I think that smaller amount for the wide range of users is beter in the long run, because it grows the number of people who have nice significant weight. If there are some success stories, it is even better.
I suspect that this is currently more or less how the situation with, although there are quite a few people posting really cool stuff and getting pennies.
One user I can think of is @cryptomancer. I understand that his writing is niche, but his writing and analysis is second to none!
Another thing that I feel is weird, is people chasing the trends. The origami craze is actually pretty fun, as well as all other weird trends that appear, and are supported.
Makes this experiment a ton of fun, I guess. :-D
I'll definitely keep an eye out @cryptomancer. I found his posts fascinating myself and really think he's got an interesting perspective on things. I'm sure there's things we can do to get him a little more exposure to share his stories.
I view trends like power...it's all defined by how their used, by themselves they're morally indifferent. On the one hand, I watch trends for when my current 'category tags' fall out of favor so I can simply prioritize other stories already in my 'to-do list.' I don't feel bad about this because I was already something inside me. Similarly I can't fault an 'art and craftsy' person thinking about giving origami a try, because they honestly think it would be fun, after a bunch of knitting or painting posts. The other side of this is a new trend often is the generation of a new category or sub-category. For instance food and recipes were hot, then died down, until a high paying post featuring the smoothie tag. Or after that high paying MMA/UFC post that started filling in that area. Personally I did that myself with the LGBT tag a while back (and continue) but now have been doing the same for boardgames and cardgames (this post will be up in the next few days.)
On the other hand, trending areas are where some of the most plagiarized material is found (origami was horrible about this for a while) which really only makes sense. Any view of jumping on trends just for 'easy money' I'm not a fan of personally.
I was reading this post by @profitgenerator a bit earlier where it mentioned a curation penalty for the same person in X amount of time as well as a curation penalty for voting on the same category tags in X amount of time (idk how it can be teased out for 5 different tags to determine this, but It's still an interesting idea) which I would see having an impact in minimizing trends a bit.
I don't even pay attention to the tags I upvote in. I just look at the article, and if I like it, I upvote it. Putting a tag penalty on curation wouldn't deter me, since I only make a small amount of SP in curation rewards, anyway. And, it would be confusing. I prefer to just be able to vote on what I like. I don't even use my slider. It's too complex. To me, EVERY post I vote on is worth just as much of my meager voting power as every other post I upvote. I'm an equal opportunity upvoter.
I can completely understand that. I believe it was geared more for whales. Honestly, just by applying it to the category itself and not the voter would be easier and just as effective. Imo the goal is to motivate curation into undeserved areas. This could also be a curation bonus (just for minnows and dolphins). It won't effect many of us, but there are a good portion who seek curation rewards.
I like to get curation rewards for sure, meager as they may be. :) But, I also like the feeling of upvoting a truly deserving article, especially one that may be by a new Steemit author, or one that is not yet getting the attention it deserves. Both the curation rewards and the nice feeling of upvoting good posts are good things.
Oh I completely agree. I split some for all 3, curation, just good, and a motivators. :)