Sort:  

"and you conveniently left out your latest post that was in fact curated by a curation project..."
In fact I conveniently put only my last obviously underpaid post because if I had put all my underpaid ones the list would be longer than super model's legs. The last curated post of mine that you mention barely paid my fuel (which FYI is heading towards 2 euros/lt in my area). However, regardless how much my posts make I am always thankful to the curating projects either by upvoting or writing back a thankful message, without exceptions, appreciating the intentions. Anyone can see that since profiles are not private and that answers about whether I could "conveniently" attempt to show or hide anything here.

Post in question says curation projects shouldn't exist because they taint genuine curation. Do you think people such as yourself would go around looking for undervalued posts without an extra incentive to do so? You could argue not many would and it would cause a lot more autovoting or just lazy voting on people they know resulting in even less stake being distributed widely. A quick look at your account tells me it wouldn't hurt for you to engage more like you did in this post but with authors that share the same interests as you, having only 2x more comments than posts isn't that valuable for a social media platform in my eyes and our curation project often ignores such accounts as we'd rather reward those spending more time and effort here.

Not only you just confirmed @felixxx 's infographic by exposing your curation mentality but on top of that you chose me and not him as a target here, having the nerve to talk about "spending more time and effort" to someone like me who's posts often take days to finish only to get paid a small fraction of someone who just wrote a casual one page post. Just because I don't comment enough for your eyes. Well, that's what happens when people have the virtue of speaking only when necessary. And I've already said enough - have a nice day.

What does it matter how much time you spend on posts if no one reads them?

I already talked to felix about it in dms so it's not like I'm just targeting you for the fun of it. Build some connections, content alone on Hive isn't that valuable. Sure we don't have viewcounters to prove how little people care about most content here but the least users can do is interact, invite people to join Hive or share their posts on the centralized social media platforms. No need to get all defensive, figured you may need a reality check considering how long you've been here and still don't seem to understand how to actually bring some value to Hive.

I see that "content alone is not that valuable".

comment:In fact, your statement is underlined, for example, by this posting here: https://hive.blog/hive-174578/@livinguktaiwan/how-to-make-your-post-more-curatable, to which I made the following

lol - are you serious about this or is this a hidden joke of some sorts? It gets me smiling, you've got highly rewarded for a thing you actually critizise.

Taking this very post of yours, ask yourself the questions:

what are you contributing to your target audience? Are you telling them something new or interesting? Is there anything in your post that makes it stand out from others so curators will read to the end and upvote you?

HaHa! So, your audience sees this: you will be rewarded even if you say something that has already been said umpteen times.

In this respect, this is a contradiction in terms. LOL

I come to the conclusion that all one needs to do is become a curator who has been commissioned to scan "quality content" in order to then secure the high payouts by writing about postings that show a lack of originality? One's own rules don't seem to be worth much as long as one just extensively and vigorously beats the advertising drum on other channels? In what way would the above post be understood or even interesting by an audience not yet active on Hive?

Such things, I think, run counter to your other efforts to make Hive an interesting and vibrant place. I agree then, it really doesn't matter what is published here in terms of content. But then you have a paradox, because if content doesn't count, but only marketing or how active a user is here, we can probably laugh at this together.

To me, you seem very defensive in terms of critique - but will you disagree that cases like the above one, let your efforts being judged in a different light?

Yes because felixxx has always been a cunt who cherrypicks shit to complain about while ignoring other examples of unfair rewards or how inconsistent his accusations are, such as the curator he mentioned. She doesn't get consistent high rewards nor are our own votes that high, we can't control what other people vote on, there's at least another curation project who has voted either before or after us and then rancho + haejin with same sized votes than us. Could we downvote the post a bit? sure, but since she doesn't get those numbers always I'd rather refrain from using downvotes on such accounts as there's plenty of others who could use them better. Not to mention the endless arguments downvotes bring without giving the downvoter anything of value in return except attempting to protect the reward pool - not that that would be the case with that author as she has personally often asked me to downvote some of her content that gets overrewarded for one reason or another. This is stuff felixxx and others obviously don't know or choose to ignore when they see the downvotes and their jealous eyes just look at wallet activity to judge people for selling as if that's their business.

I come to the conclusion that all one needs to do is become a curator who has been commissioned to scan "quality content" in order to then secure the high payouts by writing about postings that show a lack of originality?

You are doing the same, picking one post out of all and for some reason expecting that that's all we vote for? Ignoring that there's many other curators voting on it? You know there's no curation sniping rewards involved anymore so there shouldn't be a reason for others to vote before or after our votes other than if they want that content to be rewarded more. The author you quoted maybe makes one post about curation once every 3 months at max and you chose that to be a good time to make it all about your point.

If I were your PR consultant, I would have just given you some free advice. You're on stage, I'm not, that's the difference between us. You're set up as a witness, you run a big community and you have an outside presence that is put through its paces by a lot of people. If you make mistakes and appear inconsistent or include personal insults in your comments, you will be judged on that. Never mind finding something you say is an exception. Others find it too and they judge accordingly and find criticisable things in it.

If you want to pay your curators, why don't you pay them directly into their hive wallet, that would be possible too?

As far as you reject my criticism and think that certain things are or should be free of it, you are free to do so. I simply told you that it gives a very bad public impression. You are engaging in politics and I have commented on that politics. I don't know this felixx, I merely followed some of your recent comments and finally decided to take the example, of which I'm sure there are and have been others.

I was going to write exactly the same. He was just proving my point.