The problem was, that the whales are lazy and don't like to read ...
I do believe however that only a few posts per day should get rewards, because the average user will only read a handful of posts per day in the real world.
I'd say, even less.
Who does not like to read, should not give a vote.
True determinability of a text can only be provided by the reader. If "reading" is not something one likes to do and if one is still too lazy to engage with what one has read and is unable to grasp both the strong and weak aspects of a text, the only right thing to do would be to abstain from voting altogether.
The question can therefore be asked of oneself: Have I read a text in its entirety? Do I have something to say about it that is of value to the recipient? What could such a value be?
If I want an author to improve the potential of their expression, then I provide them with constructive criticism. Which presupposes that the writer is interested in such criticism. But if the writer is neither interested in increasing his potential, nor in wanting to refine his writing style, nor is he willing to spend time and energy on an open debate, then all my own interest in constructiveness is wasted.
It looks to me like people online no longer read, but vote on the basis of headlines and snippets of text that happen impulsively rather than thoughtfully. What "the market wants" is more of a distorted form, because it grabs "likes" and "votes", it's a hunt for superficial confirmation, but cares little about the content, yet pretends all the more vehemently that it is about such. What was already true for "yesterday's newspaper" is all the more true for online content.
In this sense, loyalty votes are the worst (I myself am "guilty" of casting them). Even if I like a particular author, I need to treat each and every single blog post as if it's the first one I ever get to read from this particular author. Reading everything as if it was written from someone I do neither know nor sympathize with. I shall be the one who is motivated to act in this manner. I cannot make others to behave like that.
I can only set the most attainable highest standard I can come up with. If I lower my own standard, I compromise myself and, as a consequence, I am an unfortunate role model to others.
I could reply to this, and I could maybe convince you of my solutions.
It would take me hours.
I am on some different time, since I wrote the above, though.
Just this one as food for thought:
I disagree. Context matters.
That is how when I post a picture of my food nobody cares, but if Kim Kardashian does, millions of people are interested.
Right, context matters, I see it the same way. I approach it differently, though.
There's a scene in Game of Thrones where Varys (the eunuch) stands in front of Daenerys Targaryen and she demands unconditional loyalty from him. He replies to her something like: "If you want unquestioning loyalty when you might opt for something that goes against everything I have chosen to stand for, then I will contradict you and refuse my service."
Is not every situation in which someone presents you with something potentially like a new blank page and you can decide whether what is on this new page deserves your support or not? Is this not actually something you prefer?
For me, loyalty does not mean that someone always says "yes" to me, quite to the contrary, it is that they can say "no" when I utter something idiotic or plan something stupid or perform under my standard.
Personally, I couldn't care less what's on K.K.'s plate. But sure, if everyone wants to be like Kardashian (or whoever is currently trendy), let them try.
For a start, we could do questions and answers. I wouldn't want you to take hours ;)
This is exactly why I am not going into further details.
what do you mean by that?