Every member here who has earned rewards for their content did so because there was an incentive for curators
"Every". I curate. I vote on things I like. Just like I up vote youtube videos, and I up vote reddit posts. What is the incentive there? Oh yeah, it is that thing called telling the content creator you like it an want more. If they make more then that is great.
I don't suddenly think I should magically be paid in currency because I told that person I wanted them to make more content.
The content curation thing here is really alien. It has created an environment where people think they should be financially rewarding for saying they like something.
If not for the fact some people spent a lot of money buying steem power and this really the only way they interact with steemit I'd be fine with seeing curation rewards completely gone.
Why?
You are rewarded the same as anywhere else that hopefully the content creator will make more content.
What the curation rewards DO offer is a way for people who do not feel they are good at making content, or participating in that way some way to still earn from interaction with steemit. THIS is a good reason for curation rewards to exist. Yet are they worth as much as 25% of the work it takes to make the content? Someone who spent steem power to power up so they can do that would likely say "yes, me clicking up vote and potentially awarding you should be worth the hours your spent making your content" especially if that is the only way they interact with steemit/busy.org. Does that mean they are correct? Subjectively yes. Objectively maybe not. I personally think 25% may be a bit higher than it should be, but I'm also okay with leaving it there. I do think the algorithm now encourages dog piling rather than actually voting on the merit of each piece on a case by case basis. Throw in the bots that are designed to maximize the curation reward by predicting authors who always do well, and following dog piles actually dilutes the reward pool. In other words, due to the automatic voting, or voting without reading over simply wanting curation rewards the rewards that can be given out to content and perhaps to new content authors is very much diluted.
This might be addressable by rethinking the curation rewards algorithm.
From the user side, curation rewards are about the only thing that sets Steemit apart from the competition (average users don't "experience decentralization", nor care about it). The other established platforms are better than Steemit, in some cases by light-years, at what sets them apart from the crowd.
Are you suggesting that Steemit stands up to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Medium, YouTube, based only on its content being saved into a block-chain?
Let's not forget, YouTube pays content creators, so Steemit doesn't really set itself apart by rewarding bloggers in Steem. In fact, YouTube's payment system gets the nod from the average user since it pays in fiat, something people generally understand and trust.
Edit
I read the rest of your post to discover that you aren't suggesting to ban curation rewards altogether.
My bad for reacting before I read through your entire post.
Thanks for the edit. I do see some benefits to the idea of curation. I simply think the algorithm doesn't tend to lead to what I believe was the outcome intended. So I do think it needs some adjusting.
As you saw I was only mentioning those other social medias as an explanation that we are PAID for our vote also by hopefully the content creators we like making more content. That may not interest people enough to justify them using Steemit over another platform, but it was me illustrating that there are other factors in the scheme of "payment" or "reward" beyond the pure crypto currency aspect.
I can see you understood this though.
Brutal nesting!
People shouldn't have to change their blogging habits to accommodate a rewards system. These photographers spent hours taking and processing photos. I produce digital art and I often do include some sort of story to go along with the art, but not always. The images take many hours to produce. I see many artists who post a few images of their latest creations and give a few details of their thought process. These people can't be limited or suffer because those seeking rewards are forced to stare at nothing. All this does is create downtime. Steemit isn't about long essays. Even these poets would take a hit. Some of the most popular videos of all time on youtube are seven seconds long. People want creative freedom.
Brutal Nesting 3
Alright, if the curator spends time writing a comment, that helps.
Also, I do have a soft place in my heart for those who use bots for legitimate purposes. Some of my oldest supporters have me on auto, which I appreciate, because they appreciate my work and want to support me. They come back later and read. Some live on the other side of the world. I actually encourage people to do this, whereas I used to be against it. I need to make money, and I don't mind them making money from my product because that's what pays me. I'm back to square one. I don't know what to do or say. If people just voted responsibly, supporting the creators they enjoy and not going for the easy rewards, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't know what to say anymore.
"Every" as in: Not all votes come by way of someone seeking to maximize their reward potential, but anyone who has seen a substantial reward has been struck by those who are seeking curation rewards. That's why views are far lower than votes, every time.
I'm another voter who votes for what they like. My incentive to build up my SP by producing content is so I can give more to the other authors out there. I don't mind at all when some seeking rewards give me a boost, because it all goes back to the community. I can then take my work and get views somewhere else for added exposure and feel comfortable knowing the work was not a waste of time.
Would I prefer to see my rewards for creating increase? Yes. Is the curation reward percentage too high? I'm not sure, so let's talk about something else.
Would more people come to my restaurant for coffee if I offered free refills? Yes. That's an incentive to go there for coffee. Would free refills increase the chances of a customer purchasing a bite to eat... yes. I'm making money, by giving customers a piece of the pie. Soon, more people hear about this free coffee and my restuarant is full. I leave a sign up by the door that says, "Free dessert with the purchase of any meal." Then I find myself making even more money by giving more away. To top that off, the service is getting tipped well because I've created a friendly, giving atmosphere(the comment section after party).
If I received 1000 votes for a dollar each, I'd be fine with taking home $750. I produced something and gave back all at the same time. It feels honest. Maybe the voter voted because they like my stuff. Do the math, they didn't get much if everyone got an equal cut, but it's still something, and it adds up.
I say, leave the curation rewards and remove the methods that cause the problems and kill the audience. My show runs all day, why are people being penalized for showing up early or coming late? There's no time to enjoy the show if you're already late for the next one down the street. Allow curators to relax and enjoy their stay. I'm sure there's a way.
Yes, I'm sorry about my irrational choices of where to respond :(
Simple solution: make the time limit 10 seconds. It should never take less than 10 seconds to look at a photo, especially one that we enjoy to look at, and if it does we only have to suffer mere seconds to put in our 100% vote.
What does this accomplish?
First of all, manual curators are now forced to at least BE where they are voting -- as in, actually looking at the content that they're voting on (no votes without views -- another problem many people have been mentioning). Can you "thumbs-up" a youtube video without opening its link? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, and I think Steemit would benefit by setting up a similar condition to voting for content.
Secondly, bots will be forced into more difficult prioritizing habits, assuming they can cheat the system into detecting an account as viewing a post (this might be a problem if the bot owner also wants to be viewing content on his/her own), they can't lead vote on a post simultaneously with lead voting another post as they can only be accumulating viewing time on one post at a time.
Good response. I do think the biggest problem at the moment is the algorithm. You know what would be really funny is if there was a captcha generated from content actually in the article and you had to answer the captcha to vote. :P
I know that wouldn't go over too well and would add a barrier that would discourage more people from voting, so let's NOT do that. Yet I do think it is amusing and it does show I was thinking a bit outside of the box.
Imagine a tiered curation reward.
A simple upvote click on the feed yields a small reward to the curator. An upvote click after opening the article yields a larger reward. Then, to top it off, a responsible blogger who cares about their readers could give a few worthwhile votes to worthy comments. Triple whammy! Rewarded for actually viewing and expressing their thoughts!
The content creators could create. The curators could curate... and finally, the creators can curate the curators. Everyone wins and it's a perfect world again!
Hooray!
Yes as long as the algorithm does not encourage doing all of those things simply based upon the order you did it in.