Right now your self-upvoting is excessively high around 60% which is something I can't really get behind. The main idea is to help Steemit grow as a platform in the longer run which makes it much more appealing to add accounts with a giving mindset.
I hope the feedback helps.
Yep, didn't know anyone cared about that. Mostly it's to get higher in comments so authors get to read comments. We will change that immediately. Thanks-- we had no idea. Also we've never stopped from up voting stuff we like. If there was more great content we wouldn't be able to upvote our own stuff so much. But we'll go cold turkey if our self up voting has been turning away people.
We r big fans of Braveboat, Tims, Prometheus, and just about anyone who posts regularly about basketball and makes us think.
No matter what tho, we will never be sycophants and suckups to articles we don't like simply to gain a following. So while we may have erred in the past-- he who have not sinned cast the first stone. In other words, we have a much higher tolerance for self voting than for the sin of self-importance bc authors overvalue their own writing bc they have a lot of upvoting power and people suckup to them.
Also, our daily routine involves going to "new" and upvoting non-sports articles we like-- whether by newbs or seasoned vets as long as the effort is there.
So we will change based on your comment, but are hurt that we are judged on one thing. It's tough for Minnows to get readers and you can't be too hard on those willing to promote their own material. You prolly don't like us, but remember all this when turning nose at others who are just trying to "get read". Nothing harder than putting in the effort and hearing crickets, then you read some effortless crud and the author gets 30 upvotes.
We think our content stands on its own and should be judged on on just its merits. We write full unique analysis on games or we don't write at all. We pay close attention to bet size management.
If you and your readers aren't into that so be it. We will continue blasting our best content into a reader vacuum then.
We also scrub our "followers". When we encounter what's obviously a BS follow (easy to see when the follower is following thousands of steemers and we struggle just following in the dozens) we go and mute them. Do you do that? We admit we don't do it often enough, but one only has so much time. Hint: if "a-a-a" is one of your followers and remains "unmuted", you've never scrubbed.
Also, you self-voted this article and are the 2nd-highest valued upvoter on it. ... cast the first stone.
By the way it's a cool chart, where do you get that? Look at that RAINBOW of diversity we've upvoted. This RoundBallsDeep group really spreads it around.
You can click the picture and your will go to the website that shows voting behavior
The self-upvoting comments is something that really gives an instant bad impression on Steemit. Nice to read you are more aware of it now. I'm with you on how extremely short posts with no effort often get overly upvote on steemit. People have a short attention span and too long articles regardless on how much time has been put into don't seem to work very well on this platform unless you have a strong following. I plan on making a post on how to get more regular upvotes which might help. I'm following
Good Luck
Too-long songs like Jane's "3 Days" never got time on the radio, but it's one of the best songs ever written. Same goes for other long-plays. Should the artists NOT have written them bc they couldn't make near-term money on the radio? We think not. Our posts will be as long as need be, and any GOOD artist will tell you the same about the size of their art. Some artists die without fame or fortune, and this happens for a reason which may not be "logical" or "best game theory". While we certainly don't compare our writing on BASKETBALL of all things to be "art", we are of the opinion that ANYTHING one does should be done the right way, which is to say, the best way one can achieve at the moment.
our upvotes are worth a penny or less, by the way. We aren't living in Indonesia, the money so far means ZERO, it's ALL about getting REAL readers for us. The betting is a separate money-making project, but it allows us to focus on the practise of writing, which like music, requires time-in-service to get good.
We'd rather have 20 GREAT readers and make $10 per article, than 2,000 sycophants and make $2,000 per article. But that's just us.
But we DO believe in marketing, so our if our "comments-self-upvoting" is turning off more potential long-readers (Longreads is one of our favorite Twitter follows, even if we don't agree with the politics) than is being gained from putting our shingle out in as many places as possible, than we will thank you for the valuable lesson. But until then, we remain injured from this attack on what we think as a "lesser crime" of simply trying to get read.
also, short is good, it's not the shortness of posts earning lots of attention that bugs us, it's the 0% quality of most of them. Steemit has a LOT of work to do if it hopes to not be "googled" out of existence.
click what picture? If we click your icon-picture nothing happens.