Steem experiment: Burn post #514

In some sense I agree with you* but trending has a dual purpose. One is to show "interesting" content that people might want to view or read, and the other is to show what voters are awarding with payouts. If a lot of payouts are going to these, then why shouldn't that be considered "trending"?

Probably we should have separate lists, but it always starts to get unclear when you try to decide what is "good" or "worthy" of some sort of treatment and what is not. According to whom?

* and this is why I personally vote for the burnposts and comments only after 3 days, so they don't show up as much on Trending. But I can't stop other people from voting earlier, so again, if people are voting, then it really is "trending" isn't it?

$0.00

[-]

medikatie (60) 5 years ago

You're using a lot of words to say that trending posts are those that make lots of money. @Drutter's succinct point is that what's trending is bullshit and spam. A response that bullshit and spam are trending is kind of useless and circular, no?

$0.04

7 votes

[-]

smooth (70) 5 years ago

Sort of. These posts don't make any money, it all goes to @null.

To me it is significant that many voters prefer paying to no one over a lot of the other options, or at least along side them.

So in a lot of ways @Drutter and I (and other @burnpost voters) agree.

The solution is more, better, posts that not only add value but compellingly demonstrate it. There are some posts that outperform burnposts, usually for good reason. We need more of those.

This isn't an issue of Trending, it is an issue of not enough high-value contributions.

$0.00

[-]

captainklaus (64) 5 years ago

It is an issue of trending, if trending is the landing page for newcomers, and all they see is how desperate STEEM's situation is.... same with all the SPUD...

$0.13

1 vote

[-]