But yes, I'm aware. I guess first and easiest thing I (and everyone) can do is to put my own rshares in motion. Due to lack of time I do suck at curation.
And here's the catch: you suck at curation? then you realize how bots can easily help you with curation efforts to allocate rewards to high quality, original content creators.
And when you focus to much on easily and earn and rewards instead of curation, efforts and allocate... then we already know the rest of this story...
The proper answer is: bots can assist you to leverage manual curation ( <- good post by the way) but humans creating and curating original, high quality content are the most important part of this platform.
Isn't that the truth, we could all use a few clones, might just be able to get something done each day that stayed done.
You are so right, it takes a lot of time to curate and the more you are invested into the platform, the more important it is, but your investment is likely causing you to have to allocate time elsewhere.
I don't really hate autovoting, but it does cause long term issues in that our friends can get really lazy when they know they will get voted on one way or the other.
And when you focus to much on easily and earn and rewards instead of curation, efforts and allocate... then we already know the rest of this story...
Well said!
Quality is the only thing that will keep this platform going in the very long term.
I had a discussion with @lukestokes -- and raised a few suggestions if you are interested.
I don't really hate autovoting, but it does cause long term issues in that our friends can get really lazy when they know they will get voted on one way or the other.
True, that's why it need to be done really carefully and frequently revisited. But autovoting author should be rather some kind of exception for trusted and proved creators (sorry, it's not enough to be just a friend for that).
But that's not an automation that I had in mind.
Per curator automation > per author.
Lets face the truth. People in majority won't write great posts.
Not because they wouldn't want to. They just can't.
(Oh I wish I could be a good writer too, I would self-vote myself 3 times a day! (obviously, if you don't think your own post is worth your own vote you shouldn't post it at all))
But, what most of us can do is to recognize good content from bad content. That's not that easy it might sound but I believe that there are high quality content curators. Using bot to upvote content that they find (as long as you trust their judgement, honesty etc.) might be a good way to go.
Being a good content curator is a hard work but has a great value for the platform.
(sorry, it's not enough to be just a friend for that).
Yes, this is so very true, but not sure it is not what is very much in place. I do not use any form of autovoting, except to keep @introbot running. I really prefer to curate on my own, but yes, it is very time consuming. But I am guilty of using bots and resteemers.
Lets face the truth. People in majority won't write great posts.
"Great" is of course pretty subjective. If a post has passion, relates knowledge, inspires, educates or even just allows others to rise to their full potential, then it achieves great purpose, even if the grammar, spelling and diction is truly poor. People will see the quality -- a bot cannot.
As a witness, you have a great deal of knowledge to share and passions for this platform -- my guess is that any article you ever submit will be nothing less than a true asset.
I'm working on a witness report now that will show how active witnesses are and how and where they have been engaging --- no pressure :)
Question, that I'm still trying to find the right answer to:
Since the bots are now being delegated huge amounts of SP, can they alone choose the top witnesses? In the early days, the steemit employees had sufficient power, but most have delegated their SP. Our we now at the mercy of largest delgatees?
Question, that I'm still trying to find the right answer to:
Since the bots are now being delegated huge amounts of SP, can they alone choose the top witnesses? In the early days, the steemit employees had sufficient power, but most have delegated their SP. Our we now at the mercy of largest delgatees?
Thanks, yes you are the good wizard, I have voted for you as a witness.
I do hope you're taking a look at some of the rewards pool abuses on the platform and open to some constructive changes.
Blessings!
Thank you :-)
Only if I could clone myself...
But yes, I'm aware. I guess first and easiest thing I (and everyone) can do is to put my own rshares in motion. Due to lack of time I do suck at curation.
And here's the catch: you suck at curation? then you realize how bots can easily help you with curation efforts to allocate rewards to high quality, original content creators.
And when you focus to much on easily and earn and rewards instead of curation, efforts and allocate... then we already know the rest of this story...
The proper answer is: bots can assist you to leverage manual curation (
<-good post by the way) but humans creating and curating original, high quality content are the most important part of this platform.Isn't that the truth, we could all use a few clones, might just be able to get something done each day that stayed done.
You are so right, it takes a lot of time to curate and the more you are invested into the platform, the more important it is, but your investment is likely causing you to have to allocate time elsewhere.
I don't really hate autovoting, but it does cause long term issues in that our friends can get really lazy when they know they will get voted on one way or the other.
Well said!
Quality is the only thing that will keep this platform going in the very long term.
I had a discussion with @lukestokes -- and raised a few suggestions if you are interested.
https://steemit.com/steemit/@bycoleman/re-lukestokes-re-bycoleman-re-lukestokes-re-bycoleman-re-lukestokes-re-bycoleman-steem-price-under-massive-pressure-as-more-whales-power-down-20180405t001821588z
True, that's why it need to be done really carefully and frequently revisited. But autovoting author should be rather some kind of exception for trusted and proved creators (sorry, it's not enough to be just a friend for that).
But that's not an automation that I had in mind.
Per curator automation > per author.
Lets face the truth. People in majority won't write great posts.
Not because they wouldn't want to. They just can't.
(Oh I wish I could be a good writer too, I would self-vote myself 3 times a day! (obviously, if you don't think your own post is worth your own vote you shouldn't post it at all))
But, what most of us can do is to recognize good content from bad content. That's not that easy it might sound but I believe that there are high quality content curators. Using bot to upvote content that they find (as long as you trust their judgement, honesty etc.) might be a good way to go.
Being a good content curator is a hard work but has a great value for the platform.
Yes, this is so very true, but not sure it is not what is very much in place. I do not use any form of autovoting, except to keep @introbot running. I really prefer to curate on my own, but yes, it is very time consuming. But I am guilty of using bots and resteemers.
"Great" is of course pretty subjective. If a post has passion, relates knowledge, inspires, educates or even just allows others to rise to their full potential, then it achieves great purpose, even if the grammar, spelling and diction is truly poor. People will see the quality -- a bot cannot.
As a witness, you have a great deal of knowledge to share and passions for this platform -- my guess is that any article you ever submit will be nothing less than a true asset.
I'm working on a witness report now that will show how active witnesses are and how and where they have been engaging --- no pressure :)
I think you're a good writer. :)
Don't worry, it's OK to be wrong on Steem ;-)
Question, that I'm still trying to find the right answer to:
Since the bots are now being delegated huge amounts of SP, can they alone choose the top witnesses? In the early days, the steemit employees had sufficient power, but most have delegated their SP. Our we now at the mercy of largest delgatees?
Question, that I'm still trying to find the right answer to:
Since the bots are now being delegated huge amounts of SP, can they alone choose the top witnesses? In the early days, the steemit employees had sufficient power, but most have delegated their SP. Our we now at the mercy of largest delgatees?