RE: Unpopular Opinions, Casual Posting and Moving Forward.
What if we just want some casual users though.
I am one of the 'quality content defenders', but at the same time I have nothing against 'casual users' - they just shouldn't expect to earn 50 dollars per short post (especially as it's very easy to make a lot of minimal posts per day.
If I see that anybody puts much effort in an article I may grant him a 100 % upvote as a sign to appreciate these efforts, and also because the topic, the information he gives me is interesting and/or addresses my sense for aesthetics.
'Casual users' can play an essential role for the progress of STEEM but that doesn't automatically mean that I should reward their posts as much as I reward my preferred authors.
For me it's alright that different kinds of users coexist.
And, as we are talking about it, personally I really don't like autovotes, the way to upvote content without reading it. In my eyes that's no real human interaction. The only person I auto upvote is my wife, @kobold-djawa, but even that I regret from time to time ...
maybe we the community should set a threshold for casual content rewards and quality content reward? for example, a photo and with less than 100 words should not be rewarded more than 5$ for example and Quality content not more than 40$ for example, ; so the reward pool not being take out much from and can be distributed more evenly to all users poster/curators..
I think such a rule would be too strict and not flexible enough. Imagine for example that a great artist posted exactly one really fantastic image. Should he only earn five dollars?
Another idea is to implement 'diminishing returns' in way that after the first published article every further post of the same author made within 24 hours would have a lower probability to earn the same amount of money as the previous one (upvotes on posts of the same author within 24 hours would have less and less effect; similar like your voting power exhausts with every upvote you grant).
Authors who invest much time in single posts were not affected because anyway they cannot produce many posts within a short period of time.
However, most important in my opinion is that the big stakeholders focus on rewarding quality content.
Furthermore there must be a way to curb abuse like for example @haejin / @ranchorelaxo is doing it by producing ten minimlistic 'posts' per day and then giving them 100 % upvotes.
This should be included in the threshold special criteria for an artist and photographer with their original works, maybe they put special tag like original artwork/photography for example, then community with proof of brain will make their own decision whether to agree or disagree on the post reward based on that factor.
This is a great idea if the developer or anyone with technical skills can implement that,but need support by most of the big stakeholders and community top witnesses, as steem blockchain is DPOS. Any great idea will not be heard and implemented unless you have a big stake or have enough support from big stakeholders here.
I think those big stakeholders have their own definitions for contents they see good for their own eyes/brain/emotional level satisfaction too. Unless they all delegate to this one curation accounts that only focus on quality content based on this specific Standard Operation Procedure of what Quality content should be and worth big reward/upvote without question.
For @haejin case, I think he is not that heavy abuser compares to some account that purely milking here; they use likwid to liquidate their reward post instantly and send all their steem reward to exchange and sell it for other cryptos, I just hope they won't crash steem price to zero in doing that,but some have clearly stated their desire to see steem price crash to zero/worthless.. Also, @haejin @ranchorelaxo do not power down their account and only use the usual 7 days 50/50 rewards liquid steem to transfer into the exchange; I think he will not have the desire to crash steem price to zero or worthless, because why would he let that happen?
I think that should be the key anyway when it comes to evaluation and rewarding of posts ... I am not convinced that additional rules are necessary here, but I am also not completely against them ... lets wait and see what other community members think.
True. I like to throw in ideas so that others may discuss them.
Nevertheless, they should recognize (as I did), that actions which contribute to long term success of the blockchain (by attracting and retaining new users) are more beneficial in the long run than methods like circle-voting etc. which lead to a maximal short term profit.
Of course they can convey responsibility to curation services, but not everybody does that. I also only delegated a part of my STEEM power and prefer to vote myself with the bigger part of it.
He is purely milking here with ten heavily rewarded copy and paste posts every single day!
What's the sense of being a social media platform if everybody rewards only himself? Imagine everybody started doing that? Should I do that, too? Fortunately, I just can't because it's against my principles.
In HIVE he stopped because other whales kept flagging him, which I really appreciate (oh yes, not everything is bad on HIVE but good here on STEEM - or reversed).
To stop people like @haejin there is one of the reasons why my curation rewards on HIVE are significantly higher than here on STEEM (because the remaining rewards pool for honest users is bigger).
Of course that doesn't mean I would defend HIVE witnesses or users who are also milking STEEM and cash out everything,
Thanks for sharing your thought @jaki01 the world made of many kinds, and so does steem users I guess, and this one whale might just kind of anti-social on social media platform.. hehee