You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: New @sndbox Curation Guidelines Brainstorm
Thank you for the feedback on our new structure @fingersik. While you put us in a bit of a pickle regarding how we should vote on this... you bring up some excellent points and thorough criticism that will help us shape our support moving forward. We believe this new curation baseline is a healthier standard that we will continue to finesse and improve upon.
Right now we believe this post balances a line between Tier 2 and 3.
- 2 - Because this qualifies as extensive original content in our book, it's valuable feedback and we encourage thorough open discussions like these.
- 3 - Because this is primarily discussion based material and not "project, campaign, or community hub" oriented. (We do want to emphasize that a Tier 2 vote is rare without the presence of a project, campaign or Sndcastle.)
In this case, the tie went to "the runner" so to speak. Importantly, we should also note that percentages are representative of proportions and are subject to change as time goes on.
Many thanks and Steem on!
That was precisely my aim:P. I tried to hit upon the unfinished parts of the guidelines. As I already afirmed, it is a huge step forward in our curation practiques.
As @leaky20 below said:
Now that you further explained the strategy you want to follow regarding the bigger upvotes I think it would be much better to explicitly state that for example the 100% upvote can be cast only on thorough @sndbox projects (instead of the word count and picture count), the 50% for shorter project related article and in unique circumstances on very informative posts and so on. Better put, i think you should remove the "examples" of the articles that are eligable for the bigger upvote, but state the specifics that need to be fullfilled (and as we can see the word count and picture count is not THAT important in this regard)