Ok... I REALLY don't like this at all. What you just described is a Keynesian beauty contest. Or even simply a popularity contest. It's incredibly surprising to me that the founders would structure the platform this way. This structure encourages sheep and discourages dark horses. For example, a post could be completely worthless, like the Kardashian of posts, but people will upvote it because they think people will upvote it? I wanted to downvote this post because of my disagreement with it, but apparently that will cost me. Persons are smart, people are dumb. This seems a lot like what I've noticed about presidential elections... people have literally said to me, "I'm going to vote for this person because I think they will win," or "I would vote for this person, but I don't think they can win." Guess what, if everyone who said that did vote for that person, they WOULD win.
This mentality bewilders me. Vote for something because it resonates with you. Vote for something because you gained something from it. Don't vote for something just because you think other people are going to vote for it! This type of structure is so common core/ lowest common denominator -esque.
For example, let's say that some popular user posts something mediocre, and because of their popularity or SP standing, they receive a ton of votes because they are popular and people know they're going to get votes and so many persons also vote to "get in on the action". In contrast, an unknown, seldom poster will little SP posts something grand and revolutionary, but since there is a voting restriction of 20 or 50 or whatever votes per day, a user may look at that post, think "wow that's cool", but not upvote it since he's saving his votes for the money-making popular person's posts. So, the revolutionary post gets pushed down to make way for the trendy votes and doesn't get seen. Yeah... this isn't sitting well with me. It seems contrary to the entire idea of the site, that valuable posts are rewarded.
Sure, I get what you are saying. Two things: (1) I emphasized that it's the EARLY votes on popular posts that reward you most. I wasn't the person who created the Steemit algorithms; I am merely explaining them to people. As long as there is money to be made in voting, because that's how Steemit is designed, people who need money deserve to have that pathway illuminated for them. But I don't think this becomes any sort of circle jerk because we might be talking about the first 6 or 10 votes on a post. And that really isn't enough to make an enormous difference on which content rises - the best posts will get more votes than that if people like the content, regardless of who the poster is. (2) If you read the article, I specifically explained quite clearly at the beginning and the end that you have about 20 good votes a day, but there is less "All Star" content than that, so I suggested that people should spend their other votes (25-75% of their votes) rewarding new, poor, and high quality blog posts. That is the only way Steemit will grow. You can also see my rebuttal in these comments to @tuck-fheman.
Thanks for the info ,,, It was great
I dont even know if you will see this- i am new to steemit. ...so far it , the Steemit platform does seem to encourage middle of the road content by adding hard cash to what could be called "no real content popularity" - your mediochre Kardasian posts.
C'est la vie.
Look on youtube for the weak mindless rubbish that gets millions of views lol it's amazing!
"We the sheeple" will always vote as per society norms!