This is why wider distribution is crucial and should be taken more seriously at this stage, otherwise, we'll just have a handful of whales dictating what valuable content is
I believe that this is the main point. Because as you said at the beginning of your comment, how engaging the content is for the reader is what defines whether we vote or not. In the end, our connection to the text is what defines whether it is good content. And our tastes are different, the more people have the power to decide to value someone's content, the fairer the platform will be, in addition to the fact that many more people will benefit from decent and wider curation.
Oh, I love your post. Upvoted, promoted, and reblogged. You have inspired me.
It certainly can be both. I am no writing judge. I try and review as much as I can, but I don't always have the time.
If it satisfies the basic requirements of no plagiarism, copy, hate and I'm engaged...I UV. If it doesn't meet the basics I will DV and explain with the opportunity to revote. I'm ready for that stage now.
Something that's helped me in the past to review writings was curation posts. Except I would love to do something differently, for marginal awards to the writers. We could read a couple of articles that we enjoy and then post a curation report. Some proceeds could be dedicated to the writers.
Thank you! It encourages me to keep writing.
This is a great idea! There are many good ideas on how to curate curatorship to the maximum number of people who deserve it. I hope we can soon put some of them into practice to bring about real changes in the community.
Nice. I'm glad you like it. It will be my first curation post. I've started reviewing now and I'll post hopefully this week. I may just focus on STEM-related articles first as that is my IRL job. However, I'll likely expand to business/finance because of a new analyst job I landed. We'll see. Training wheels first, I guess.
^^^^ boom, you rock