RE: Dr. The Leaping Koala_ my journey on Steemit # 2_ My first Curation attempt...
Thank you very much. I would love your help editing my post for sure.
I will work on it to make it as diplomatic as possible of course. Attacking people just because I was ignored is childish and sad. I would like to think I am beyond that at this stage.
The points I would like to highlight in the post are similar to what @verdanas has mentioned.
1- Connections are important, but we shouldn't abuse them. (you will find that said so many times, yet still happens)
2- Thanking Jerry for trying to help, but also suggesting that if he is too busy to do a fair judgment, then there are ways to combat that
~ Making upvotable as weekly posts or even monthly.
~ Asking for only a certain number of posts to be submitted to each upvotable episode.
~ People who have been recommended or posted in a previous upvotable are not allowed to recommend or be recommended again so soon (lets say they can cycle back every 10 upvotable posts or so)
~ Instead of writing the upvotable posts and getting overwhelmed by the amount of recommendations he has to read, he can simply sponsor one, two or more curation posts made by other growing authors. This way he can help others to gain money and fame as well as increase the outreach and number of people to be acknowledged for their hard work on steemit. All the while he is still helping steemit and steemians (if that is the intention)
Jerry is human after all. These upvotable episodes give him more money and fame on top of what he has. If he really desires to help with that, it would be great if he gives it more attention and efforts. or decline the rewards it makes. Otherwise, it looks like he is one of those who wants to gain by helping specific people that help him grow.
Again, I am not attacking him and maybe I do sound jealous of him. But he is doing too many things that he doesn't have time to do, which makes him the center of attention but he is not really benefiting many people who are obscured by him and other veteran steemians.
Jerry himself wrote about the top authors on steemit and how they are making more money than him. Does he see it as a competition of becoming a top author? of collecting more money and fame? or of growing while helping others?
Those are questions only Jerry can answer. But we certainly have the right to question anyone who is claiming to want to help, if they are not doing a fair job.
Hope to hear your comments.
Thanks again for engaging with me in this discussion :D
"Thanking Jerry for trying to help, but also suggesting that if he is too busy to do a fair judgment, then there are ways to combat that"
Who decides that a fair judgment is? What if Jerry thinks the posts meet an acceptable standard? It then becomes the proverbial "your" word against his.
This is why flagging for quality is also so subjective. Who decides that the right amount to reward something is? Will not my assessment of something's value be totally different from someone making 10% of my salary? Or 1000%?
Failing to resolve this paradox for myself, I basically vote on things based on how far I think they are from fair, quality based rewards. That means sometimes I don't vote on quality stuff that's already highly-rewarded, and other times I vote on some things that may not be super great but still deserve more than they are getting (for whatever reason, even "effort" sometimes).
Even if Jerry agrees the standard is not up to par, what should he do? What if he already is spending as much time on them as he can afford, should we try to convince him to forego his economic interest by continuing to post until he achieves some arbitrary bar of quality?
Steemit is supposed to solve this problem by letting the community design the rewards, but economic self-interest overrides most other concerns at a global level.
That is very true. Whether it is centralized or decentralized platform. When economic self-interest kicks in, everything will be skewed far from what decentralization stands for (That is, if I understand what "decentralization" stands for correctly. Hahaha)
Economic self-interest needn't be a problem for decentralization. Systems simply need to be designed with it in mind. If behavior has to resist self-interest, there will be abuse. Behavior and self-interest should be in-line whenever possible.
Image to reset the theme:
" Making upvotable as weekly posts or even monthly."
This would reduce Jerry's payouts and reduce the amount of authors he can get exposure for, as well as how many rewards he can hand out to authors.
"Asking for only a certain number of posts to be submitted to each upvotable episode."
Who goes through the block-chain, counting the number of entries and determining which ones are allowed and which are not? Is this another thing Jerry has to hypothetically pay to outsource? Note that he already pays substantial amounts for transcription, formatting, and other work that allows him to post as often as he does.
His last post he paid $159 to a transcriptor/formatter/video editor. I don't think he even turned a profit on it, which may be true of more of his posts than you think. On our witness posts, he gives me the half of the listed payout in SBD, and he only keeps the SP, but he also pays at least one more guy to help format and video those posts. After he pays me and him, and eat the curation share, his share is far less than the statistics show.
If I were Jerry's business partner/lawyer, I would advise him to take none of these pieces of advice.
For advice to be followed, it must generally appear to the receiver to be in their own self-interest.
Hi @lexiconical, Welcome back to the discussion.
These are all interesting information. I am getting to know more about what is going on. I had no idea that Jerry is paying to make his posts happen. Very interesting.
I honestly feel very sorry for him now. Haha.
I really wasn't trying to attack him in person, but it seems he comes to the forefront whenever there is something wrong about steemit. At least, to me he is more noticeable than others.
You convinced me not to write or suggest anything to Jerry.
Let things work the way they are is maybe a better choice.
I have this problem of wanting to help everyone even if I am not asked. Or trying to make people support each other believing it will create a better society.
I am not saying that to try and look like a martyr (I am trying to get over that complex behavior anyway). I want to benefit as well, but I think if a lot of people benefit at the same time, then our benefit will increase with time. Also, I believe that there is no harm in benefiting other people, only good comes out of it.
Having said that, I would still love to hear the rest of your devil's advocate argument against mine. I am learning so much stuff I wasn't aware of about steemit.
I hope I will become a wiser person with what I am learning. But that takes time, so I hope to find many other issues I could discuss with you in this learning journey ;D
Thank you very much again :D
"You convinced me not to write or suggest anything to Jerry. Let things work the way they are is maybe a better choice."
This is what we'd call a "false dichotomy". There are ways to try to affect change, without starting at Jerry.
Any complaints you might have about Jerry are really just symptoms of some other problem. Considering he uses his platform to make some of these issues known, and he's very honest, I think removing him would simply lead to what would likely be a a more malevolent actor.
"Having said that, I would still love to hear the rest of your devil's advocate argument against mine. I am learning so much stuff I wasn't aware of about steemit."
If there are any particular areas I haven't addressed yet, let me know and I'll try to hit them.
Even when I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm not suggesting that nothing should change. I actually think we need to change the curation system, a lot. I'm even in favor of rather radical voting changes.
Here's an example I'm toying with writing about. I'd like to make every vote also reward the voter for the same amount it rewards whoever you vote on. This would likely, but needn't by definition, come with a roughly 50% reduction to the power of those votes to keep the inflation rate similar.
This solves a ton of "problems" - rewarding active users with stake, "self-voting", making voting easier mentally/reducing inertia to not vote, spam, vote-trading, sock-puppets, abuse like Craig Graint, the strategy of the former two highest paid authors on Steemit who earned mostly on one-liners....the list of positive benefits goes on.
Of course, it needs to come with a big change to curation too as I think that's already not rewarding enough.