i dont agree with curating bots at least at the level of sophistication they are now.
There are too many posts for individuals to handle but lets face it,some good posts wont get the attention they deserve,I also dont like the option to reduce voting power.You should always vote with your maximum available
I agree that the curating bots are not good in the level of sophistication they are now, and that there are too many posts for individuals to handle. Do you think the solution I am proposing will help?
I do think that allowing users to choose how much voting power to use is a good thing though. If you have a user like ned where a full upvote will give hundreds of dollars, he would have a difficult time upvoting content that he liked but not enough to reward hundreds of dollars to. Without the option to scale his vote, it would be a choice between giving the author nothing or hundreds of dollars. Authors would either get way overcompensated (taking rewards out of the reward pool that could go to other more deserving authors), or not compensated at all. The weighted vote allows a middle ground of voting to give some money, without giving too much.
When you say "spread it out" thought - ned voting doesn't add more money to the pool. It just changes how the pool is paid out. If he upvoted 10 people for hundreds of dollars, then all of those people would get hundreds of dollars - but that would be thousands less for other authors. I suppose if he upvoted 10 minnows who all wrote really great posts that would be good, but most likely it would end up giving huge over-payments to a lot of people (at the expense of people who deserved it more).
i liked your post,i really did,but for example it got 10$ when this post got 50c .i really think it is equally good,but many good post go unrecognised and it makes people unwilling to research in order to produce better content. a couple of days ago i got 220 for a post,maybe it did not eve deserve that much.i would rather get 110 from each one.
Yeah, it can be frustrating to put a lot of work into a post and not get as much payout as you expect/hope for. There are a lot of factors that go into it though. I wrote a post about it a few weeks ago here that you may be interested in.
I like your post too, but I can offer you a bit of constructive criticism as far as why it may not have gotten as many upvotes. One is the tags that you used. I don't think that people who want to read about "life", "science" and "health" are really going to appreciate this. "philosophy" maybe, but probably not so much.
Also, yours was more of a "make you think" post, whereas mine was more of a "we should take action and do this" post. I think the criteria that people use to upvote the two types of posts is slightly different. If you are writing something to make people think, you almost have to have a mind-blowing post to get appreciated. Just making it interesting isn't always enough. For a "lets do this" post, it is more of people mulling over the idea and thinking "would I want this to happen?" and "can it be done?". Those are easier mental hurdles for a reader to overcome.
i dont agree with curating bots at least at the level of sophistication they are now.
There are too many posts for individuals to handle but lets face it,some good posts wont get the attention they deserve,I also dont like the option to reduce voting power.You should always vote with your maximum available
I agree that the curating bots are not good in the level of sophistication they are now, and that there are too many posts for individuals to handle. Do you think the solution I am proposing will help?
I do think that allowing users to choose how much voting power to use is a good thing though. If you have a user like ned where a full upvote will give hundreds of dollars, he would have a difficult time upvoting content that he liked but not enough to reward hundreds of dollars to. Without the option to scale his vote, it would be a choice between giving the author nothing or hundreds of dollars. Authors would either get way overcompensated (taking rewards out of the reward pool that could go to other more deserving authors), or not compensated at all. The weighted vote allows a middle ground of voting to give some money, without giving too much.
if for example ned likes only one post that day,the yes,its ok to give hundreds of dollars,but if he likes 10 posts that amount will be spread out.
When you say "spread it out" thought - ned voting doesn't add more money to the pool. It just changes how the pool is paid out. If he upvoted 10 people for hundreds of dollars, then all of those people would get hundreds of dollars - but that would be thousands less for other authors. I suppose if he upvoted 10 minnows who all wrote really great posts that would be good, but most likely it would end up giving huge over-payments to a lot of people (at the expense of people who deserved it more).
i liked your post,i really did,but for example it got 10$ when this post got 50c .i really think it is equally good,but many good post go unrecognised and it makes people unwilling to research in order to produce better content. a couple of days ago i got 220 for a post,maybe it did not eve deserve that much.i would rather get 110 from each one.
Thanks.
Yeah, it can be frustrating to put a lot of work into a post and not get as much payout as you expect/hope for. There are a lot of factors that go into it though. I wrote a post about it a few weeks ago here that you may be interested in.
I like your post too, but I can offer you a bit of constructive criticism as far as why it may not have gotten as many upvotes. One is the tags that you used. I don't think that people who want to read about "life", "science" and "health" are really going to appreciate this. "philosophy" maybe, but probably not so much.
Also, yours was more of a "make you think" post, whereas mine was more of a "we should take action and do this" post. I think the criteria that people use to upvote the two types of posts is slightly different. If you are writing something to make people think, you almost have to have a mind-blowing post to get appreciated. Just making it interesting isn't always enough. For a "lets do this" post, it is more of people mulling over the idea and thinking "would I want this to happen?" and "can it be done?". Those are easier mental hurdles for a reader to overcome.