As was identified in this post from @gridcoinman, the number of posts a user can make per day is four without experiencing a dramatic reduction in their rewards per post.
Proposal:
Any user with a reputation >= 50 should be able to post FIVE times per day, anyone with a reputation >= 60 should be able to post SIX times per day, and so on.
Result:
This would reward users with an additional post per day who have demonstrated their ability and willingness to add value to the ecosystem. It would also add an additional incentive for behavior that improves reputation.
What say you?
I don't like it.
High reputation means you have done well on the site.
What we actually need to do is help the little fish.
There are only a few key things steemit must accomplish:
A) attract the best content
B) attract all the people
C) retain all the people
A + B works.
C) is the problem. You can see that while we have new users coming in, the activity on steem has been stagnant. This shows we have a retention problem.
So anything we do must be about keeping people engaged with the site.
I have seen many people get excited, only to be disappointed after posting much and getting nothing, only seeing others make 10s of thousand.
I don't see how having folks that make much anyway allow to post more, helps with this issue.
This sounds more like an issue of UX and visibility.
I was just thinking that there is a A LOT of real-estate on the sides of the screen here. Why not a floating point link of
Other posts from this author:and/orPeople who liked this article also liked:.There is plenty of great content that goes by unnoticed, I recognize this. The voting patterns will change with time because the valuation of Steem + new whales + demographic changes.
I agree that the UI is not optimal. However i think it is more fundamental than that.
I do believe that steemit has done well of providing a comprehensively good product. the UI is not perfect and can be improved. What you outlined makes a lot of sense.
However fundamentally, i think we need to find a way to rewards regular folks more. It seem like too much is going to too few people. The rewards do not need to be huge but there needs to reward so people have incentive to leave Facebook for steem. Instead the little guys can stay on Facebook, collect their likes and be happy.
The UI is definitely the problem. Most people blog with no payouts or expectations of rewards if the UI is good enough. Look at Reddit? No one is getting paid. Look at Facebook? No one getting paid, but they blog.
Then look at WoW where people pay money into the system just because it's fun.
Well, at the end of the day, you don't get anything for posting on Facebook or Twitter or wherever. That isn't being done anywhere else, at least with this scaling potential. So at least that can act as a foundation.
We're in totally uncharted territory.
Thanks for the valuable discussion :)
Yes. Thank you for kicking it off. I love this place. And I love the energy that goes into improving it.
This will be a fun ride.
I agree, it's the curation system that needs fixing to support retention. All we have now are die-hards, not Joe-soaps, and Joe-soaps need serious utility, not ideology or additional rewards for the die-hards.
For this we need a new tag system: https://steemit.com/steemit/@manipulable/proposal-make-tags-useful-in-steemit-or-copy-linkedin
A few weeks ago the same people were complaining how it wasn't fair that a makeup tutorial made $20,000 and now people are complaining Steem is only for diehards? People are going to complain but if Steem is fun for most people it can work.
The same people were complaining about those two instances? Because if not your post is mute.
If Steem is only for die-hard Steemers then it's not interesting to the vast majority and can't compete with Facebook or Reddit or anything.
The feature set must be developed for greater niche curation.
Not exactly the same people but as a figure of speech, it's groups of people who complain one way or the other about who is winning on Steem at a particular time. First there were people complaining about travel blogs rewarding ordinary people and now we have the blowback reaction. Now people complain about not enough ordinary people.
I agree!
I see a lot of good articles with 20 or 30 upvotes making only $0.02 or so. If a whale hasn't voted the author isn't making much. These authors might get disappointed and leave. According to steemwhales.com the top 1% hold 91% of all Steem Power. I think this is a problem.
Yes thisnis exactly what inhave experienced. Ie i recruited @surfermarly who post great content daily on facebook and has hundreds of likes everybday there. Over here she wrote some articles and put decent effort into it, but never got any traction, so now she is less active. These are the people we need to retain better.
Great dialog we are having here. Thank you for posting this @blackmiles84
Why doesn't she just repost her Facebook content? It's her fault for not putting in effort. Why blame the system if she's not posting on Steemit but will post on Facebook for free?
I'd say No. It's hard to do more than a post a day, allowing 5 will just result in a deterioration of quality.
Also, the minnows have a hard time already, you don't want their posts to get crowded out by the whales and favourites posting even more than they are.
I'd prefer the limit on posts to allow others a chance to publish and get noticed and improve their reputation. People don't post to Medium multiple times a day, and I think this is becoming more like Medium than Reddit or Facebook. That's my thought.
Good points.
My counter would be that Steemit has the potential to be many things to many people and I don't think anyone can accurately predict what trajectory this will take.
I'm still trying to find what works best myself so I'm throwing a number of ideas at the wall and seeing what resonates.
I think the differentiation between Medium and Reddit/Facebook is a good one.
The important question in my mind is 'What amount of posts will yield more value?' and 'Does more posts necessarily mean less quality?"
it would also increase the burden of curation, imho.
Very interesting point. I hadn't considered that angle of it.
I'm still convinced that some UX changes could improve the visibility of posts big and small.
well, it's not only the visibility, but the ability and number of curators who actually read posts. we are still in shortage of those. plus, by my own measures, good content is hard to produce. merely reproducing stuff from the internet is not good content. it increases the noise and the junk. there's way too much to be said about this topic.
I can't decide whether this would be better or not.
PROS
CONS
The other day I believe I was penalized for exceeding the four post limit, though, to my understanding, I had only made four posts that day. Perhaps it is based on a 24 hour period or another time zone. I'll have to figure that out.
Maybe the post by @gridcoinman mentions something. I'll have to take a look. Good idea anyway and I'm glad you're thinking!
Ok, I did some quick research. It looks like the actual current rule is that all users are allowed 4 posts per 24 hour period at the full reward rate.
Is this accurate????
Its what I've understood for a while now.
Thank you.
Possibly. I am only doing 1 or 2 per day so far.... hehe...
What about the reverse? To give more potential rewards incentive to those who are just starting so that they can climb? Instead of providing more reward possibility to those who are already established, have followers, and probably make a decent amount of Payout Potential each time they post? It's not equitable to give those who have more popularity, even more posting quantities, as that simply maximizes more upvote potential payouts for them, while the little fishes have to work even harder for exposure to get recognized. This is why I think it should maybe be the reverse.
I would also like to have a quality control mechanism if people keep posting over and over but it's essentially garbage, that at some point, they either stop or they get penalized. I don't appreciate much how there is only a "new" feeder for everyone to go to and there is so much "trash" low quality posting going on IMO, that it clouds the feed from higher quality content accessibility. I checked one person this morning, and they had over 1000 posts, and the titles were non interesting quality information, yet they keep posting that low quality garbage.
I am looking to make steemit into a high quality information source of meaningful posts that target the state of our world and the means to change it for the better. That's my goal in getting SP and curating!
Thoughts?
Thanks! Take care. Peace.
EDIT.
No offense, but I look at your posts, and I only see 1/2 or less that is meaningful. I don't want you to add more of that low quality to this platform. No thanks on your proposal. I see why you want it though LMAO.
I think this might be the better idea, although both viewpoints have their merits. Maybe another option would be to do the reverse option, but allow people to pay like 1SBD to make an extra post without affecting post rewards, and that money goes back to rewarding newer posts.
Good idea we need posting power as well as voting power.
... meaningful to YOU.
I realize you say 'no offense', but what do you expect when you tell someone you want them to post less based on your personal, subjective analysis?
As far as your points, there is garbage that comes in and garbage that goes out. But the most important point is that one mans garbage is another mans gold. You would do well to recognize this point.
This is not YOUR platform. This is an ecosystem. Mute buttons exist for a reason, as does reputation and rewards.
I don't want to mute you. I just want the quality to go up. Duh it's not my platform. I can and will vote where I see greater higher quality content though.
Maybe you should reevaluate what you do post, and focus on higher quality content, then you would still have room to post each day, rather than post lower quality content, run out of posts-per-day, and make a thread like this because you reached your limit each day posting that stuff. Up the game, put higher quality out. It takes more effort and time to do so. Stop looking at it as a money game. Peace.
I'm testing the market to find out where I can be of service and where my voice is deemed valuable. I haven't found out where 'my wheelhouse' is yet.
Everyone thinking long term is already doing that. I'm just looking to fail fast and learn faster.
Basically, until you find a sugar daddy whale, you keep plodding along. Just look at @jacor -- he can't post anything without earning at last ~$300 and kudos to him and whoever consistently upvotes him!
His work is now 'subsidized' for a lack of better terms, so he can focus on the type of posts that earned that 'subsidy'. If he branches out and upvotes go away, he learns.
I'm not looking at this as a "money game" and part of my frustration with your comment is your assertion to 'know' my motives and intentions. I want to make a living writing. I've been paid before Steemit and could be paid after if it provided enough for my family.
This isn't a money game to me. This is an opportunity to earn a living and I'm searching for what will make that possible
I think higher reputation allowing for more posting is fine, but are the people who are making a lot of money making a lot of posts per day? No, quality over quantity!
In that case I would also suggest to implement a reputation market, so people who want publish more posts could purchase some reputation from these who don't )
I'm not sure about this. I think we already have too many posts to deal with.
I think that it is quite difficult to quantify 'a contribution to the ecosystem' because ultimately, the biggest thing that benefits everyone, is more buyers of Steem tokens than sellers.
There is more than a few, and you can probably even find some of them, some people have tried to shine the spotlight on them, people who have invested in steem, in order that they can score curation rewards, and then shortly after, are powering down and cashing out.
And it is also very problematic that this commonly expressed wish to win big vote scores and post rewards, do you think these people are just powering up their steem? HAH!
No. But, on the bright side, there is a dynamic at play that takes time to manifest. There is small investors, and those who are just trying to work their way up by posting good, upvoted posts, who are seeking to accumulate as much vested SP as they can, because ultimately, this platform lives or dies according to how much people are willing to hold in it. SP does not go up or down no matter how vote rewards are divvied out. SP also takes a long time to cash out. The pump and dump whale investor crowd, are gonna be feeling pretty stupid as they discover they have to wait 2 years to get all their SP back out after they powered up to become whales.
I think it's absolutely genius how the system was designed. Waving the flag for steem, in whatever form it may take, is the best way to win, in the long game, the most rewards. The Crab Buckets metaphor is intended to explain it, but sadly most people on here don't understand it. The smart contracts in the system reward those who seek to expand the system, and punish those who are stupid enough to think this is just another random cryptocurrency they can game and skim a profit off the top without actually investing in it.
It will take time for it all to shake out.