You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit: Curation League - Week 6 - Can't stop, Won't stop, @dontstopmenow!
Whoa,,, I got some work to do, huh? There is only one way to go... and that is up! Thanks.
Whoa,,, I got some work to do, huh? There is only one way to go... and that is up! Thanks.
haha yeah, a few tweaks required i guess!
This is only rewards based though, you could be doing an awesome job in supporting new and good content - I don't have a league table for that... yet :)
Cheers!
I definitely do much better in commenting. Almost night and day.
Comments are the under-valued part of this world, I'm happy to hear that.
Ash
I think that the reward system should have a process in which authors wait for a week, go back and re-examine the comments, and then provide special rewards to those comments that they feel significantly added value to the information package that comprises both the post and the comments. Once you open up a post that has value, you quickly realize (I think) that the total value you will receive at the end of that experience can be greatly enhanced by the quality of the comments.
As regards the valuation of comments, the whole community, and particularly the leadership, need to engage in a great debate about how we do that properly -- that is, in such a way as to aggressively incentivize peoples' investment of time in creating valuable comments.
What am I getting at? We have made a mistake, while designing the reward system, in believing that this is all about “how many dollars you receive” and who has or has not the power to distribute a lot of those dollars.
Absolutely!
These comments today should be (maybe have already been) formulated into a post, that I will gladly support and re-steem.
Great stuff sir!
Hello Asher!
I agree that a post would be a good idea. However someone else in this discussion, including you of course, might consider doing that. My time is taken currently up in preparing materials that I use to add value (via comments) to interesting posts made by others.
Cheers!
P.S. whoever does the post might try to do a survey of related commentary in other posts made in the past weeks/months, so that the post draws upon ideas propounded by a broad set of Steemit members.
Luckily, authors who have the funds CAN directly reward productive comments even with the current system.
It just comes down to authors actually doing it.
Hello torquewrench!
The following is not to criticize your remark, if for no other reason that it is correct!
However, if we leave the situation as it is now then here is what we are accepting:
The second point is vastly more important than the first one. Why should we agree (even implicitly ) to decide that wealth and rewards in this community are to be defined just in terms of Steem Dollars and Steem Power and allocation of same? That's a question we need to discuss.
If we can move to a much broader and more helpful definition, we lay the groundwork for designating a special review process by authors mentioned in my first point.
Why would I want a computerized process to determine how I review and reward comments?
I might just be special, but I'm completely capable of reviewing comments and rewarding users without having to have a "designated process", and most other users are capable too!
Having a "designated process" of rewarding users removes the spontaneous, HUMAN aspect of the reward for both the giver and the reciever.
A "designated process" is easily automated, which decreases the value also.
We are in an age where a handi programmer could (theoretically ) automate the generation of a post and automate a reply to a post.
If a set, "designated procedure" for rewarding a comment is implemented, it could be automated too.
At that point, why have humans in the loop at all?
Social media is only "social" if humans are interacting with the inquisitive insight, emotional caring, creative thoughtfulness and limited resources.
Now if you could find a way to allow users to send chocolate chip cookies through the steemit.com platform, that would be an awesome reward!
Apologies torquewrench; because my comment was not adequately clear. I had no computerized process in mind. I certainly should have defined what I meant by “designated process”.
At present we have something that we could call “the human-oriented protocol”, which tells us humans what to do under certain circumstances. I’m saying that the human-oriented protocol should be changed to reflect a principle that I have not seen expressed here in my reading of posts. (This doesn’t mean that someone else has not expressed in -- just that I haven’t seen it.)
The principle can be stated as follows. The added value that derives from a post has two elements: (a) the post itself and (b) a combination of the quantity and quality of the comments (discussion) elicited by the post. I think of (a) and (b) as comprising an information package.
So the author would need to wait some good time after the discussion seems to have died down to make an assessment of how much added value has come from the second component of the package, and who was/were the key contributor(s) to that added value.
And, please excuse the repetition, the rewards that the author would assign at the time of doing that assessment would be more or less independent of the current system that comprises Steem dollars and the current rules for their allocation.
So the principles that you have advocated where appropriate human judgment is an integral part of the assessment is fully supported by what I’m advocating.
Where I suspect our positions are radically different is that I am advocating that major surgery be applied to the present system.
Cheers!
Actually, I thought it was the other way around! I mean the pay outs for time invested in authoring is much better. I try to keep my VP above 70% at all times (as recommended) and yet last week I only earned .075 cents (according to my account stats) in curation rewards.
Yes, I was talking in the best interests of the platform.
Your comments of encouragement, currently offer as much if not more, than the vote worth in $ :)