I'm like you, I like to believe it is about the quality of the posts. At least a post shall add some value to the community. Like you, I also find myself stupid at times because others adding no value at all with their posts and comments may get equal or higher earnings. But I find it very difficult to get on the use and abuse train and try to create my own (although small) community around me who appreciate what I contribute to the community. For sure it gives me a good feeling, and that will keep me here.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Depending on your goal, I dont think a good post makes it successful. Its more dimensional than that because of how steemit behaves. Inherently, your post will get buried and no one will ever see it. The very fact that no one sees it, prevents anyone from judging it. So who is to say if its a good post if no one sees it? It's the classic example of, if a tree walls in the woods and no one is around to hear or see it, did it fall? Well yes, but who cares.... that was where these bots come in. Someone saw an inherent flaw in the system and created these bots. The reality is, if these upvoting bots didn't exist, it would be much fairer, but you would still have the issue with finding an audience. The trick to that, I think is interacting. Atleast that's how I want to approach it. Not going to lie though, I have thought about those bots.
Quality is subjective, I agree. That is why I also mentioned: Add Value is something I find really important, and that can be anything. But I have my boundaries and some of the posts are simply not adding any quality, actually they are spam, like all (or maybe most of) the accounts I listed in the post.
I do agree that in the end it is about interacting, I can even say that when I interact well, I spend time to read the post carefully and create some meaningful comment, I may even get more rewards than creating a post, using the same amount of time. And the good think of interacting is that it makes a community, interacting is not send and forget.
Thank you so much for bringing your views across!
Those who leverage the use of those voting bots will also be the ones who climb to the top fastest. No one will remember how you got there, just that you did. So while it is cheating the system to reach that point, does it really matter? If everyone used it, then those bots would be making all the money while everyone fights for the fastest way to reach whale status. That's the part of steemit that I really do not like.
Good point on interacting though. I think its much easier to get paid for your comments than creating new content in terms of effort and time. I've spent many hours creating my videos but no one watches them because they get pushed to the bottom so quickly. I do it anyway, because I enjoy it, but sometimes the motivation to keep going dwindles. As a result, I rather just enjoy life rather than spend my time in the digital world.
"As a result, I rather just enjoy life rather than spend my time in the digital world." Although I spend quite a bit of time on Steemit, I do prefer the none digital world better, in general. Steemit allows me to have conversations with those I may not meet that quickly in real life. I'm learning from my interactions with a good bunch of members here.
thats for sure! I've met quite a few friends through the internet. Actually,once you discount friends from high school and college and gym, my next source of close friends are from the internet! Largely because its easy to strike up a conversation with someone if it relates to something that you find on a hobby forum.
Indeed, the digital highway adds to the personal life in terms of friends, I also gained some good friends that way.
I have often felt that steemit needs professional content editors within the various tags, not high ranking members supporting their friends but honest evaluators. An editor would have the authority to promote quality posts to give them visibility. It's like when you submit work for publication, the editor says yes this is good and something that will fit the image of our publication, or no this is not who we are. The editor would not give votes, but put things in view they feel deserve a chance
You touched on a very interesting topic, I do to believe we shall have moderators, independent and not use their powers to game the system. But although we feel this is the right way, we will have to face a lot of resistance because the opponents will argue it is all about networking, and time users spend on that...when done sufficiently, votes and with that rewards will be given to those who spend the time. Another argument the opponents will use is the one of trust of the moderator!
That is sort of the PoW and DPoW model. Its very difficult for a minnow to get support from a whale since the whale also needs incentive to help others. If you get 3-4 whales in a group they can propel their group forward more than a group of minnows could.
If you delegated the work of upvoting good content to a group of people, you've now allowed a set panel of people to do the judging. Ultimately you end up back at square one, centralization.
Aside from that, who would have the time to sort through that many post? you would eventually need so many delegates that you have to incentivize to do something the network would do for free. In that regard, I don't think editors is a good idea for this type of platform. Instead the communities features which is coming in the next update, will solve that problem because it allows you to create a microenvironment within the steemit ecosystem.
fyi, im about to fall asleep so if that doenst make sense, reply and ill try to clear myself up!