TOP 200 effective Steemit сurators that encourage discussion for the last week (2018.04.02-2018.04.08)

[boddhisattva]

I want to share with you statistics about the most effective Steemit curators of the last week.

This statistic is not about how much the authors or curators have earned. This statistics shows the list of curators, whose contribution to the reward pool distribution is the most significant.

---

What does this mean?

You can say that there is nothing interesting in this statistics. That it is clear that the reward pool is distributed by whales. But!

The most interesting thing is how the curator distributes the reward pool. He can vote only for his posts and his comments. He can vote for a selected circle of authors and affiliated accounts. But also he can vote for a large number of authors who publish interesting content.

Thus, an effective curator is a curator who has sufficient Steem Power (he can be an investor or a popular author who has earned his Steem Power by publishing interesting content), devoting time and effort to the content curating at Steemit and distributing a reward pool in favor of the authors. And the efficiency level is estimated by how much SBD curator distributes among as many authors as possible.

But this time we will review those curators who reward the discussions, that is, they vote for the comments of other users.

According to the ideology of the Steemit creators, the discussion is as valuable an element as the author's content. Confirmation of this is the allocation of a separate pool of awards for comments.

---

How it works?

Votes - Each curator distributes a certain part of the reward pool with his votes (upvote / flag).

Authors - This part of the pool he distributes between a certain number of authors.

VAS (vote average strength) - For general awareness, we can estimate the average vote strength in percents (%), with which the curator votes.

Contr. (SBD) (Contribution in SBD) - The distributed part of the pool is the contribution of the curator, it is calculated in SBD. In this case, the author's reward is taken into account. The curator's reward is not taken into account.

Share % - The percentage of the curator contribution among the contributions of all curators, we can also estimate for information purposes in %.

Eff. - The effectiveness of the curator is estimated in conventional units and is calculated as follows.

The total number of authors who published rewarded comments for the period under study is determined.
Then the contribution of the curator is divided by the total number of authors, and then multiplied by the number of authors for whom the curator voted for the period.

Thus, we see that, having distributed even a smaller number of SBD between a larger number of authors, the curator can be more effective than other curators. At the same time, having a greater voice power, but not actively voting, supporting a small number of authors, the curator takes a lower position in the rating.

And now, statistics.

---

21636 authors published their rewarded comments during this week.

24590 accounts participated in the comments curating according to information from the database.

326653 votes were made during this week.

29926,17 SBD - is the total author rewards for this week.

---

TOP-200 effective comments curators for the last week (2018.04.02-2018.04.08)

№	Account	Votes	Authors	VAS(%)	Contr. (SBD)	Share %	Eff.
1	@gentlebot	564	508	15	387,87	1,3	9,11
2	@utopian-io	62	62	6	1707,09	5,7	4,89
3	@cryptoctopus	911	88	3	876,04	2,93	3,56
4	@sniffnscurry	678	85	4	823,33	2,75	3,23
5	@surpassinggoogle	330	213	1	279,69	0,93	2,75
6	@neoxian	547	229	2	226,51	0,76	2,4
7	@czechglobalhosts	312	139	2	199,55	0,67	1,28
8	@dimimp	299	23	95	936,12	3,13	1
9	@trafalgar	295	35	3	609,89	2,04	0,99
10	@pharesim	405	219	0	96,57	0,32	0,98
11	@utopian.tip	185	51	40	235,87	0,79	0,56
12	@ctrl-alt-nwo	194	114	4	104,62	0,35	0,55
13	@acidyo	111	63	4	180,42	0,6	0,53
14	@javybar	286	98	11	88,38	0,3	0,4
15	@goldmatters	211	128	6	65,53	0,22	0,39
16	@stephenkendal	296	142	5	58,24	0,19	0,38
17	@khaleelkazi	71	22	53	346,79	1,16	0,35
18	@jaki01	225	145	3	49,11	0,16	0,33
19	@adm	1164	7	1	1016,19	3,4	0,33
20	@xpilar	345	124	5	54,58	0,18	0,31
21	@shaka	171	91	4	73,2	0,24	0,31
22	@josteem	1112	312	5	21,36	0,07	0,31
23	@derrick829	88	29	61	198,05	0,66	0,27
24	@thetruth36	170	78	18	70,98	0,24	0,26
25	@krnel	221	130	4	37,77	0,13	0,23
26	@alexbeyman	303	82	10	57,74	0,19	0,22
27	@greenman	167	144	6	32,57	0,11	0,22
28	@dj123	445	118	5	40,66	0,14	0,22
29	@dragosroua	280	125	11	37,16	0,12	0,21
30	@cron	57	21	60	206,84	0,69	0,2
31	@rok-sivante	56	33	53	127,4	0,43	0,19
32	@onceuponatime	145	86	2	48,44	0,16	0,19
33	@aomura	2811	108	4	38,84	0,13	0,19
34	@abh12345	493	221	4	17,85	0,06	0,18
35	@gamer00	273	77	5	49,55	0,17	0,18
36	@tarazkp	425	147	1	26,04	0,09	0,18
37	@dividendgrowth	65	18	57	199,81	0,67	0,17
38	@breathewind	245	13	94	267,19	0,89	0,16
39	@exyle	230	109	1	31,56	0,11	0,16
40	@surfyogi	97	78	9	43,76	0,15	0,16
41	@cynetyc	188	114	72	28,97	0,1	0,15
42	@lucky2	53	48	97	67,19	0,22	0,15
43	@gardenofeden	133	64	7	47,9	0,16	0,14
44	@armdown	190	149	22	19,8	0,07	0,14
45	@transisto	22	11	65	261,11	0,87	0,13
46	@whatageek	63	38	61	74,95	0,25	0,13
47	@senseicat	90	39	22	71,54	0,24	0,13
48	@leeyh	174	130	5	21,25	0,07	0,13
49	@hebrew	69	63	13	42,95	0,14	0,13
50	@double-u	202	39	21	72,77	0,24	0,13
51	@broncnutz	171	92	2	28,39	0,09	0,12
52	@brian.rrr	126	62	7	42,71	0,14	0,12
53	@ulfr	219	97	8	25,76	0,09	0,12
54	@cryptoeagle	196	134	36	19,22	0,06	0,12
55	@agawolf	106	29	37	89,55	0,3	0,12
56	@smartcome	126	43	100	59,34	0,2	0,12
57	@ackza	249	145	24	16,76	0,06	0,11
58	@introduce.bot	335	332	2	6,99	0,02	0,11
59	@francisk	272	101	12	22,86	0,08	0,11
60	@investing	69	50	21	49,26	0,16	0,11
61	@nomad-magus	156	79	13	27,2	0,09	0,1
62	@gbenga	208	123	9	17,67	0,06	0,1
63	@steevc	341	158	6	13,75	0,05	0,1
64	@talanhorne	103	69	50	31,04	0,1	0,1
65	@comedyopenmic	117	53	8	39,57	0,13	0,1
66	@spectrumecons	210	139	5	15,38	0,05	0,1
67	@louisthomas	108	59	100	32,44	0,11	0,09
68	@canadian-coconut	90	41	1	48,83	0,16	0,09
69	@sjchoi	62	37	76	53,62	0,18	0,09
70	@majes.tytyty	179	60	11	33,46	0,11	0,09
71	@oliverschmid	281	97	69	20,51	0,07	0,09
72	@thedamus	217	74	20	27,48	0,09	0,09
73	@babsboard	64	26	73	67,59	0,23	0,08
74	@sharonomics	54	35	100	51,2	0,17	0,08
75	@anomadsoul	75	69	1	24,43	0,08	0,08
76	@socky	56	27	38	59,06	0,2	0,07
77	@armentor	91	33	24	43,67	0,15	0,07
78	@richard-921	84	41	95	34,72	0,12	0,07
79	@virus707	53	17	7	93,51	0,31	0,07
80	@v4vapid	52	41	2	39,52	0,13	0,07
81	@cicbar	211	157	5	9,05	0,03	0,07
82	@bytzz	114	56	17	22,66	0,08	0,06
83	@meesterboom	242	93	2	14,29	0,05	0,06
84	@luckystrikes	105	78	15	17,86	0,06	0,06
85	@fulltimegeek	59	40	1	30,53	0,1	0,06
86	@mandl	60	20	49	68,62	0,23	0,06
87	@justtryme90	17	12	89	104,93	0,35	0,06
88	@jgullinese	54	31	19	42,17	0,14	0,06
89	@beanz	33	20	31	60,33	0,2	0,06
90	@michaellamden68	131	32	27	39,54	0,13	0,06
91	@fucktime	19	16	58	80,94	0,27	0,06
92	@sndbox	48	37	1	34,92	0,12	0,06
93	@bigram13	54	15	34	79,6	0,27	0,06
94	@englishtchrivy	114	34	46	41,16	0,14	0,06
95	@d-pend	81	46	7	27,9	0,09	0,06
96	@crypt0	28	19	64	69,59	0,23	0,06
97	@bleujay	42	24	26	42,61	0,14	0,05
98	@kevinwong	69	50	2	19,73	0,07	0,05
99	@emperorofnaps	167	18	3	62,56	0,21	0,05
100	@steamsteem	198	53	11	21,38	0,07	0,05
101	@floridasnail	81	59	12	17,34	0,06	0,05
102	@djohan	129	26	50	39,15	0,13	0,05
103	@adamkokesh	46	42	1	25,09	0,08	0,05
104	@newsflash	30	23	38	45,16	0,15	0,05
105	@cryptopie	182	75	15	13,28	0,04	0,05
106	@knircky	32	24	32	46,99	0,16	0,05
107	@abajnath	53	35	74	33,34	0,11	0,05
108	@darsico	107	48	26	20,82	0,07	0,05
109	@madpuppy	29	2	93	462,82	1,55	0,04
110	@limesoda	121	82	17	10,67	0,04	0,04
111	@rahemanali	53	35	100	23,81	0,08	0,04
112	@crypto-p	84	18	70	45,35	0,15	0,04
113	@pouchon	86	22	43	38,52	0,13	0,04
114	@estabond	105	12	7	78,5	0,26	0,04
115	@igster	1209	79	1	12,1	0,04	0,04
116	@forealife	205	93	11	8,44	0,03	0,04
117	@bwells	58	6	94	159,97	0,53	0,04
118	@steemyoda	64	12	33	77,38	0,26	0,04
119	@jack8831	78	55	4	16,09	0,05	0,04
120	@bue	154	48	100	17,06	0,06	0,04
121	@chbartist	151	124	84	7,83	0,03	0,04
122	@sridevik	104	6	80	147,91	0,49	0,04
123	@holic7	88	54	7	15,43	0,05	0,04
124	@jeezzle	77	39	26	22,05	0,07	0,04
125	@iliasdiamantis	94	38	33	15,75	0,05	0,03
126	@zer0hedge	27	22	42	27,01	0,09	0,03
127	@kibaek	103	18	65	36,64	0,12	0,03
128	@destinysaid	41	25	53	23,39	0,08	0,03
129	@alhofmeister	55	3	95	209,79	0,7	0,03
130	@cryptokidd	43	8	78	69,72	0,23	0,03
131	@nonameslefttouse	104	59	4	9,19	0,03	0,03
132	@etcmike	170	54	11	11,49	0,04	0,03
133	@apolymask	123	47	22	11,66	0,04	0,03
134	@leemikyung	116	78	1	7,39	0,02	0,03
135	@jonny-clearwater	44	36	17	18,78	0,06	0,03
136	@goodvibrations	90	53	6	12,04	0,04	0,03
137	@tobixen	59	28	28	23,49	0,08	0,03
138	@minnowpowerup	55	17	36	31,98	0,11	0,03
139	@doctalk	92	21	79	26,01	0,09	0,03
140	@kartiksingh	224	10	12	56,85	0,19	0,03
141	@uwelang	93	63	4	8,7	0,03	0,03
142	@dhimmel	64	32	59	19,98	0,07	0,03
143	@velimir	89	44	11	15,75	0,05	0,03
144	@sismaru	189	109	3	5,58	0,02	0,03
145	@ericvancewalton	45	32	81	18,07	0,06	0,03
146	@theaustrianguy	69	58	4	9,56	0,03	0,03
147	@bbana	42	30	23	18,52	0,06	0,03
148	@lukestokes	45	35	5	19,49	0,07	0,03
149	@ernestfung	75	30	100	22,31	0,07	0,03
150	@quinneaker	150	28	5	26,55	0,09	0,03
151	@boxmining	38	32	100	19,74	0,07	0,03
152	@whatsup	100	67	12	11,28	0,04	0,03
153	@donkeypong	39	36	1	18,71	0,06	0,03
154	@lyndsaybowes	273	129	4	4,67	0,02	0,03
155	@bronevik	50	13	55	44,99	0,15	0,03
156	@sultan-aceh	254	86	14	7,86	0,03	0,03
157	@schamangerbert	102	72	7	5,49	0,02	0,02
158	@firepower	19	17	21	20,65	0,07	0,02
159	@protegeaa	36	21	57	19,38	0,06	0,02
160	@take5	215	51	7	9,51	0,03	0,02
161	@pfunk	14	12	14	28,01	0,09	0,02
162	@barbro	12	8	100	42,62	0,14	0,02
163	@oncebey60	71	26	47	20,18	0,07	0,02
164	@havok777	78	44	16	7,65	0,03	0,02
165	@themightyvolcano	41	10	85	39,11	0,13	0,02
166	@otage	140	62	14	8,18	0,03	0,02
167	@jamesbrown	25	5	81	81,99	0,27	0,02
168	@atmosblack	78	24	48	20,15	0,07	0,02
169	@craim100	71	11	83	35,06	0,12	0,02
170	@schmidthappens	43	30	16	15,65	0,05	0,02
171	@surfermarly	48	41	63	12,7	0,04	0,02
172	@sorin.cristescu	80	31	33	11,61	0,04	0,02
173	@michalx2008x	218	115	9	4,09	0,01	0,02
174	@yoo1900	9	1	87	344,49	1,15	0,02
175	@nnnarvaez	37	26	71	13,53	0,05	0,02
176	@steembasicincome	77	43	9	10,85	0,04	0,02
177	@tatjanastan	68	36	8	14,36	0,05	0,02
178	@richq11	127	58	13	7,38	0,02	0,02
179	@michiel	50	24	100	14,53	0,05	0,02
180	@glenalbrethsen	271	56	17	6,22	0,02	0,02
181	@taskmaster4450	94	55	5	8,09	0,03	0,02
182	@sebastianjago	36	13	60	31,87	0,11	0,02
183	@momoggo	32	29	75	14,3	0,05	0,02
184	@aidasfg7	48	23	25	14,41	0,05	0,02
185	@noaommerrr	74	1	100	343,81	1,15	0,02
186	@balte	179	47	8	7,21	0,02	0,02
187	@coruscate	98	72	11	7	0,02	0,02
188	@thedarkhorse	195	86	12	4,9	0,02	0,02
189	@miti	130	68	27	5,78	0,02	0,02
190	@mammasitta	131	73	2	4,99	0,02	0,02
191	@rebeccaryan	54	43	12	8,84	0,03	0,02
192	@vikisecrets	100	46	11	9,97	0,03	0,02
193	@ruth-girl	163	69	7	5,3	0,02	0,02
194	@mightpossibly	132	52	37	8,14	0,03	0,02
195	@winnerslosers	87	33	13	12,24	0,04	0,02
196	@reiseamateur	135	83	21	4,18	0,01	0,02
197	@papa-pepper	43	26	60	19,24	0,06	0,02
198	@tasauver	185	37	63	12,34	0,04	0,02
199	@falconcash	48	3	95	159,69	0,53	0,02
200	@salahchiva	81	17	62	19,12	0,06	0,02

---

I took all vote bots (most of them are working like pay for vote) in the separate table. Because we can't call them effective curators. Their work depends on authors payments and activity.
If you know another bots in the list above please tell me about it.

№	Account	Votes	Authors	VAS(%)	Contr. (SBD)	Share %	Eff.
1	@booster	624	62	1	474,37	1,59	1,36
2	@speedvoter	3169	132	1	116,44	0,39	0,71
3	@boomerang	12	3	19	109,94	0,37	0,02

---

Now you know all these heroes. Their daily work increases the interest in the discussion, gives hope to some authors, and some even a decent income. Their work attracts new authors in Steemit and makes existing users remain.

---

Information sources

All information is prepared by querying data from a SteemSQL - SQL database containing information from Steem's blockchain, as well as by calculations based on this data.

Special thanks to @arcange for SteemSQL and for the advice provided to me during the development of this project.

Comments

[atmosblack]

This is so awesome, to make it again in the list! It just shows, that what I'm doing here, is absolutely heading into the right direction. Thank you so much for compiling this list and showing to all fellow Steemians the way to go! Blessings! 🙏

[boddhisattva]

You are very welcome! It's your merit to be on the list!
You are one of them who doing great work here. 8)

[thedarkhorse]

Nice to make your top 200 list! Sure that lists like this will only become harder to make as time goes along so I'll enjoy it for now. Thanks for for sharing and pulling together all the information.

[boddhisattva]

Congratulations! 8)
You are absolutely right! There was a time when I was doing a TOP 200 Effective curators on whole Steemit for a month. Then it started to take a long time and I started to publich a weekly TOPs. In January my server started to make such a weekly report in more then 7 days. I had to stop doing them for a few weeks until the number of active authors has decreased. 8))

[thedarkhorse]

Not to spam your post, but you might like the contest I'm running. Take a look if you get a minute. It's a curation contest to help pay it forward and reward lower reputation score (newer) bloggers for producing good content.

[boddhisattva]

Thanks for the invitation. I consider this an excellent initiative. But due to personal circumstances, I will not be able to participate in it.

[thedarkhorse]

No problem. If down the road things change come and join us as the plan is to keep this going. Not doing any paid promotion for the contest, so if you are able to help with a vote or resteem that is always appreciated.

[boddhisattva]

Yeah, I voted for it 8)

[thedarkhorse]

Thank you very much for the support!

[apolymask]

Woot! Awesome to see I made the list again and actually went up a bit this time. 133 now! Illuminati numbers! Lol. Thanks again for sharing this useful information with us! Was cool to learn that.

[kryptocek]

keep working at it man top 100 soon enough! :D

[apolymask]

If I don't go blind first. Heh. ._.
Though.. Who knows! Maybe it will happen.. I'm just trying to keep up with the IFC, was never aiming for this.. I guess we'll see where trying to keep up with the IFC takes me, but right now.. I feel like I'm already at my limit. Not sure how much more I can humanly do in addition to what I'm doing, lol.

[kryptocek]

No yeah I can see by how active you are and how well you respond to everyone in the community! I seriously don't know how you do it man.

[apolymask]

I dunno how I do it either. I really believe in this project I guess and I want to see it grow into something really big and amazing. But it's too much on me and hopefully in time I don't have to do this much and when it gets more popular we get more people who want to help out and take the weight off me.

[boddhisattva]

You are welcome! 8)
It took me a while to figure it out myself. And I was sure that this information will be useful to many users. I'm glad that you confirm this.

[apolymask]

Yeah, it's nice to know all the work I'm putting in makes a positive difference and I knew that already, but your stats sort of help me put that into more perspective and to measure it and understand it more. :) Good work! It's indeed a useful service.

[limesoda]

Great article, again! We see a lot of familiar names from the DACH/#deutsch Community :)

[boddhisattva]

Thank you very much! As I see, deutsch community is very active and it is in the top 5 national and language communities of rewards

[balte]

I am glad that i could stay in the Top 200 again! Thanks for your work!

[boddhisattva]

You are welcome! 8)

[rmaxhuni]

good post man

[boddhisattva]

Thanks!

[bestbiz]

Thanks you very much for this update , it really help those who rely on comment to find their effective curator and by so doing earning a living.

[boddhisattva]

You are welcome! 8)

[glenalbrethsen]

I'm still trying to figure out how I even made this list, but I'm glad to be here. :)

So, there must be a part of the table that is missing? The curator effectiveness column where the ranking is determined doesn't show up. I'd love to know what that number is.

Also, if I'm calculating this right, all of us on the list rank in the top 1% of all curators according to our effectiveness at distributing the reward pool for the week sampled.

That's pretty amazing. Thanks for doing this. :)

[boddhisattva]

Thank you! You are welcome 8)

This is all because you actively supported the discussion with your votes.

So, there must be a part of the table that is missing? The curator effectiveness column where the ranking is determined doesn't show up. I'd love to know what that number is.

You might be looking this post on the busy.org? I don't know what's the problem but on steemit.com you will see that missing column.

Also, if I'm calculating this right, all of us on the list rank in the top 1% of all curators according to our effectiveness at distributing the reward pool for the week sampled.

I'm not sure that I understand it. Sorry, english is not my native language 8)

[glenalbrethsen]

So, I am on Steemit. This is what I see. It kind of looks like the share% column is cut off, so I thought maybe there might be another column with the effectiveness score in it. Otherwise, I'm not understanding the rankings, since the numbers in the other columns are all over the place.

This is what it looks like on Busy. I can actually see more here, including the effectiveness column I was thinking there must be. :) I'm using FireFox for both.

Okay. Just checked this in Safari and now I can see everything. It must be a browser-specific problem then.

re: top 1%

I was just trying to say that if we're on this Top 200 list, and the sample of curators for the week is just under 25,000, that if I'm doing the math right, that puts us all in the top 1% of curators according to our effectiveness.

[boddhisattva]

Hey, I'm glad that the solution to the problem was found, because I use Google Chrome and did not even know about it. You are the first to report this problem.

re: top 1%

Now I understand what you mean. Thanks! 8)

I'm not sure about the accuracy of your calculations, but those who are on this list will really bounce back to a very small number of those who are doing the weather here 8))))