Hello. I just read this post and I believe there's been some misunderstandings combined with lack of proper explaining by the ex-curator of @ocd you were in contact with.
First off.
If an account wants to republish your content in full from their page
We do not republish content. We write a short description of what the post is about and some times add an image from the post to it for the readers of the @ocd compilation posts.
These kinds of promotional accounts are a very clever scam that takes advantage of noobs
Here is a prime example.
So even though you in the comments with that curator didn't know all the rules and how @ocd operates you decided to accuse us for scamming and taking advantage of newcomers?
I understand he came off a bit passive aggressive and didn't provide all the necessary facts but neither did you check up on the @ocd account properly nor seem to realize how many curators share the daily posting rewards it generates.
The rules and how the account operates is public and has been posted onto the blockchain, there have been some changes in payout structure due to the support the posts get which as you've screenshotted to are around 100$ a day shared among ~20 curators. If you follow the transactions of the account you will notice that none of the curators make more per week than the actual posts they are nominating for curation. The authors of the posts make a bit more as it takes a lot more time to write them up.
The curator you talked to was wrong to say that we re-steem posts. We do not do this as of now as we are building up the account in followers through re-steeming its posts on my account which already has built up followers and the curators accounts. At one point it will probably start re-steeming them but having links to the posts it nominates is a lot similar.
The posts the account nominates are often from new users and we try not to nominate them more than once or twice. The reason we ask for permission to publish a description combined with an image of the posts we nominate is due to the fact that the @ocd account also makes posting rewards through that and a big reason it was created was due to lack of these curation guilds that are open about their payouts and and don't infringe on users without asking permission like some other projects were and might still be doing doing.
I vote with 100% on the ocd post since it is shared among so many curators and much like the payout structure of the website they are also vested 50% in SP. After the compilation post is posted I then manually look through the nominations and vote for them as well depending on rank of votes they have received internally by the curators and I also vote on the nominations that didn't make the compilation post with a smaller stake. Daily I spend about 30-40% of my voting power on all of these posts.
I understand that there is a thin line between stealing someone's thunder and attention from their account and what some may see as rewards as well but our intention can not be further away from that. That is a big reason we try and find posts that are undervalued (generally under $10 in rewards) and after nomination I vote on them manually to $20-30. So they receive more posting rewards, higher reputation and through the @ocd account which is rising in followers also more followers. There are many positive comments on those posts daily about users that read them to be able to find newcomers much like you that share their interests easier than filtering through the "new" section.
Our curators do a lot of work to make sure the content isn't plagiarised, stolen off someone else and some of them are even specifically looking for content of certain genres/tags. Their rewards are often not that high as other similar projects like @curie offer but they do the work on their free time and realize that it helps new authors out who without their curating would've not made the same amount of posting rewards or gotten those extra followers and attention and like many others they want the platform to succeed and rise in quality.
If an author does not want to be featured in our articles all they have to do is decline the comment asking it. As chiefmappster stated we have never had any complaints about the activity of the account so far after over a month of running and over 800 followers gained in that time and I believe it was unfair of you to judge it and accuse it of scamming before knowing all the details about it.
Hope that made it a bit clear of how the account operates and what its goals are in the long run. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you for the post
"So even though you in the comments with that curator didn't know all the rules and how @ocd operates you decided to accuse us for scamming and taking advantage of newcomers?"
If someone is representing your initiative and provide me with answers (or lack thereof) I am going to take them for their word. I am not going to research it further on my own to confirm what their representative has said. So it would be up to you to ensure that those who are curating for this project explain it in a way that does not make it appear to be exploitative. Based on what your representative said, I found it to sound exploitative, scammy, and as you yourself acknowledged: false (claimed posts get resteemed but they do not).
Yes, it was a false claim. I do believe he meant that they get upvoted instead of resteemed as I usually vote the nominations a day after the compilation post. That's why I started my explanation with "there might have been some misunderstandings".
You were also claiming a lot of false information about our project based on nothing such as:
These are all false claims against our project which would've taken less than a few minutes to check before stating this in your post.
Here is the latest compilation post that I have curated the nominations on, as you can see the first nomination is just under $30 and before I voted on it it was at around $5.
Anyway, apologize for the way he reacted to your comments. As I mentioned earlier he isn't part of the curation team anymore and that sort of attitude he was portraying there was visible often in the chat room as well.
You are asking why I am not giving this page a benefit of the doubt that you are not giving to me. I asked this person questions and got the above as answers, or in his lack of answering to them, I found my information. I am not making false claims, I am going off of what this person said. I made it very clear in my questions that I was "interested" but wanted to understand how participating benefited me. He failed to explain it or show it, so did I make false claims or am I merely going off of the (apparently erroneous) information provided? I appreciate you taking the time to correct what he said, however don't appreciate the tone that I am somehow intentionally providing false information. If someone explains something to me that sounds like garbage, why would I go looking for more information about it? I happily promote initiatives that have served me well, and I will also shine light on things that seem to exploit the content of others. The way this was represented made it seem that way to me. Wouldn't it seem that way to you? Are you then wrong for sharing the information provided? Are you "making false claims" or just believing what the person told you?
You are right, he stopped responding on the important questions you asked and went self-defensive.
I might not see it from the same point of view as you do since I have used the site for quite some time and its clear to me that you can easily check how your posts would've benefited from being featured in the @ocd compilation posts by seeing who the big vote supporters of the ocd posts are and who the big vote supporters of the posts they have nominated are. Also knowing that no one else so far has complained about it and all comments by the nominated authors in the ocd posts have been of a positive nature would've made it clear that we might not be as bad as you are trying to make us look in your post which lacks enough information about the project.
This is true, I wouldn't either.
But if I'm going to go ahead and write a whole post about it accusing it of this and that I would make sure to do some research on it before doing so. Not just base it all off of one person's comments about it.
My tone would've been different if it had been in a more general sense that there might be projects doing what you are stating, not directly attacking the one project that happened to stumble upon your post.
On the one hand, you acknowledge that you wouldn't further investigate something that's own representative made to sound like a scam, but on the other hand chastise me for not doing so. Why would I assume a person representing this initiative was wrong and I should check it out more before writing my post? I honestly shouldn't. Beyond that, from what you have explained, it seems a handful of curators get compensation and participants get exposure. I genuinely do not think that is worthwhile, and I am entitled to my opinion. I am relatively new here as well and you're making it seem like I should just know to 1. not believe your own representative 2. should know how to track the things you've mentioned - AGAIN: I didn't make "accusations", I gave my opinion on this initiative based on what one of your own representatives indicated to me. This wasn't "one persons comments about it", this was a person who is supposed to be knowledgeable and representing your initiative accurately. I love how that person was wrong but you are wagging your finger at me. There ARE other projects I have seen that are doing what I am stating, but I do NOT feel compelled or obligated to go searching for things I dismissed as a waste over a month ago. So far, my experience with now two representatives of your page leave me feeling frustrated, for what it's worth. As someone new here, I'd rather not deal with it. How am I supposed to know who has or has not complained? I also still don't get how "big vote supporters" is supposed to mean anything to someone new. I would urge you to, as a leader of this page, write out with some clarity what you do and how it benefits the content creator, and what happens with the funds you earn. You can't be upset people don't understand when your own team misrepresents you, and then scold confused people who feel like they were dealing with someone trying to poach their content. I mean really.
No, again, this is not true and it literally takes a few minutes to check that the authors do get more than just exposure and more rewards than the curators finding their posts.
It seems like you are only reading what you want to hear.
I'm not upset about people not understanding how it works. I do however get upset about the Project that I have created and spend a lot of time on combined with many others being called a scam. Especially since it was started after another Project took photos and content of others posts without asking permission and without even supporting the original posts with rewards.
I will take you up on your advice about explaining more in depth how it works to newcomers that can't figure out if they will get rewarded before they go pointing fingers that they are getting scammed.
I would've loved to see your reaction to being featured in the shady curation projects that I mentioned earlier, though.
Instead of telling ME to "go" do something, why don't you list it out here?? FFS! If you can't explain it well, if your people can't explain it well... I have yet to see what anyone gets other than traffic to their post in front of "big" voters, and YOU sharing the funds with your curators. If I missed something, ENLIGHTEN ME but you have to stop blaming ME for writing a post about something THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED. This isn't the New York Times, it's my Steemit page, my experience with your person. And now you. Both of which leave much to be desired.