DV. Im a fan. Youre one of like 4 ppl i regularly watch on youtube, so im not trying to say this disrespectfully. But bernie was absolutely right to downvote you.
There are a couple reasons why:
1.Your post was shitty. Anything you have to say about "how to write a successful post on steemit" is completely suppositious. You could have posted your laundry list +dickpics and it would have still made you 50k. thats just a fact. If you want to tell people how to make a successful post on steemit beyond "be a famous crypto personality", then go make a new account and make a successful post that doesnt depend on your name. (and yes, btw, i do recognize that you acknowledged that your noteriety was a part of your success)
2.You, quite frankly, were getting more money than you were worth (or at least bernie thought so and Im inclined to agree), for a fairly limited contribution overall. This isnt the market speaking, it was a variety of other whales who got together and supported you becasue your presence here was determined beneficial to the platform. POst after post making 20K a shot from you simply means that there are less rewards for others. At some point someone has to step in and say "enough" already.
Ive seen ned and dan's posts (the founders) get voted down by whales like @smooth becasue he felt that it was inappropriate for site announcements to get high payouts.
Its also only fair to note that no, you did not get tape put over your mouth. You were not censored. You just didnt make any money for the post -- which is exactly the spot where most posters are with most posts on steemit.
That is the market speaking. The whales are part of the market. It was also the market speaking when he got downvoted (by bernie first and then some other whales too). Works both ways.
I agree with you up to a point (esp the part about how his upvotes and downvotes all came from the same system). When i think market forces, i think the wisdom of crowds, decentralization etc. 6 or 7 guys isnt a "market force" its just 6 or 7 guys.
What i should have said was "your success wasn't based on your broad appeal to the steemit userbase, or a widespread appreciation for your content, but to the support of a very small number of individuals"
and yeah like you said, it was also a very small number of individuals who negated some of that success.
It was both really. HIs posts got 800-900 votes each, which is close to the high end of what any post ever gets (I think there were a few over 1000).
That goes back to the whole exposure debate. IMO, once a post gets "pinned" to the enrty page by high earnings, the votes it gets don't really act as an accurate market gauge.
that said, i think things are getting better.. ive definitely seen an improvement over the past several days.
There is no such thing as downvoting. There is only flagging for inappropriate content. Apparently some people think "content" means "earnings."
"...so im not trying to say this disrespectfully."
Why is it that whenever someone says that, they immediately go on to be completely disrespectful?
Im not sure where you got this information. If you believe that this is the case, youre certainly entitled to vote accordingly. But this belief is not supported anywhere that I am aware of. Even the term "flag" only exists in the UI (and not even there, except in picture form). In the actual API, its just a negative vote. There is no "rule" saying that a downvote is only appropriate in "x" circumstance. We're entitled to downvote DV for not posting dickpics and laundry lists, if thats what we really want to see.
I don't think i was being disrespectful. It certainly wasn't my intention. I was being honest. Sometimes, honesty requires bluntness. respect is not a duty to conceal the truth in flattery
Originally, in the UI, it appeared as a down arrow next to the upvote arrow. They changed the UI deliberately so as not to give the impression that it was just to be used for stuff you don't like.
"I don't think i was being disrespectful."
"1.Your post was shitty"
Do you need more details?
Yes, I do. If i said the author was shitty, and not the post, i would understand your beef.
are you saying that a post can't be shitty? So ever saying that it is is disrespectful to the author.
Or are you saying that its disrespectful to tell an author that his post is shitty when you really believe that it is, in fact, shitty?
Note that I did explain in detail to the author why i believe that his post was shitty. Its not as though i cast unsubstantiated aspersions.
Now, i understand that Mr. Berwick (and many others) may not agree with me, but i do think the observation, in context, has merit.
and just as a side note, bernie has downvoted me before... and though i still disagree with his decision, whatever who cares.