RE: Good Curators vs Bad Curators
I wish we were talking about millions of users. I do not think we have more than 5-10K in people who are actively trying. I'm mostly a content creator but love curating and find so much good content even with such a small crowd.
I pay to lease my sp - I'm not sure what the difference would be if I pay for it or get it for free (!) Recently, I started posting more of my own posts and my self-voting makes my rewards decline because I am not popular compared to those I vote for!
I find this place exceedingly complicated. I'm here to get out my natural health messages but I find myself in a huge learning curve and spending more time learning what to do here than actually working on what I had planned.
Can you explain your point about who votes for what based on whether or not they pay for delegation? I have no idea which direction you are suggesting.
I'm in the curation league of @abh12345 and have learned a lot there. I'm trying my best to support others while learning myself - lots of juggling!
I notice that people who pay for their delegation are far more inclined to self upvote. Not that self upvotes are "bad" but too much of anything is a bad thing. Consider if everyone were voting for themselves at such high percentages. This would no longer be a social network but rather a cryptocurrency advertising website. Who wants to look at nothing but adverts?
So everything in moderation. Personally if I were delegating (and I am considering doing that very soon) I would ask that curators try to stay under 5% max on any one particular account, and would have already explained that if they go over 10% they may lose their delegation.
Most delegators don't appears to be setting any standards like this, however I was there when 3 people I knew were seeking delegation received it from @fulltimegeek and all three of them said to me that they better start voting more or they better manage their vote better and not vote selfishly. All three made this decision without any request from the delegator.
I have the idea of going by one hashtag and finding ### of people to support for a time with my voting and with advice to improve. So I would have maybe 5 (?) people who got a good part of my votes for a few weeks or however long it takes for them to do better or quit or turn out not to be a good fit for me.
But now - after working on my curating - I recently started posting more of my own posts, and I do self-upvote with my big 10 cents. So now my self-voting is detracting from how much I can vote for others. This means my advice needs to be better instead or I vote with a smaller percent or something.
I'm just trying to learn to curate, so thank you far all the information in this comment and the others. Lots to consider. But I know I help people if I vote for them for a while and talk to them too. Teach then how to format, for example.
I believe everyone has got at least one or two people whom they upvote the most ...you can say they are either ardent fan of them or have developed some bonding with their content or content creator themselves. Putting a limit of something like 5% can take a toll on someone's committed fan following. But perhaps that's what is intended!
Well this would just be a personal parameter that I would go by. Each stakeholder is entitled to their own standards of what they consider "good" curating. Even though I appreciate that many users may use the platform to see a specific content creator, I would still require them upvoting other content as well (such as the comments within their favourite authors post) in order to qualify as a curator of my delegated SP. Money is not the only thing content creators like. We also love and need engagement.
It sooo is! lol - And to be honest, I have little interest in the 'techy' side of things.
All I really want from the platform itself ( and presumably I am not alone in this), is to log on, post your content that you consider good, check out new posts, talk to friends, comment, and up vote quality content.
(and make a few dollars a day...?)
This all takes quite a lot of time. ( I have an obscenely large amount of free time, and still find it sucks waaay more than I bargained for).
The ( monetary) rewards for the work/time involved is dis incentivizing lots of people who come here, and stopping the platform from growing, especially when you see big up vote rewards for absolute brain dead posts, day after day, does nothing to help the situation.
In my 3 month(ish)I have been here, I have been lucky enough to get the attention of 2 BIG up votes/whales I think! wooohoo. - and what a rush.
The incentive to produce more quality content grew.
And quickly fell away again.
I want the money, sure, but I want it from people who appreciate my work, not an algorithm.
I see a diminishing future for original content makers on here unless things are addressed. (especially concerning bots)
That would be a crying shame for a place with such potential.
I'm stopping my whining now, as it interferes with my creativity!
( the reason I took a 10 day holiday from steemit, recently)
I hear everything you say. I decided to focus on earning money here until I could get a bit of power (5000 sp and then we'll see). There are ways for minnows to make money without a lot of support from whales.
I've got a whale bot of a fairly small amount, but also the bots of smaller people who add up to be more than the big guy. And for a bonus, the smaller ones actually visit my posts and comment. They just use the bots to catch the post and vote at the right time.
And yes, the time suck is outrageous for me too. I have a lot of social media balls in the air and I have dropped some while others are going crazy thanks to steemit.
I wrote this old post with about 15 ways to make money when you are new and I make money with these ideas. not a lot, but over time, it is increasing. Maybe some of these tips will help you too.
Make Money Blogging on Steemit Top Tips and Checklist for Better Results!!
