RE: Who Needs Steemit?
Facebook had an consistent organic audience and that's why it took off (invite only). People were the same age and started finding their friends from elementary school and such. It seems Steem was interesting to crypto and bloggers.. we saw communities emerge over time such as the anarchy community or the chinese, spanish, etc. The problem is - a lot of the content is low percentage - which makes this site niche. I could read an authors first book - or I could read Dickens. I think most people would rather spend the 5 hours with Dickens than with someone learning how to write (but not everyone). We all only have so many hours in our lives and there is already so much great content. That's why Reddit makes sense - point people to interesting content that was created by someone better than you. Steemit content is being labeled as "curated" - but it is a useless task. When the website's owner and some girl eat dumplings - the post trends number one and makes hundreds of dollars. What would that content be worth off the site? Do you really think "Nike" or "Coca-Cola" would come along , see that, and invest a wack of money? Why should I even know who the CEO of this site is? Mark Zuckerberg isnt out there trolling comment sections on Facebook and the only reason most people know who he is - is because his few lines of PHP changed the world - he will forever be a historic figure - I dont think thats what we are seeeing here. Is there value in it long term? Is there any evergreen search value to it? If not - whats the point? This site has always been sold as a blog for dollars platform - its only natural for people to leave when they feel like they arent being rewarded fairly. On the curation end why do we bother voting at all if its an arbitrary action? The "whale" vote is all that really matters - I had over 1800 votes on a post today that made $40. Its a lot like the popular group in high school - except im pretty sure none of them were in the popular group.
Niches are "a specialized but profitable segment of the market". That's a positive thing to be. Even if we don't take on the world in the first few years, a niche is exactly what we intend to be.
Is that what Reddit does??? Reddit makes no sense to me and I've never been pointed to anything worth seeing on it.
You're right that the curators could do a better job. However this particular post is of interest to this particular community. And I don't think that post looks bad at all for making that kind of money. I think it's more important for the trending page to look like a lottery where any kind of content (that isn't complete garbage) could make it. The issue I see (although it's been changing lately) is when the same authors are always trending and it doesn't look like such a fun game anymore.
It is far too early to be talking about advertising companies taking over the site especially those the size of Nike and such. It took Facebook 5 years to realise its potential for advertising revenue.
LOL. First of all, neither of the co-founders have ever been seen "trolling" on steemit. There may be some disagreements here and there, but their opinions are always voiced respectfully. Secondly, I think it's brilliant that Ned and Dan take some of the little time that they have to interact with their userbase. Zuckerberg did do the same when his userbase was as tiny, but Facebook worked in a different way. You had "friends" and acquantances from the same university as you and that's who you interacted with. Zuckerberg was thought to be a figure who would be remembered historically but if he will be he will infamously remembered for monetising peoples data before the blockchain came along and screwed Zuckerberg over by giving people a way to monetise their own data! And then who will be remembered?! Satoshi?? Ned and Dan maybe?
No disrespect but now you're starting to sound bitter... And also, none of your posts ever had 1800 votes... I do understand that the curation is flawed at the moment as the system is only gradually becoming decentralised. As Ned said in his debate this week, steem is just a baby right now, and it's up to us to nourish it to help it grow into an independent adult that no longer needs to be changed and satisfies the majority of people. That's going to take a long time and it's not going to be an easy task. But I believe we have the right leaders and a huge resource of passionate people who will push steem in the direction that is best for all of us over time - even those you might think don't have power.
Your right it was 1825 votes. https://steemit.com/steemsports-nhl/@steemsports/steemsports-toronto-maple-leafs-vs-anaheim-ducks-mass-sp-distribution-game Do you want to see the one where Dan downvoted me?
I am very happy to see Dan downvoting steemsports, yes. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It's vote buying and should be considered by the entire community as abuse of the system, especially when the content is good enough and popular enough to get steem without buying the votes. (both from upvotes and from allowing people to bet with STEEM as the currency)
You are a hypocrite - You wallet looks like an @SteemSports billboard.. Its such an abuse you just cant help but play? We both play @SteemSports - I knew we had something in common.