One problem I've noticed is that people are hunting down posts that are under the 30 minutes reward window to specifically up-vote them if they've attracted attention, and there's a chance they will hit the front page.
RE: Curation rewards 2.0: A Technical Proposal on revamping voting rewards to incentivize high-quality Digital Curation on Steemit.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Curation rewards 2.0: A Technical Proposal on revamping voting rewards to incentivize high-quality Digital Curation on Steemit.
@cryptobarry I concur, this activity you describe is not a service that merits of the largest portion of curator payments. If more incentive was put on discovering uncurated content we could increase the value of $STEEM by improving the diversity of quality content available on steemit.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I agree with you that any post gone for the first 30 minutes is less likely to get famous again if they are not on the trending part.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
But yes, if an post does not attract votes in the thirty minutes, it is also likely that they does not have good contents.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
@nomorealex, There should be some specific changes which could be made to encourage finding new content not simply being the Nth person to approve of a post.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit