Recently, the topic of higher curation rewards came up from someone I follow (Whatsup). She is for a higher curation reward being implemented, which I myself am not. My argument being that I often spend many hours researching my posts, often sifting through lots of material that is either incorrect or disinformation. Some also falling into the realm of credible speculation, which I often also choose not to incorporate into my work. To me, the idea that a reader who benefits from my research receiving the same rewards as I did for having compiled the information presented to them, especially after the added work that goes unseen in what I discard, is absurd.
I understand her position however, that she (like the majority) do not consider themselves to be writers, nor researchers. And even if capable, the desire to do so is not one that they wish to undertake. I will be the first to admit, I could crank out a lot more posts if I loosened my criteria for what I choose to post. However, we all have our proclivities that make us the individuals we are. Which brings me to the purpose of this post. The above was just a lead in for it, not to discuss the idea of modifying the author/curation split.
I have a tendency to watch people. The things they say, the way they present themselves. I do it here as well. I don't comment much on my observations, because well, people are going to be who they are. Bringing all the good and bad with them. This includes expectations, and often, manipulations in a bid to achieve desired results (this is what people commonly call being shady). We can never leave ourselves behind.
Back to the idea of quality, factoring in how it is tainted or shines by the way we conduct ourselves, as it shows in our presentation. While I hold myself to certain standards and have been driven to write on subjects that often require research and references, that is not the only barometer of quality. In fact, what I choose to explore and present is not even quality in the eyes of many (most?). The reason for that is because it holds no interest for them, or the topic makes them uncomfortable or they flat out disagree for whatever reasons. But enough seem to find quality in what I do that I seem to do better than many who come here, and for that I am thankful.
I see others who post similar work who do not get recognition in the form of upvotes, some who have been here longer than I. This adds confirmation to a belief that I hold, that quality is more than just the work itself. It is the person behind the work that adds that special sauce that acts as the magnet. The little quirks, the ways that the authors conducts themselves that add that special flavor their audience finds appealing.
Of course, these little quirks can have the opposite effect, and cause people not to like what you are posting. Which I think accounts quite a bit for posts on the same topics seeing a large difference in curation.
Now, back to Whatsup and how this ties together. Despite the fact she doesn't tend to post research type posts, her blog does very well for itself. Her following quite loyal, despite her admission some do not like her. She still acts as a vote magnet better than many who post here. This is so because the quality of her personality is what draws the loyalty. Much the way Erma Bombeck did back in the day. No one would confuse Erma with an Isaac Asimov, Stephen King etc. Yet there was a quality in her often humorous observations that revealed as much about her as it did all of us.
As you will find everywhere you may go, people are going to do what they are compelled to. You have people who want to argue over petty things. People who weekly find another hill to pretend they are dying upon. You have the scammers, the people who plagiarize, the people who post on subjects they have no interest in but believe there is a payout in doing so. Angry people, happy people, sad people. People who want to play dictator, others who are beggars. And others who devote their energy here trying to be a blessing to the rest of us. And this is why
The Reputation System Is Not Broken
I have seen many complaints in my time here over the "broken" reputation system. Complaints that people who purchase vote bots on their posts quickly achieve a high numbered reputation next to their handle here. However, that number is not what people use as the main criteria. I have never needed to use someone else's measurement of others to decide for me a person who is honorable, or whose passions interest me. I can ascertain that quickly enough by their own presentation. I have passed on following/upvoting many who have high numbers next to their names. It is easy to know that I am not interested in the post because, well, I am myself and understand what interests me as opposed to what bores me.
In the posts we hit that enter button on, they are all imbued with our energy or they are not. The ones filled with our energy is what many, without thinking about the why, use as the real criteria for quality and reputation. There is an audience for passion. Show yours, build your reputation on it (being real) and let others of like mind know. We all have the potential of quality, all of us have the potential to be a magnet for others. So in closing, I will come full circle back to whatsup. She said
Yep, I see validity in your views on curation vs. author rewards. But I think it would create a counter intuitive effect that people like me wouldn't have to create as many posts and maybe the true writers would get the attention.
I would counter that the votes on those posts of hers that give nice rewards indicates she is a true writer, like it or not. And it would be a shame for her following if she created less posts that we (her audience) appreciates. And that is the true measure of quality and reputation.
Well, this is a huge surprise and even though I tend to be unemotional by nature, I literally felt a lot of feelings while reading this! :)
I will skip the emotional acceptance speech and jump to the chase and say:
Thank you very much, this made my day and came at a great time. I have a huge amount of respect for you, so this meant a lot to me!
Hey, @practicalthought.
While this does talk about things in a broader context, let me just echo that whatsup and others like her are writers, and that one does not need to be technical, classically trained, etc., to become one.
I also understand where you're coming from regarding the reputation system. I'll even agree the system itself isn't broken, nor is it necessarily the best at judging quality or value, either. Which is probably why it should just go. People like me who care about it and have done what they can to make it meaningful can live without it.
We also need to do away with quality. Not in the way that people have been saying, however. I mean, we don't look at things in terms of quality, really, so we might as well use some other words to describe things. Like, "I like it," or "It's not for me."
Quality isn't in the time spent, or in the words used, or the mastery of grammar, all things that could be and often is used to determine it. Quality is in the connections made, or in the knowledge gained, or in the inspiration given. Whether that happens when we read someone's post often speaks just as much about us as it does the creator.
Instead of using quality as the benchmark, whatever that might mean to everyone here, or saying, down with quality all together, I wouldn't mind us just saying write what you want, and if you get out of it what you want—engagement, upvotes, resteems, friends, etc.—then it's all good.
A perfect description. I believe many could do better here if they altered their approach a little and gave some thought to who their audience would be and then made an effort to be for those people what they desire for themselves. And it is possible there is no solid audience yet and the burden would then shift to them on putting in the effort to create such a community here. Not easy and possibly not doable, but if they do make it happen they will be considered the foundation of that corner by those attracted to it.