Let authors decide how much rewards they want to allocate to curators
We 've been discussing the current curation here https://steemit.com/curation/@snowflake/curation-rewards-are-extremely-low-only-bots-are-willing-to-work-for-pennies-hour#@smooth/re-snowflake-curation-rewards-are-extremely-low-only-bots-are-willing-to-work-for-pennies-hour-20161121t055150100z
https://steemit.com/curation/@snowflake/why-curation-guilds-are-essential-to-the-future-of-steemit
@svamiva came up with a really good idea imo
I think the best way would be really let the author decide, how much curation reward he wants to give to curators. Someone who wants to make his post more visible might choose 1% of total reward for author and 99% for curators, someone like @charlieshrem might want to choose 99% for author 1% for curators option.
The problem with curation reward 30 min rule is that curation rewards are way too low, and as I said in my previous posts curators are the most valuable thing on this platform. They should receive at least the same amount of payouts than author if not more.
The idea of @svamiva to let author decide how much curation % they want to give is excellent, because it will incentivize curators to upvote for new authors ( as these author will put a higher curation rewards to better get noticed) and most importantly it will force bots to do more manual curation, because this curation % will be an ever moving paramater, so the bots strategy to upvote popular username is not going to work as much . I really think this idea is brilliant as it gives a better advantage to manual curation and will give new authors a better chance to be discovered. It will also increase the gaming aspect of curating.
Also as @smooth said early curators should not be given a huge payout compared to other curators, only a slight advantage ( this means that it wont matter much if bots are first to upvote, actually the rule where the highest curation rewards are given after 30 min could still exist to prevent bots from being first everytime, this number could also be variable for every post, like 1 posts is going to be 20 min, the other 40, and the other 30 min. However the rule where curation % decrease should definetely go, curators are everything and should be given a good payout)
Please let me know what you think, really interested to hear thought from steemit founders/devs about this
Hm. My knee jerk reaction is curators are definitely not "just as important" as content creators. In fact, I would say that curation is crap without comments to support an upvote.
I've managed to get on a few curation guild bots' radar. Isn't that sweet? Except my post, which I may have spent hours working on, gets 100+ votes and barely makes a dollar. Give the curators more? WHY?
Why should a greater percentage be given to mindless bots? You see, a hamster can be trained to push the upvote button, but it takes someone who cares to read the content and leave an intelligent comment.
In fact, I would even say that if you took monetary curation awards away and replaced them with support or community advocate badges, I would be 100% behind that.
Excuse the language but curation is shit. I think we can agree that people connect with PEOPLE. You want to reward someone? Then give a handsome one to the commentators.
Which is exactly what this proposal is about, incentivize people to manually curate and actually read content instead of robots.
Unfortunately we seem to be in the Golden Age of curation guilds and Steem-trails where just about anyone can join and ride the coattails of a voting bot and I don't see a way of closing Pandora's Box on it. For transparency: I use SteemVoter because I personally have about 20 people that I follow who have quality posts 90% of the time. That auto-vote shows my support for them specifically because I have developed a relationship with them. But I also check Steemd to see what the bot upvoted and almost always follow up, sometimes hours later, with a comment.
I try my best to follow the Golden Rule (or law of reciprocity) - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I have no expectations of earnings because I cannot rely on it as steady income. But comments... I love comments. I look forward to them. I wish more people would leave comments on my blog. I would definitely award that if I could.
NOW...
If I was going to propose a grand social experiment on Steemit, I'd probably get rid of the payout structure altogether. Implement @timcliff's idea of an esteem score and incorporate a structured payout based on your score at the end of the night.
X-level esteem scores get X$ paid out in 24 hours
Start every day at zero esteem.
Do you have a link to timcliff's idea?
Sure do! :)
https://steemit.com/gamification/@timcliff/introducing-the-esteem-score-proposal-to-add-gamification-to-the-steemit-user-experience
Thank you :)
Sounds solid but then we would have to sit at our computers and not sleep to keep it gaining rewards for the period.
I do think the comments make the platform worthwhile. You pretty much summed up my feelings in both your comments.
I notice a lot authors that get big rewards consistently almost never vote, like rarely ever and the few comments they make is just to replies on their own post. They hardly give back but reap so so much.
I don't mind the current voting system. Even if i get pennies but comments I'm happy. I actually had a post the other day do quite well and not a single comment and i was actually hurt. I was like why no one saying anything? I was happy for the recognition but i wasn't getting my full steemit fix without the chitchat that makes steemit so fun.
I like the suggestions in this post. I think the main argument against it is that it adds complexity (which makes things hard for new users) but IMO the pros outweigh the cons. I'll be interested to hear what others think.
What kind of complexity were you thinking about?
Well, from the perspective of new users, there is a lot to learn in order to know how the system works. It is very similar to the vote slider. A lot of users (mostly new users) do not like the vote slider once it shows up because understanding all the voting math gets confusing. They liked it better when all they had to do was press a button.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't make the changes because they are confusing. I'm just saying that there is a trade off there, which is something to consider.
Good point. I think we can make it less confusing for new users with some interface enhancement. For example I noticed that the busy.org project displays on users's profil how much voting power they actually have, so users will easily understand that their power is not unlimited. An improved interface could help them better understand how the system works
You should add the tag #steemit-ideas to the post.
no
why not? are you a bot? lol
two logical fallacies in six words.
is that a record?
wut?
upped, followed.
keeps people thinking.