Thoughts about the curation on the platform

in #curation4 years ago

There's been a lot of discussions lately about curation. Many of you might have followed @blocktrades' big post about his reasoning to how it should be changed or @themarkymark's post showing that the curation cut isn't actually 25% but more like 12%-18%.

A lot of this has of course to do with autovoters constantly front-running eachother on popular authors. When setting up autovotes they check which minutes others usually vote on the popular posts and then enter theirs a few seconds or minutes earlier to get a bigger piece of the pie. Even though there is a curation penalty it pays off since they get in earlier than the others, even though most of the rewards end up going to the author instead they make more than voting on posts that don't get may not get any votes after theirs.

It's a bad, lazy curation cycle from which the rest of the platform suffers from instead.

To many this is not news and have been aware of it for some time, on for instance it shows the % of the rewards users are getting, the average right now being 15% to curators of the full reward pool. This is with witnesses, commenters and interest included.

This is a big reason I have unchecked the "upvote post" box for a long time now on my own posts, I've been wanting to reward curators more than usual and I've been hoping that more authors would do the same but there are not many of them unfortunately. I find it a bit weird that not more authors do it and that curators don't act on it.

If you vote on your own post at a later stage, say at 15-30 minutes, you will reward your early voters a lot more in curation rewards. Sure you might miss some author rewards due to it, but it might get you more curators instead and you'll end up with your post being closer to the 25/75 like it is supposed to be + you'll earn curation rewards for your own post as well. It seems quite unfortunate that the SBD spike happened just now as these things were being discussed since now everyone is aiming to make as much SBD to dump on the exchanges instead of caring about what happens with the curation rewards. In a way it seems that the SBD spike should open the eyes of people that curators are now more under-rewarded than ever with authors making 10x more rewards.

Isn't 75% of the rewards enough? I know there is usually no chance of it getting to 75%, but wouldn't it be nice if it got closer to it than being 85%+ instead? It's a bit of an ethical question at the same time.

My 4 latest high rewards posts have been between 18%-23%, I was very glad to see the 23% one as it had rewarded over $100 to curators and was the closest I've gotten to 25% in a long, long time.

Some of you may also know the curation group called @ocd that I have started over 6 months ago. For a long time I've been encouraging manual curators to front-run me on those posts, sacrificing my own curation rewards so other curators can earn more. You hear a lot about curators complaining that they are making way to little and its a reason why they all collude into the popular posts trying to front-run eachother, yet almost no one seems to want to do something about it.

@tarazkp had recently leased a delegation and he has told me that he has seen an awesome increase of his curation rewards when he was experimenting voting on @ocd nominations and posts. Even my latest re-steem from a curation analyst proves that there are really good curation rewards to be made, you can read more about it here.

So my question is, what are you all waiting for? It doesn't matter if you spend only 10% of your daily voting power curating these posts or 50%, those votes will receive much higher curation rewards than usual while at the same time knowing they are going to undervalued authors and quality posts that have not been hit by autovote and bots due to them being unique.

I really encourage users to act, not just on the @ocd posts but in general look around for posts that aren't as heavily rewarded yet. I know looking through the "new" filter can be difficult but if you instead look through your favorite tags and sort them by "hot" it makes life a lot easier to find undervalued posts and even if they some times may not receive more votes after yours, you will at least have spent them in the right place and done a good curation job. If more and more people follow your mindset this place will become much richer in quality over time, benefiting both curators and the retention of new authors. @miniature-tiger mentioned in his curation analysis that out of all the authors that @ocd has so far nominated and curated, over 74% are still actively posting in the last 14 days and over 85% of them are actively voting.

If that's not encouragement enough to change your voting pattern, I don't know what it will take to do it.

Thumbnail Source


Thing is that we can not get people to think or act in the same level

For me... We must think about the development of this community. Not caring for rewards..... Because the development of this community means there are more opportunities in making friends and enjoying and earning some money.....
If we're just thinking of winning money. That means that this community will collapse.

I see peoples post all the time that are amazing but I don't have near enough power to help them out. Many of them to disappear of the steemit block chain for ever. I don't post quality content anymore because it is not worth the time. There might be a fix out there but no one has a clue yet. There are all kinds of curation teams like curie but do they really help? You have to have some attention before anyone actually takes the time to submit your post.
I would like to thank you for shedding some light on this topic.

Curation groups like curie are the main reason we have some sort of retention in authors, a lot more would've not stuck around if it wasn't for them. Distribution would be a lot more uneven.

I agree 110%, curie is a little small scaled right now to fix the entire problem though.
No negative tension meant in my last comment, it was just a question

I agree, @acidyo I've been on, here, for around a month posting in relative obscurity (despite being an established author, outside Steemit).

One post of mine was fortunate to be promoted by Curie, which encouraged me to stick around a while longer. I'm afraid I'm back to most posts being overlooked (making cents) and would be grateful if ocd might consider my poetry/prose.

Many thanks, for your attention & consideration,

This is good information to know, I'm still trying to figure out how this whole thing works..I'll keep trying, thanks. Upvoted and resteemed, I'm sure my followers will be interested in this post.

Curation is one huge part of steemit that I need to understand better. It's integral to the infrastructure of the platform. I'll have to really dive in when I have the time.

Always appreciate the time you put into this system, Acid.


I quit upvoting myself a long time ago, it just never felt right.

I don't like the voting bots. They should be banned

This post have some pretty interest stuff. Thanks for sharing.

great advice, this new guy thanks you and will uncheck that upvote box on my own posts. I would like to get this figured out and be at least a good curator until I find time and bravery to post more of my own content.

Your best use of time right now is to interact with content you are interested in. Figure out how to search tags and look for these authors and their posts. Meet them. Provide good feedback (and constructive criticism.) and get to know people that you will get along with.

Mix it up, between newbies, veterans and people that have 3-6 months in. This is the best way to get started.

This way you will see what makes a Great quality post(not based on it's upvotes, but style and clarity), and what makes an ugly, hard to read or poorly prepared post. This can teach you how to post better!

Good luck!

I appreciate that great advice, I am trying to do just that. There is so much here to explore and a whole new way of doing things to learn. Also..nice profile pic, he was a cool Doctor eh.

Thanks. As a relative newbie, I was just confused about checking my own posts or not. I did a lot of searching on the topic and was still confused. Your post here gave me the best explanation of why it's not good for the community and in the end, not good for me as an author.

Since I have so little SP right now, I need to save it anyway to reward other people who might stop by to comment. If I get a few votes quickly on posts, I might swoop in later to give the post a check, but I won't do it right away.

Anyway, I appreciate the time you took to explain this, and I think it's helpful for lots of us. We weren't upvoting because we were being greedy -- we just didn't understand exactly what we were doing. :)

@acidyo is a great whale to learn from!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me also, I will help if I am able!

The topic confounded me too, so it's good to see one of the bigger players take time to explain it from this perspective. In the end, doing what's right for the entire community can help everybody.


You have a big heart @Acidyo! :)

Sorry to say, but do timing votes, autobot selfvoting, minnow support systems actually get people to read the post or just circle jerk for digits?

Nothing gets people to read the post other than putting it in front of people who might care about it – and none of the mechanisms on Steemit (other than, very remotely, tagging) are engineered to actually do that.

If/when we get Communities or someone builds a front end which actually makes real curation possible, then we might see mechanisms which drive people to actually read and engaged with content they're interested in.

Outside of that, the mechanisms primarily exist to "reward" the content creator (which is a worthy and valuable thing to do, don't get me wrong), or just circle jerk for digits.

"Discovery" is the term which is never bandied about nearly enough. And that's a shame.

You are an awesome ambassador for Steemit. One could argue that the minnows are the most important for the platform because without new people the platform will stagnate. So it's definitely important not to just play favorites but to look after everyone. Most of us have all been there. Posting and almost getting nothing. Over and over again. And I many times think that certain votes or comments was what kept me from giving up. It can make a world of difference. As I mentioned before OCD has me hope and confidence to continue and it's definitely a big reason why I am still here today

Curator has the right to vote the best post according to his own version, as well as the robot that already has the criteria of post that will vote automatically. The important thing is we have to write our own works with as good as possible, the vote of the curators will surely come accordance with the quality of our posts, including from @blocktrades

It will take some time, until we all become aware.

Nice post am glad I came across this post.... You actually explain in detail what I have been searching for in weeks

I've been doing this for a while as well - not voting for myself within the first 30 minutes. But I also don't always vote on the post after that because I don't want to encourage people to vote for me just for the curation reward either. I also don't like my self vote percentage being over 5% because I received my delegation at what I consider a fair price that allows me to earn a curation reward (usually between -10 to +20 of what I pay per week) and I'd like to see more people getting the deal I got. I don't bother front running on popular authors. Sometimes it I know there's something the votu community would be interested in I'll vote and pass it on to them but I find if I vote after 30 minutes on a good buy low rewarded post I can do better that way.

I wouldn't mind the curation ratio being increased if they also increased that donation window. I think it's actually a good way to discourage people from trying to front run popular authors.

Yeah I always thought it was weird to self vote until I found it was generally considered “ok”. I always make sure that I do it at the point when the curation reward is fully allocated to the contributors.

I always find it weird to see it when you’ve got people who consistently rake it in, ensuring they have got in and claimed 100% of that curation on the post. Seems a little against the ethos of the platform.

I will still argue that voting bots have their place. By voting lets's say with x ℅ power on you favorite authors ( emphasis on favorite not popular) you can give them a steady and reliable reward every post. This leaves more time to manually curate undervalued posts.

I like what you have to say about author's not upvoting their own posts. You really seem to care about the Steemit community, which I think is super cool. Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of users on here are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves and they really do not care about the community. It is hard to resist serving yourself first but I think that it is important we build the best community we can on Steemit. It is still in the beta! Building a strong community will help us all in the end by bringing in more users and more money.

Auto voting has it's merit and demerits.
If one is using for the purpose of curating autos and contents he likes, it is good but where it is used with the intent of gaining a large chunk of the piece of pie, then such should be an issue which needs to be corrected.

whether apvote with robot is recommended to always do ..?

i'm already watching for undervalued posts and i vote them since last 2 months but unfortunately not every day because i don't have that much time :( Now i'm following some trails that promised me they only manual curate. like @curie @r-bot and @humanbot

Very good pattern. Nice post. Thanks

I have a 50% auto on myself at 30 minutes. Can't say fairer than that.

this is a very good notification of friends, thank you for sharing.

Good information....thanks for the post

I like the idea that witnesses get the ability to change the critical timings of curating. This would allow the witnesses to shift the time when curation rewards changed from author to curators based on what they see.

If they could also play with the percentages, at least it would force a little tougher game for the auto votes.

As someone that doesn’t really get almost anything in curation rewards since my votes are’t strong at all I still agree and don’t mind giving the full 25% of the rewards I make as an author to the curators. Curators are the ones giving us these rewards in the first place and it is only fair. I’ve been included in Ocd daily and initiatives like this only help the community and the platform and I hope they get the rewards that they deserve! Thank you for being out there for us minnows! :)

Oooo nice amazine

Congratulations @acidyo! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of upvotes received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

This is so nice of you to do that.. and thank you for the details insight, I do not have many SP , so it doesn't make too much different for me, but it is really nice to know how it works.. probably the best explanation I have read so far about curation ..

amazingly explain ..and your sacrifice of curation for others is appreciable ..Thanks for great information @acidyo

I don't like the voting bots. They should be banned

Autovoters win the curation and manual voters usually end up losing @acidyo I hope there willl come a time that steemit could solve such problem just for fairness and justice.

Bots are going to either make or break steemit.

great post I really like your post

Still trying to learn more about curation and rewards! Thanks for the good info acidyo!

I try to pop into the new section on the tags that I like a few times a week and vote up peoples posts, just wish I had more voting power to reward them. I do agree that people should be curating more, not only because it allows you to find new authors that you enjoy but because of the rewards you're talking about. People seem to be really stingy with giving out votes sometimes, like they're losing out on money if they go around and vote on things. Hopefully that mentality changes at some point, it feels like it has a little bit at least since I've joined up a year ago.

Good to see whale authors like yourself sacrificing thier curation to help Minnows like us.
Truely giving back to the community.😊

Can i ask you a question @acidyo?

Well, it is always not easy to change someone's behaviour. Need time to make it.

nice blog buddy

Upvote and resteem.

Buen articulo !

Your activity is a perfect example of how changing yourself can change the platform. Thank you for that. Good luck to you and good.

I had autovoter running for one month I did not liked it because sometimes it votes on a post which I don't like so I switched back to manual voting.

good topic and good writing skill @acidyo.i like your post and following

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.73
TRX 0.10
JST 0.075
BTC 57655.25
ETH 4334.73
BNB 614.50
SBD 6.96