When we see posts like this, who in the right mind, will still feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?
And who stands to lose the most if people don't feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?, but is just links and report news? I rather read techcrunch.
You sure merit is the right word? More like random...
And who stands to lose the most if people don't feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?,
If Steemit is not successful then those with the largest stake will lose the most. I can't be responsible for the actions of every significant stakeholder, but I do try my best to personally vote for what I feel are high-quality posts, encourage and assist others in doing so, and downvote low-quality posts (including the above).
What may be difficult to accept is that a decentralized system has no authority that can step in and dictate that posts such as the above will never get upvoted. We can only hope that over time incentives cause a shift (though sometimes a slow shift) toward better outcomes.
I am not sure why i can't reply your reply. Saw the downvote on that post. thanks for swift action. nothing against you. But again, this is just so much that you can do with your army of curators. When the number of users in steemit increases, is the number of curators sustainable or scalable just based on your account? This is not a question to you but something for us, especially the founders (if they want to prove that steemit is here to stay) to think about as the network grows.
Agree, no one can say which content is good, which content is bad. Inevitably, some content can be more popular and hence, more profitable.
BUT you gotta be kidding me when such post like this: https://steemit.com/news/@nkdk/scientists-have-created-nanorobots-that-can-travel-down-the-bloodstream-and-precisely-target-cancerous-tumors is
is worth SD563.
When we see posts like this, who in the right mind, will still feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?
And who stands to lose the most if people don't feel incentivised to write original and quality science posts?, but is just links and report news? I rather read techcrunch.
You sure merit is the right word? More like random...
If Steemit is not successful then those with the largest stake will lose the most. I can't be responsible for the actions of every significant stakeholder, but I do try my best to personally vote for what I feel are high-quality posts, encourage and assist others in doing so, and downvote low-quality posts (including the above).
What may be difficult to accept is that a decentralized system has no authority that can step in and dictate that posts such as the above will never get upvoted. We can only hope that over time incentives cause a shift (though sometimes a slow shift) toward better outcomes.
I am doing #academiaspotlight and i have seen a lot of original and quality science posts getting as little as SD0.15.....
I am not sure why i can't reply your reply. Saw the downvote on that post. thanks for swift action. nothing against you. But again, this is just so much that you can do with your army of curators. When the number of users in steemit increases, is the number of curators sustainable or scalable just based on your account? This is not a question to you but something for us, especially the founders (if they want to prove that steemit is here to stay) to think about as the network grows.