Wait before buying votes!
There's a curious new trend on Steem, which I ranted about last week. Right after making a post, authors are rushing to buy votes, trade votes, etc.
I won't vote on your post if I see you've bought votes. I will be less inclined to vote on your post if you have upvoted it yourself to a significant amount. (Clarification - significant amount would be $5 or so. Don't worry about the self-upvote, it's completely fine.)
It's not just me, plenty of others have chimed in why they won't vote on randowhale voted posts etc. Even a comment voting bot won't vote if you self-upvote. Curie's latest guidelines state posts must have a max payout under $2, so your post will automatically be disqualified.
So, in short, be patient. Give the community a chance to discover your post and vote on it. You'll stand to gain much more. Heck, you might even get a whale vote or a Curie vote worth hundreds of dollars. You have nothing to lose - you can buy those votes or self-upvote if you must later.
Though I'd suggest, if you really value your work and see Steem as a long-term platform for publishing your content, how about skip those and build an audience the respectful way? Reputation matters.
Doesn't it automatically up vote your post when you publish it? Or does everyone use 100% steem power as rewards, instead of 50/50?
Not automatic, but yes, that's the default. Like I said, don't worry about it.
This is a good read. I was always thought that the randowhale was a steemit creation, as the account seems to have been given a large voting power.
I guess long run if we all upvote our own content (I have been doing it and given it to anyone who comments on my posts) then this place will get pretty toxic and in turn hurt the value of Steem.
I think you have changed my view on it all now...
Well done post You deserve for getting Upvote from me. I appreciate on it and like it so much . Waiting for your latest post. Keep your good work and steeming on. Let's walk to my blog. I have a latest post. Your upvote is high motivation for me. Almost all Steemians do their best on this site. Keep steeming and earning.
This comment has received a 0.05 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
I use randowhale because I am tired of working for hours on a post and getting $1.15 and 12 views while the 500th post on fidget spinners gets $377.45 and 900 views. I think the criticism could be more properly directed.
How do you feel about those of us whose self-upvote is worth all of a couple cents? I've started only upvoting myself when I see one of my posts isn't getting much traction after a few hours or a day or two.
I kind of view upvoting as a show of love, and if nobody loves you then self love is the next best thing. Haha.
No problem there, like I mentioned, "significant amount". Self-upvoting's the default behaviour, after all. But even so, it'd be beneficial to upvote your post later - curators are incentivized to find a post with low payouts.
Just don't go spamming and self-upvoting :)
No promises.
don't feel bad about self vote, not until you arr whale lol
That's what I assume.
Interesting article. I have only been 'tempted' by the randowhale once. I would rather the community takes a look at my posts and determines whether they are worth an upvote or not.
I also only recently, realised that I could turn off the automatic self upvote. Even though my vote is only a few cents, I do like to see whether the community finds my worth worthwhile! Thanks for the post.
I think an article which dissects the ethics and practices of @randowhale and @booster would be of interest. It's a bit like the difference between the drug user and the drug dealer. The law considers that the dealer is more "culpable" that the user. I'm not saying that buying votes is illegal or unethical, just drawing a parallel between supplier and user! I hasten to add that I have used both on occasion in order to boost visibility and potential payout of course. ^_^
I get where you're at @liberosist, however a couple of points to consider.
Someone else other than the author, may have given a randowhale vote. I have given several randowhale votes to authors I feel have been missed.
A post that qualifies for Curie, will have an author whose vote is worth a couple of cents at best. Why should you punish someone for giving themselves such a tiny vote?
Thanks, I'm interested to hear your answers.
Cg
Fair point! I would give it the benefit of doubt if the vote is bought by someone else, though it'd still disincentivize curators. The lower the pending payout, the more the curation rewards.
Like I mentioned above, that's no issue at all. That applies only for "significant amount". To quantify that, I'll only hesitate to vote on a self-upvoted post if its $5 or something. I might still vote it given how much I like the post. For Curie, the guideline is $2 but again, reviewers might make an exception if the post is exceptional.
OK, that makes sense and sounds fair, thanks for clarifying, and keep up the good work! :-)
Cg
I think the issue is that ever since the "experiment", curation hasn't been working well at all. It used to be fun going on an upvoting spree to see if you could front-run the curie posts and earn a decent curation award. Now there is no point. Which means that some posts get $$$ and others are languishing on a few cents.
On the other hand, there are lots of curators with good amounts of delegated SP now. So it's worthwhile frontrunning them. Besides, Curie is still going, but yes at a lower pace than before.
I just realized this fact about buying vote. I will consider to stop buying vote on my future post.
But I just doubt whether self-voting may not that guilty, by mean of supporting something written by myself. Just personal opinion.
No problem with self-upvoting :) I added a clarification.