Quality Is Important, But Let's Be Real

Over a week ago, I wrote about some of my post-HF21 impressions. Though it wasn't necessarily the main point to be made, I did make this statement:

Instead of quality content, can we call it something that means "stuff I like," because that's more of what we're talking about.

It was made in reference to the fact that downvotes have been used for many reasons on STEEM, one of which being for lack of quality. With the advent of some free downvotes a day, the idea of quality content is pushing its way back to the forefront of popular STEEM thought.

Personally, I'm all for quality content. I think the more of it, the better. Unfortunately, I think people are saying quality when they really mean what I said above: "What I like." Or how @whatsup put in the comments of said post:

I like to say, interesting.

Quality is and always will be subjective. What may be of high quality today, won't be months or years from now, or at least it won't be as appreciated as much as it was to begin with. Why? Because someone or something comes along and improves upon it. Technology is fast and furious in the area of improving quality. If you looked back at the quality of life just 50 years ago to now, let alone a hundred, or 150 years ago, most of us would say it's improved (though in some ways it has gone the opposite direction).

Quality is a moving target. Like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder, and no matter how much one person might find something of quality, someone else will either hate it, or find it meh.

There's a reason for this:

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

It's why garage sales have a place (at least in the United States), aside from the fact that you can get stuff on the cheap. Value changes based on immediate needs. That seldom used exercise equipment that once cost over a thousand dollars to purchase new ends up being resold, if lucky, for $100, if not purchased at all and then either hauled off to a thrift store or the scrap yard, at the seller's time and expense.

So, as I said before, and I'm saying again, we need to get away from the term quality, and use something else that is more representative of what we really mean, be that "Stuff I like," or "Things I find interesting," or something else.

In my mind, there's a simple way to know if you're voting on quality, rather than on what you like.

• The post is legible.

• Most words are spelled correctly and properly used. If a video, the language it's in is properly used.

• The format is easy to read and to follow.

• The post makes its arguments well. Is it well reasoned.

• It presents well. Sentences flow from one to the next, or if spoken, the same.

• If citing quotes or studies, etc., it is well-sourced.

• It holds the readers or viewers attention throughout—it doesn't read like a telephone directory.

• It shows a higher or elevated form of thinking that is uncommon to the topic or subject matter.

• It provides real expert instruction or advice based on the writer's own ample personal knowledge and experience.

• The post demonstrates a skill or talent that is recognizably better than most.

I think I'll stop there. I know there's more that could be included, but the point is, if you find yourself upvoting or downvoting posts based on whether those types of things exist, you might actually be doing so based on a possible definition of quality.

However, if you find yourself upvoting based on the following, it can't really be called for reasons of quality only, or even firstly:

• The post is by someone who gets a lot of high upvotes, thus, better curation rewards.

• The post is by someone who is a witness or community leader or someone well liked or well-thought of.

• The content of the post is of interest, regardless of thoroughness of the topic, presentation, grammar, etc.

• The content presents a worldview that is close or inline with the reader's point of view.

• The poster votes on the reader's posts, so reciprocity is in order.

• Autovoting the same amount every time without checking periodically to see if the author is still meeting the criteria of quality.

• Voting the same amount on all posts in order to spread the vote around and use as much of the voting power as possible.

So, what do you think? Which way are you voting? Note that I have not placed any judgment yet on the second list, good, bad or indifferent, other than to point out, it's not because of quality only, or even quality first. There are other reasons that are coming into play.

Want to know what I think about the second way of voting? As far as I'm concerned, it's okay. STEEM is predominately used as a blogging/social media platform. Blogging and social media aren't all about quality. They're about expression. They're about being social. The communal experience. Finding the likeminded. Leveraging experience. Entertainment. Feeling. Belonging.

I will never be the meme king, but I can't deny people find value in them. There's a quality to value ratio that will ultimately be enforced on anything considered a low effort post, but that's a topic for another day.

So, let's get real, shall we? We're upvoting and downvoting based on all kinds of criteria, and the lesser of it is quality.

On a side note—If I can find a post that I disagree with as far as its conclusions are concerned, but I can't knock it for its impeccable use of grammar, flow, reason, citations, presentation and format, that is probably the epitome of quality for me. I don't have to like the topic, the person, or the conclusions to see the quality in the post. And I might just find myself rethinking my personal thoughts on the matter.

As @scarletreaper recently put it in a post about this topic:

I don't always feel the need to have "quality" posts filling my brain.

They then go on to list several posters, the likes of which, I would say provide content I like, and for the most part, the posts achieve a high enough level of quality, too.

There are reasons why we come to STEEM, and my hope is, it's not to see what's on trending, even in the NewSTEEM. I would like to think we're heading into our feeds, or into the tags, or sticking with the sub-communities and tribes that have formed and will continue to form. That's because we're regularly and actively following and pursing that kind of content on a conscious level, not just passively having it pushed to us and then complaining we can't find anything to read or view of quality.

At the end of my earlier post, I said this:

Maybe we all just need to declare what we like to read, so we can try some content targeting.

For me, a post on that topic is forthcoming. I basically have to rethink my approach on curation, anyway, so this will help me as much as it might anyone else.

First, I had to get this topic out of the way. And I will probably readdress it, because as is the case with most things deeply imbedded in a culture, it's hard to root out, even when everyone can more or less agree that it should be.

To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for and achieve some definition of quality on our posts. By and large, higher effort should be rewarded more than lower effort, but even that depends on a lot of factors. Word length and time spent does not always equate to quality, but they also certainly can. That said, finding a photo on the internet, slapping into a post and titling it "I Like" won't equate to quality ever, and shouldn't, either.

(Though someone is bound to get something out of it, just the same.)

However, let's not kid ourselves. Much more than quality is coming into play when we up or down vote, and the sooner the phrase, "There's a lack of quality posts on STEEM," is no longer uttered while we're really looking for stuff we like, the better things will be for us, as creators and curators, and the social side of STEEM as a whole.

_{Image source—Pixabay}