---

Correction added below

Okay, I may be shooting myself in the foot with this post, but I feel that it is my duty to talk about some issues with Oracle-D upvotes. The reason why I'm writing this post is because I absolutely love what Oracle-D is doing for the Steem blockchain and I want them to offer the best service possible to their clients. This mean that I really have to be critical to a certain extent, since there is a real problem emerging due to the high-value upvotes Oracle-D is giving out.

I will keep this post as general as possible, without calling anyone out. Do understand that I have absolutely no intention to speak negatively about the work of Oracle-D reviewers, team members or admins. I fully understand that what Oracle-D does is a completely new form of doing business and with that come a lot of new problems which are not easily recognized.

---

Milking the System

Usually there's no limit on the number of posts you can write on any given Oracle-D task. This causes some members, yes even pro-members, to just churn out several posts about any given topic that relates to an Oracle-D task.

I've noticed that there's no difference in the upvote amounts these subsequent posts are given. Take the recent Lolli task for example, people were just posting multiple articles divided into several parts and they usually received pretty big upvotes.

The thing that really struck me, was that most of these posts have absolutely no value for the client. Some people didn't even link to the client's website in their post or they focused on content that was only vaguely related to the client. Yet, these posts received upvotes worth around $10 from Oracle-D, no more no less.

This was when I first noticed people literally milking Oracle-D for upvotes. Okay, the quality of their writing was pretty good, but there was a complete and utter disregard for the client in my opinion.

---

State of the Dapps Knows What's Up

Now, take a look at the most recent State of the Dapps task. Notice how they've now limited the amount of submissions to 2 articles per person? I reckon that they've figured out that it's better to have fewer pieces of quality content than to have many pieces of average content.

---

---

It's good that they've added a cap on the number of articles each person can submit. I'm sure that they'll reap the benefits of it in this task.

Speaking about the State of the Dapps task, there's something I've noticed with one of the entries that isn't okay at all. Yet this particular entry did receive a high upvote, while it contained a huge mistake. Feel free to contact me on Discord about this: @starkerz

---

Conclusion & Advice for the Future

To convert this critique into some real change might not be too easy. I get that it might be incredibly difficult for reviewers to take all these aspects into consideration and adjust upvotes according to actual post value. In the end, what I'm suggesting is to be a little bit more strict regarding giving out high-value upvotes and take task requirements more into account, with the purpose of doing what's best for the client and Oracle-D.

It's definitely important that Oracle-D tasks remain accessible for as many people as possible. It's not my goal to turn it into something only the best content creators can participate with. All I'm suggesting is to perhaps put a limit on the number of posts anyone can submit per task (make this applicable for every task) & to pay closer attention regarding the value each submission brings to the client specifically (and alter the range of upvote values given).

Some very common mistakes I often notice with submissions that have received high upvotes:

• Not linking correctly to the client's website + incorrect use of backlinks
• Not tagging images
• Basic errors - I.e. images are too large, use of bad keywords, etc.
• Mentioning Oracle-D in posts

I'd be more than willing to join a voice call to highlight some of these problems a bit further & perhaps work on a solution!

Thanks in advance for taking this post into consideration.

---

Correction

Sometimes when you publish an article and read it again a few days later, you realize that you've made some pretty severe mistakes in it. This was the case after I'd written a critique about Oracle-D's upvotes. The situation I had described in that article wasn't nearly as severe as I had portrayed it to be and it certainly didn't warrant the elaborate criticism I had given it.

It would have been better to just mention the couple of problems I had encountered via Discord and they would have been fixed immediately. I made it seem as though there was a real problem with the quality of some of the content, which wasn't the case in any way. Since all articles published on the Steem blockchain stay on the blockchain forever, I felt the need to publish this correction and a public apology. Instead of completely altering my previous article, I will add a clear and visible link to this correction.

---

The Value Oracle-D Provides

The biggest mistake I had made in my previous article, was that I made it seem as though Oracle-D didn't provide enough value to their clients. Well, I have spent the entire morning going through multiple task entries, something that I should have done more meticulously when researching my previous post, and I've come to the conclusion that in terms of content, pretty much all Oracle-D task entries adhere to a very decent standard. Just to give a concrete example, I have not found any task entry where the author didn't spend a substantial amount of time writing their post.

It's important to note that all articles are written by people from different walk of life, which is what really gives value to each and every article. Every writer or video maker provides their unique perspective about any given project and I commend Oracle-D for rewarding these people accordingly. There's this amazing range of quality to be found, some pieces of content could even be published in professional publications, others offer valuable insights from people who would otherwise not be heard. It's exactly this wide variety of content that provides potential clients with a new form of viral marketing & a strong base of voluntarily created content about their services.

On a more personal level, the people that participate with the Oracle-D tasks improve their writing and have a chance to build a sustainable form of side-income on the Steem blockchain. It was pretty short-sighted of me to discredit that in my previous post, for which I explicitly apologize.

---

Maximum Amount of Task Entries

In this regard there's been a very recent change, participants can now post a maximum of two articles per task. I very much welcome this change and that was the reason why I had written my previous article in the first place.

The thing is that I am 100% sure that Oracle-D would have implemented this change if someone had simply made this suggestion in private. It isn't that people who write multiple articles do so at the cost of quality (which I had wrongly implied in my previous post), but rather that it's somewhat debatable that more than 2 articles on any given subject, written by the same author, provides enough additional value. Anyway, that's a thing of the past now, so public discussion about this doesn't achieve anything.

---

Unfair Targeting of Oracle-D Reviewers

Even though I mentioned in the beginning of my previous post that I didn't intend to speak negatively about any of the Oracle-D team members, I feel that I still spoke negatively about them through the contents of the post itself.

I know for a fact that they take great pride into giving each post a fair evaluation, while taking special notice of the value it provides for the client. Laying out my not-so-well-researched critique out in public like that wasn't fair to them or Oracle-D as a whole.

Oracle-D's reviewers are continuously doing an amazing job and take a very humane approach to reviewing content. Compared to some certain curators from other projects, I feel that they show a great deal of understanding for individual members. Everyone gets a fair chance to submit content in their own personal style, which is definitely one of the great strengths of Oracle-D.

---

Conclusion

By writing and publishing this post, I know that I'm opening myself up for criticism and that it might severely damage my reputation among my followers. However, not publishing this would be dishonest & potentially cause harm to Oracle-D in the future.

If I were looking to hire Oracle-D for a project on the Steem blockchain, I would want to be given a balanced and well-researched opinion on Oracle-D. My previous article was neither of those things and I hope I can correct that with this article.

Now, regarding the comments under my previous article. It's very easy to have your opinion influenced by the negativity that was displayed in that article. I would just ask to take note of the mistakes I've laid bare through this post and possibly adjust your opinion accordingly. If you look at the bigger picture, it's absolutely clear that Oracle-D does so much good for the entire Steem community. The interview between Andrarchy & the founders of Oracle-D really proves that as well.

So, to conclude this post, I hope that I've made it abundantly clear why my previous post was factually incorrect and uncalled for and that I've not pushed anyone away from Oracle-D. Keep in mind that they're a very welcoming community & that everyone's welcome to participate with their open tasks!

---