180 Accounts gevotet und war bereits bei 19 Dollar. Da ich eh nur sehr geringe Beträge Upvoten kann, sind meine Curation Rewards auch entsprechend niedrig, so kommt es für mich nun wirklich nicht darauf an, wann ich vote. Jetzt versuche ich mich aber in die Lage eines Wales zu versetzen, der sein Investment schützen, bzw. ausbauen möchte. (Sehr einfach und plakativ geschrieben, aber sonst wird das hier ein Roman ;-))
Der Wal denkt sich jetzt „Verdammt, wäre ich da doch mal eher ‚reingegangen‘“ und richtet sich vermutlich ein Autovoter für dich ein und stellt ihn auf vielleicht 4 Minuten. Nun freut sich der Wal in der Zukunft, weil er immer untern den ersten dabei ist und da deine Artikel ja immer mächtig abräumen, braucht er auch gar nicht mehr überprüfen wie das so läuft. (Bis zu dem Punkt sind wir uns sicher einig, wie gesagt, sehr vereinfacht)
Jetzt stellen wir uns vor, das Fenster läge bei 24h. Der Wal denkt sich: „Oh blöd, auf welche Zeit stelle ich denn jetzt meinen Autovoter.“ Je nachdem wie faul oder fleißig er ist, wird er vermutlich ein bisschen ausprobieren und sich dann irgendwann auf eine Zeit einpendeln. Vielleicht ist der Gewinn nicht mehr so große, aber immerhin bekommt er ein gutes Stück vom Kuchen ab, weil der Post ja immer noch hohe Rewards bekommen wird, darauf vertrauen ja alle.
Das nächste Szenario ist wohl, dass es keine Fenster gibt, die Rewardskurve ist aber noch die gleiche. Der Wal denkt vermutlich: „Bloß kein Risiko eingehen, besser nur Posts upvoten, die auf jeden Fall über die ‚Hürde‘ kommen oder besser schon sind.“
Als letztes Beispiel, kein Fenster, kein Rewardkurve, sondern eine Gerade. Die Rewards wären dann ja theoretisch immer die gleichen, egal ob ich beispielsweise einen Kommentar alleine vote oder auf einen Post, der schon extrem hohe Rewards hat. Ich lasse mal die Downvotes außen vor, da die ja auch noch einfließen müssten. Nun kann der Wal sich denken: „Super, ich bin frei und kann voten was mir gefällt der Gewinn bleibt ja der gleiche“ Er schaut sich um und entdeckt ein paar tolle Post, votet diese mit 100% und alle sind glücklich. Ich möchte das wirklich gerne glauben, aber er könnte auch denken: „Super, ich bin frei, ist doch vollkommen egal, was ich vote, der Gewinn bleibt ja der gleiche …“ Es wird vermutlich beides vorkommen.
Oh, das ist jetzt ein bisschen länger geworden, als beabsichtigt (da war es wieder mein Problem mit dem Kurzfassen). Ich denke, es wird zu wenig gelesen und ich verstehe das sogar, denn auch mir fehlt häufig die Zeit. Ich habe mal eine ‚Testballon‘ dazu losgelassen, um mir ein Bild zu machen, aber das führt jetzt hier zu weit. Auch ich sehe im Augenblick leider keine Ideallösung.
Liebe Grüße
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's not solved at all. After the hardfork and the birth of this #newsteem I thought that this is it. Owners of bid bots changed to manually upvote posts on Steemit and we won't have shitty posts boosted on the trending page or circle jerking. The part with boosting shitty posts on the trending page is kind of solved although some posts in my opinion have too much weight on them comparing with others that might have spend an hour or more to collect information and serve us a well documented article. Not in a thousand years in my opinion a vacation post with four photos is worth $40-$50.
Regarding circle jerking unfortunately it has survived but somehow is not something that involves only a group of whales or something similar. Now "thanks to" to the upvoting window you mentioned about the former bid bots in order to maximize their curation have simply put some users on auto vote and the job is done for the day.
I have had some upvotes from bid bots as well but not too many and nothing spectacular and it's probably that my blog is not spectacular :)). I would be for sure more motivated to invest much more time in my posts and really work for my blog but when I see almost daily payouts of $0.5 or 0.6 and very often zero comments on the post I get discouraged to put any more efforts.
The most upvoted posts nowadays seem to be the ones in the #travelfeed category and people started to post from their vacations three years ago or make some ten posts from a vacation to get some attention which leads users to try and fit a pattern which is not quite a "decentralized attitude" in my opinion.
Bottom line is the same convenience that auto votes offer to maximize curation profits that narrows the circle of users having a chance to big upvotes. Thanks to it quite a few good bloggers remain under the radar while others are constantly auto voted no matter what they post about. Steem has some work left to be done on it to become great. It's just a few tweaks here and there.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good points!
(By the way I am also making different posts of one single vacation from time to time, but my main motive is to save all these precious memories on the blockchain - and the pics at least on a second database.)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I have such posts as well, but never got to the trending page... Lucky me :))
The idea is that there are tons of good meaningful posts besides the photography ones that get unnoticed thanks to auto votes determined by the curation window that you wrote about and also by maximizing curation revenues through this damn window. Bottom line this place will never be perfect in my opinion so we will have to learn to live with it as it is.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It will never be perfect, and every interesting suggestions has also negative aspects, but I still think we should try to improve things as good as possible.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
These are some interesting ideas.
My idea would be to enable a function that lets you set all rewards to beneficiaries after a certain point.
For example if rewards > 10 SBD set beneficiary @steem.dao 100%
This would serve to purposes:
One could also incorporate it with your idea of changing the curation level or window accordingly. I can also suggest that we can even allow authors to set the curation window and whether it is diminishing or not or adjust it based on their average rate of curation so really popular bloggers can experiment and such.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting ideas!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No matter how long the curation window is, bots will always win, so I think maybe solution 1 to completely remove the curation window and make votes not dependent on time (order) would be a reasonable solution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Even if bots would always win anyway (I am so sure if that really has to be the case), at least auto upvotes wouldn't always win against manual curation anymore.
But yes, maybe no 'curation window' would be the best solution.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nah, everything is just fine ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I thunk that 5 min window is just for getting higher curation. Else one can curate anytime as they want even I received few whales support after 8-10 hrs of posting.
The main bad effects I observed is that post get stale more quicker than before... No one wants to curate a post older than one day or 12 hrs
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ich bin da ganz Deiner Meinung.
Mit meinen kleinen "Roepke-Experiment" wäre ich schon viel weiter, wenn alle "Kuratoren" auf das Fenster achten würden und wenn auch nur Post's bewertet würden, welche höhere Auszahlungen erreichen.
@hafiz34 hat es mit seinem Kommentar auf den Punkt gebracht.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Some very interesting and valid points here as always but I cannot agree with all of them this time. I think the 5 minute window is actually not that important. With all those new manually curating projects with millions of delegated SP, it can take hours or even days for them to discover the undervalued gems by unknown authors so it is not really necessary to find and upvote them within minutes after the publication. Being a @TipU curator, I have been trying to spend some time every day browsing through all the created posts in tags that I am interested in and look for such posts. If you haven´t heard of the @TipU project, I wrote a post about it last week.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's completey OK if you (partly?) disagree. However, my own experience is that my upvotes were very often the last ones on a post. The early upvotes on my own posts and the one of my wife are nearly 100 % auto upvotes. Everybody who comes later will earn less.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, I know. You are on my autovoter too, after all, as you are one of those authors that I want to support constantly, knowing they produce almost exclusively quality content that I am in interested in. I was talking about great but undervalued posts by new or little known Steemians with no (or very small) followers base and supporters. That is where the 5 minute rule is not that important and where you can earn decent curation rewards even when voting hours after the publication of the post. In the "Old Steem" days, most of these gems would just pass by completely unnoticed so to me, this is one of the good things that came with the "New Steem" era. But of course, the whole curation thing is still far from perfect.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I don't get it.
The Curation window is a week, for starters.
Whether you vote on a post, which already has 10$, or on a comment which has 0 $, your curation rewards should be similar - The posting rewards for the author however, are much higher for the former.
The problem will never be completely solved, as I could change my mind and suddenly like a post from 3 years ago.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
How do you call the first five minutes after which curation rewards have reached the maximum?
That's what I meant with 'curation window'. It didn't mean the first 7 days after a post has been published.
However, upvoting a comment instead is kind of a mild protest which may make people think "Why the hell this guy is upvoting comments instead of the article?" Also there will be less curation rewards for the first auto upvoters of the post than in case I just follow them. In the long run other people even could decide to upvote comments as well and follow my votes. :)
In addition, a positive side effect could be that authors who know that I am upvoting comments only interacted more with their audience, made at least one comment not to miss my upvote. :)
Altogether - as anyway I cannot compete, and as anyway the STEEM price matters and not the amount of STEEM which I own - I just don't care much about maximizing my curation reward.
I was not discussing the 7 days window (which could be interesting too) but the 5 minutes window.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Especially if you don't really care too much about your curation rewards, I do not see why you are complaining about the 5-minute-rule ( I don't know what to call it either :) ) - It shouldn't really matter much, then (?)
Not trying to be personal or offensive - you are smart, make these thoughtful posts, chess questions, whatnot, yet at the same time you are too lazy to look into the programming of STEEM.
Sure, it's valuable to just formulate what you think STEEM should be like, without looking at how it works under the surface, but it really isn't rocket science to get a better understanding of the inner workings.
It wouldn't take you much to equip yourself much better to make suggestions about the protocol.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Apart from not considering to make a constructive suggestion as "complaining", I think one need not necessarily be affected (directly) oneself when criticizing something. If my suggestions would improve the overall state of the network, I profited myself in the longterm (even without maximizing my own curation rewards).
Especially when actually doing "rocket sciene" the ability to estimate the consequences of changing any parameters before making a single real calculation is essential.
I need not to make any concrete calculation for being able of anticipating the impact of a very short curation window, because indeed, that's not really "rocket science". Its consequences are obvious, and it's a matter of taste if one like them or not.
If you claim my understanding of the "inner working" of STEEM wasn't at the necessary level, it's on you to show me why and where. I agree with you to be way to lazy to make any concrete calculations, but understanding of coherences doesn't always require that. I know that I can calculate very well if I need to (or if the payment is good enough), but in this case I don't see the necessity.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
All I am saying is this: Understanding how the main blockchain operations work internally would equip you to make better suggestions on how to change them.
I posted a guide and nobody seems to try it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think my general understanding of how STEEM works is rather good. That's why I asked "why and where".
Furthermore what the "better" or "best" suggestions would be, is obviously subjective (just read for example the comment on top): You believe in the "early bird" who finds "quality content" first, but I say that's an exception (not to say a myth) and the huge majority of early upvotes is just automated. I think it would be completely alright to find good posts late as well, as long as one finds and upvotes them at all.
I actually agree with you that I didn't dive into some mathematical and programming technical details of STEEM (which in most cases shouldn't be necessary for an overall understanding of 'things'), simply because my life isn't mainly about STEEM - so as long as other things in life consume a huge amount of my time, I won't do that.
It would be clever to link it then for lazy people like me ... :)
It could be interesting to read.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
here's the link: @felixxx
it will take some hours for downloading and installing, but you don't have to sit through it ... I'd say it takes 1 -2 hours attention.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Erstmal vielen Dank. Ich würde es direkt auf Linux installieren (vermutlich nach dem SteemFest, wir fliegen schon am Freitag).
Ich glaube kaum, dass ich in nächster Zeit wirklich dazu komme, irgendetwas für STEEM zu 'entwickeln' (und sei es nur ein kleiner Test für mich selbst, um zu sehen, wie es funktioniert), aber vielleicht nehme ich mir wenigstens die Zeit, einfach mal deinem Tutorial zu folgen und zu sehen, was sich daraus ergibt.
Versprechen kann ich nichts.
Ich wäre sehr froh, der STEEM-Preis, oder der anderer Kryptowährungen, wäre (wieder) so hoch, dass ich es mir sorgenfrei erlauben könnte, mich mit viel mehr Dingen etwas ernsthafter zu beschäftigen, als das derzeit möglich ist ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interessante Artikel zu finden, ist oft sehr schwierig.
Je nachdem welche Kategorie oder Tags man auswählt,
wird man unterschiedlich fündig.
Vielleicht würde eine Funktion helfen,
die ein Verhältnis von Bild und Text anzeigt.
Aber das zeigt auch noch nicht etwas über die
Qualität eines Textes aus.
Jeder beurteilt wahrscheinlich unterschiedlich,
was für ihn ein ergiebiger Bericht ist.
Das macht wohl auch Steem aus, dass jeder
Autor andere Ziele und Themen hat.
Danke für deine interessanten Gedankenanstöße.
Viele Grüße.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Is there anything, I didnt understand about the curation window yet? This is new for me...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
What exactly is new for you? The time frame of five minutes?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
No, until now I thought votes would become less value before the 5 minutes.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
True, if nobody voted before you do, then it would be best to upvote after exactly five minutes, but that's not the case if some big upvotes come in earlier ...
So the optimum is to upvote close to the five minutes limit but still before any big upvote has been given. The reason is to make the decision when to vote more speculative, so that bots wouldn't always 'win'.
However, it hasn't changed the fact that manual curation loses.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ok. Now I understand. Could this be also a mechanism steembasicincome can profit from?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Everybody can try to profit, by maximizing the date of his upvotes ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
well one thing that has been working is flag wars and people leaving from steemit that's sad
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I didn't want to say everything was bad now ... Some flaggs are actually necessary, but yes, too much drama can also have some negative effects.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
very good writing @jaki01, to changes in hf21, it is quite felt, hopefully soon there will be further changes, so the spirit of writing again increases. great hope there is an evaluation soon
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
$trdo
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @theguruasia, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @jaki01!
@jaki01 will receive 8.46322200 TRDO & @theguruasia will get 5.64214800 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Greetings from Germany
// 1,2,3, good mood //
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
$trendotoken
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @goldcoin, you are successfuly trended the post that shared by @jaki01!
@jaki01 will receive 1.98174600 TRDO & @goldcoin will get 1.32116400 TRDO curation in 3 Days from Post Created Date!
"Call TRDO, Your Comment Worth Something!"
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thanks to @jasuly for burning 800 CT! You have been rewarded with a 80% vote. Your action makes this project grow and helps to restore a Clean Planet! Join us on our Discord Channel and on our website
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @jaki01, your post successfully recieved 10.444968 TRDO from below listed TRENDO callers:
To view or trade TRDO go to steem-engine.com
Join TRDO Discord Channel or Join TRDO Web Site
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit