The way @Curie upvotes work, from what I've gathered, is this:
1: Curie has a team of content curators who read through the new content in various channels and upvote content they feel enriches the platform. In this case, a curator read your well-written and researched paper, and felt it was something to be rewarded.
2: Afterward, the main Curie account might elect to give a portioned upvote to that content. They look at several factors: Have you been upvoted by Curie for anything in the last 10 days? Are you a Steemian who is relatively unknown? (This isn't determined by reputation, but generally by follower count and upvote power) Does Curie concur with the curator that your post should receive an upvote? (The answer is usually yes, they're an awesome team)
3: If approved, you receive an upvote that is usually about 20-30% of full upvote power.
4: The Curie curation trail activates. This is a combination of several services (including SteemAuto), which users allow to upvote on their behalf, even when they aren't online. When Curie upvotes, so do they, usually resulting in 250+ upvotes and increasing the payout of the post.
5: After being curated by Curie, generally you'll be eligible to get upvoted again in about 10 days depending on your content quality, and if you've diversified into several topics. For example, I've been upvoted by Curie 3 times for fiction, a game review, and most recently media/pop culture criticism.
Granted @Curie has a few posts on what their general criteria are, but I'm saving you a click-and-scroll. :)
Thanks. I have no idea about what goes on behind the scenes around here. I'm curious but I have no data. Is it explained somewhere?
I'm here for conversations about my work, and you've now broken the ice.
(Do you have any other questions about what I wrote or how it's applied? I'll be around, I guess; unless something very bad happens!)
I hope that we'll get into some progressive educational dialogues at some point. That's where I do my most useful work, I believe.
The way @Curie upvotes work, from what I've gathered, is this:
1: Curie has a team of content curators who read through the new content in various channels and upvote content they feel enriches the platform. In this case, a curator read your well-written and researched paper, and felt it was something to be rewarded.
2: Afterward, the main Curie account might elect to give a portioned upvote to that content. They look at several factors: Have you been upvoted by Curie for anything in the last 10 days? Are you a Steemian who is relatively unknown? (This isn't determined by reputation, but generally by follower count and upvote power) Does Curie concur with the curator that your post should receive an upvote? (The answer is usually yes, they're an awesome team)
3: If approved, you receive an upvote that is usually about 20-30% of full upvote power.
4: The Curie curation trail activates. This is a combination of several services (including SteemAuto), which users allow to upvote on their behalf, even when they aren't online. When Curie upvotes, so do they, usually resulting in 250+ upvotes and increasing the payout of the post.
5: After being curated by Curie, generally you'll be eligible to get upvoted again in about 10 days depending on your content quality, and if you've diversified into several topics. For example, I've been upvoted by Curie 3 times for fiction, a game review, and most recently media/pop culture criticism.
Granted @Curie has a few posts on what their general criteria are, but I'm saving you a click-and-scroll. :)
Thanks, Vaughn.