The case against short form content on Steemit.com
Recent discussion over short-form content and it's value versus long-form articles have divided the community. On the one hand, proponents and users coming from Reddit have argued that the trending posts are usually short, give instant gratification, easier to go viral and often takes the content creator just as long to create the content as long form content contributors.
My view is that short content shouldn't be rewarded the same. But not because it is short.
Here are my reasons:
Steemit.com is not Reddit.com
A lot of stakeholders make this comparison but do so assuming that the fundamental content shared on both websites are the same. They are not. Steemit is comparable to medium. The definition of a blog might have changed in recent years with websites pushing shorter and shorter digestible content, but the user experience of Steemit.com lends itself as a blogging website.Steemit.com is not 'do what you would normally do on other websites but get paid'.
Steemit.com is fundamentally a different user experience to social media websites that provide a different focus. The simplest question to asks is, would you be using Steemit if the monetary incentive did not exist? Do you use facebook because of the monetary incentive? Do you watch youtube videos because of monetary incentive? We are not using Steemit the same way we are using other social networking sites, and when users try to, they are marginalised and accused of plagiarism, and trying to make a quick buck.
What can be done?
Short content has it's place. Just not on Steemit.com. The likely solution is to create off-shoot websites such as dmania, dtube, steepshot etc. which leverage the Steem ecosystem but is entirely separate to the way steemit.com ranks it's trending posts. In-fact, it would be useful to exclude steemit.com posts altogether.
The decision to separate STEEM from Steemit.com was the right one because it facilitates other 'apps' to build on top of the chain with a completely different focus. It is still too early to tell if the killer app is indeed Steemit.com and the success of STEEM needs not rest on that possibility either. We have the potential to bridge existing social networking behavioural traits onto the STEEM chain whilst leveraging the benefits of consensus by stake voting.
In the case that distribution of wealth is an issue, apps may choose to re-attempt a fair distribution through token emission of their own (SMT).
There is an unhealthy culture of ostracising people who post short form content and getting paid more than people who write long form articles. The problem lies in the culture cultivated by the early stakeholders, and to some extent the framework of user functionality enforced by the interface of Steemit.com. An interfaced designed ground up to accommodate and streamline short form content (twitter, instagram -> zappl, steepshot) is the way to grow short form content acceptance.
Here is an interesting image to kickstart the debate.
very good post my friend..upvoted..i love direct to the point post..^_^ that's what i did on my previous post..i want a direct approach...on my article..hope you will consider to see my page @mrblu to see my short post..
Fantastic write even from the point of a poet however i think having power counts for everything on steemit, nevertheless it does not make it right, truth is changes can still happen.
quality or quantity ~ half short and twice strong ;)