RE: STEEM Voter Update (Voting Realizations)
I guess I'm one of the 2 people that read your post. To be honest, I don't really like the idea of autovoting. I upvote on a daily basis, but I read the posts and usually comment as well.
Distribution is sort of an issue, but delegation helps a lot to even out the playing field. At the same time, I guess you can say that it is one of the perks of being an early investor (having massive amounts of SP).
But you did make a good point about being relevant. I feel like 95% of my followers are just bots or something. Even when I look at really popular Steemians like Sweetssj, the number of followers vs upvoters is quite alarming. She has over 27k followers, yet on each of her posts, she only has about 2000 votes on it.
I think communities will help to bring people closer and stay relevant. Nowdays, everyone is bombarded with content and it is easy for anyone to get looked over.
The bottom line is that there are challenges on this platform and it isn't about making things fair and perfect, you just need to find opportunities in these challenges.
Yep you are one of the 2. Hahhah!
Yeah the ratio of followers to average upvotes / post is pretty crazy for sure. Sometimes we see that on YouTube with the amount of subscribers to the amount of views on videos but usually it doesn't seem as bad as it is on here.
My worry is that the opportunity on here will be more aligned with focusing 100% on profitability and since the distribution was so messed up from the beginning that ultimately it will seem to be a great investment for people who had tons of STEEM from the beginning and then won't be able to retain the masses for sustainable amounts of time.
Ultimately I'm bullish on STEEM and will continue to achieve more power and keep building overtime.
That kind of ratio on YouTube only happens to people that have "fallen off." Here, the ratio is low even though the person is basically the poster child of the site.
If the price of Steem increases, we can expect our SP to go a lot further. Sure, whales will able to give someone $1000, but maybe with our SP we can at least give ourselves $20 per vote which is still pretty darn good.
I think it's important to focus on your own improvement instead of comparing yourself to whales or worrying about what others are doing. It is helping me at least lol
It is true though but I think the frustration can come if a person starts to feel like they would have been better off just working a low paying job and then powering that money up and then started blogging with the power. That is the mind bender and I get to that point several times on here even though I have a handful of power.....etc. But I'm not going to stop. Eventually I will have more power and hopefully relative to what other people have it will be enough to have a more tangible effect and keep growing.
I was recently watching a video which talked about Youtube across various niches. They talked about the amount of followers GaryVee has versus watch time and upvotes and his is actually very low, but in his case it's due to him encouraging people to get out and take action as well as his audience being a bit older and having jobs and working on hustles, where as someone making Youtube videos for teenagers, they get home from school and sit on Youtube from 4pm to 10pm so those Youtubers are going to have a lot more watchtime and upvotes.
That makes sense..... kids get really engaged into some of these YouTube stars for sure. I feel like the making money niche and some of my crypto videos on YouTube had high engagement but of course that was all a waste for now because they still haven't monetized that channel. I basically got too pissed off about it so I can't make videos for that channel for the most part until they monetize me. It was a calculated bet I made to expand my reach and it really burnt a lot of my time up for no real gain. Luckily the stuff did get published here as well and I was able to earn something but wasn't what I intended.
Yeah that new policy really sucks, I would have thought the better way to handle it would have been to grandfather in people who were already previously monetized or at the very least who were in que to be reviewed. It seems wrong to retroactively enforce a policy when that's not what the expectation was previously.
One other twist to this policy which I didn't know until today was it's not like once you hit the 1,000 subs and 4,000 watch hours your gurnateed to get on, you still have to go through a manual review and not only that but they always look at your past 12 months so its not as if you can build up a channel adn then move on to something else. I suppose that is possible but if the channel starts falling off and doesn't maintain the 4,000 watch time and 1,000 subs they will demonetize it. I have one older channel that just runs passively but I'm going to have to go in from time to time and make some vdis just to make sure it stays live.
Yeah it is ridiculous and it is so BS that they don't automatically monetize me after going way past 1000 subs and 4000 watch time. I have told myself I'm not going to do much with the channel until I get monetized but like you said I might even slip out of being qualified some how. It is total BS and they are really dropping the ball.
I see so many channels that are monetized that are complete copyright infringements. like the whole channel is just stuff they pulled off TV.
Yeah it amazes me how some people literally will post tv episodes and stuff and are running ads every 3 minutes and they have no issues and then someone uses a 10 second clip in a video they are making which should be allowed by creative commons and they get a copyrigth strike.
Yeah it makes no sense. I have seen channels that have videos that they have probably made $50,000 to $100,000 off ad revenue from songs and other people's content
I wonder what the grey areas are. When I workout I listen to a lot of personal development videos which is like Jim Rohn and Les Brown and Tony Robbins speeches with movie clips playingin the background. Not sure if that is blatantly against policy or if its okay since they've essentially tied that all together does that make it a new work of art?
Another thing I see that I think is blatantly just trying not to get caught is you can watch some TV episodes on Youtube but they will make a small screen within a background, I'm guessing whatever system Youtube uses to catch duplicate content can't pick up a frame within a larger design.
Na, thats typical on social media. On facebook, people with 5k friends only get a few dozen likes a post :)