hey ty for reading
in reply, I am trying to make a distinction between content that is " the same old, same old warmed up again and again" and a fresh new perspective. what do you consider content that is "completely irrelevant"?
Im saying we shouldnt reward content based on writer or subject alone. If a person writes about steem every single post three times a day, and gets huge votes every single time without saying anything new, should we be rewarding them?
so what if they wax on eloquently and makes it seem important. to me thats just waffle. the same old warmed up content is still not providing value if it just says, "steem is great, we are working on problems, rah rah rah", with no attempt to address the issues or explain the process.
I dont care how amazing the writing is, if the message isn't new, it stinks. Sure it's dressed up in a slightly different style and has a cute anecdote so people think its different information. oh ya and its botted so the payout is incredible. people vote on it and think it MUST be great content. what makes it unique from the post four hours ago?
talking about steem is fine as long as people are saying something NEW, and not writing just to get a payout. I'm asking curators to be a bit more discriminating in what they vote for, and stop jumping on the high post payout bandwagon for profits.
As you say, people writing about, "developing projects, communities or even businesses on Steem" - agree, this is worth while. This is worth paying for.
This is the distinction I would like curators to be making.