Ramblings about curation rewards

in steemit •  2 years ago

Let me start by saying, I don’t know the answer. I’m pretty good at asking questions and describing problems. But answers are much more elusive to me. Don’t get me wrong, I love solving problems, and, in my field, I’m great at it. If you throw 85 individual, different parts of a random physical object (a display, a machine, piece of furniture you name it) onto the ground, I could begin assembling it like I had done it before. If the problem is defined and if it’s physical, I can solve it, usually on straight intuition.

Hold on, let me back off for a second. This wasn’t supposed to be about me. This was supposed to be about Steemit. And, more specifically, it was supposed to be about Steemit’s curation method. Like I said earlier, I don’t know the answer, I’m just describing a problem (and I’m good at that ;).

For the minnow, the curation system is a weird game. A game of trying to anticipate an article making it to the front page as early as possible yet, not too early, because then you’re in part of the formula that’s trying to weed out bots. Hmmm, how do I accomplish this? I could watch the new page, or I could look at the active page and look for newer things with promise? And the things I actually like, I’ll hold off on voting for, because they don’t fit the parameters of the game, but, instead, I’ll post comments that matter, because I care. WTF?

When digg.com was the web 2.0 site to watch, volume was the key to the front page, just keep submitting things, over and over again and you might get there, then you might get notoriety and blog visits if that’s your thing, or, for a few superusers, a paycheck from digg.com. Later, after digg.com died a quick-sale death, a site called newsvine.com came out (also bought out by a large corporation, still up and running but blahhh) they offered to pay their users an even split of the ad revenue. So, you had to submit things fast, create awesome things, but then go around doing the footwork, reading, upvoting, and commenting on other people’s stuff. Basically, you had to take part in the community, by showing interest in others to insure your things would become popular.

Then there’s Reddit, I’m pretty sure that Redd’it’ provides the “it” in Steemit. You vote for things because you like them, you comment on things, because you have something interesting to add. But, more often than not, you comment on things because you want to show that you are as funny as the other people saying hilarious shit. Whenever I want (or need) to read something funny and creative, I go to the reddit comments of, well, almost anything. And, I let people know that their comments are hilarious by voting for them...liberally. Funny +vote, funny +vote and on and on. That’s how they know they’re funny, or, in the lesser cases, submitted something worthwhile or meaningful.

That’s why Reddit has better content than we currently do at Steemit. Sure, we’re newer, volume is lower, and since we’re new, ¾ of what we do is talk about ourselves. But, having a game of “what might the whale think” or “let’s just vote for chicks” is the wrong result of the system. The successful social media/blogging platform needs to make engagement the highest metric, and it needs to sus out what people like the best, not what they think a powerful person, or a group of powerful people, might like the best.

@JL777 described the time we’re in as the moment right after the Big Bang. He’s probably right. But, with that in our minds, it’s odd enough to think of a blockbuster social media platform that pays it’s content creators AND users, without external revenue (that’s us, steemit.com). Now think of that same system where, it’s not just a mad dash to the funnest thing and behaving in the most social way that you can on social media (ie, saying “fuck yeah, I appreciate you, even if all you did was say, ‘thanks for your story,’ ‘phrasing?’ or ‘I hope things get better’ I appreciate you because you made my day a bit better”) but rather, it is a weird game of “what might the whale think?” What does it mean if the site disincentivizes common social interaction?

After all of my ramblings and assertions that I’m good at describing problems, it comes down to this; it may be the case that opportunity for easy money, cute chicks or the next big thing bring people here, but incentivizing social engagement will keep them here. Right now, as a minnow, or as person aware that my behavior has a direct impact on the STEEM points I receive, I feel that there is a disincentive to genuine social behavior. And, let’s be clear here, I was drawn to Steemit for money, the next big thing, and to look at cute chicks (and fun things in general.) But what I really want, is a genuine, online (fake) social experience even if I must upvote til my voting power approaches 00.00%. So Suckit whales, I just want to interact, and FWIW, fuck needless pictures in articles, I just want to read.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Yeah the reduction of rewards if you upvote too early is stupid. In the end bots can't know if a content is really good like a human can, then if the whales upvote based on quality too, then a human can curate way better than bots, so why this early voting penalty ?

Anyway the bots know this and they upvote later, so it didn't really solve the problem. I think this penalty should be removed, to give more incentive to the minnows to do the hard task of filtering content in the 'new' section. Currently it's a lot of work and gives only a fraction of what you would make upvoting random stuff in the hot section.


Thanks for the feedback.

Simply put; wether your a minnow or a whale you cannot understand curation awardings.
Let me digress, by understanding the algorithm of search engine optimisation people can con the system of the internet in their favour; so the punishment causes people to be careful trying to rig the system.
But no one can know the system since the users are always changing; and different users act slightly differently from each other. Even if this could be reliably factored the people policing the algorithm change their policies and procedures in response to users action to reflect different priorities they want their search engines to capture and present.
The Steemit algorithm follows what the owners want the system to reward, present and reflect...
Anyways that is my two cents worth of opinion, except some people have a greater understanding of such things. So while a whale can never know exactly how steemit rewards the whale will most likely get it right far more than the minnow (or dolphin). Over time the minnows and dolphins might learn enough to migrate into the deep ocean as well ;)


Right, the whale has a much better idea of what the whale thinks.


I mean all the information is the same in front of the minnow or the whale. It is just the whale has the attitude, knowledge and skills to focus on the more important bits of info; stuff the minnow simply does not realise is important, nor does the minnow understand why it is important.

This is why dolphins should be catching whales and minnows should be grabbing dolphins; (wink, wink) ... [a.k.a. read = kidnapping :) j/k ], anyways you get the idea, market makers are not born, they are simply committed, talented and educated...


Don't forget that the weight of the whale's SPs impact his own votes.

"incentivizing social engagement will keep them here." Totally. You are not alone in being excited about the "genuine, online (fake) social experience" to the point where your willing to participate regardless of rewards or penalties. For instance, I hardly visit Facebook anymore because comments, as often as not, are in angry disagreement. On Steemit, far far fewer (perhaps because comments advocate posts). So much more potential for constructive conversation! I expect and cross fingers for more development towards good conversations where multiple perspectives can interact and disagree without losing their basic valuation of each other as people.

My favorite take on a Guidelines page, which I imagine you'll enjoy, is jsteck's Minnow Code: https://steemit.com/steemit/@jsteck/minnow-code-of-conduct-how-one-minnow-would-like-to-see-the-rest-of-the-school-behave

I enjoyed the tone and candor of this post and hope to hear more of your thoughts as Steemit evolves. Following. :)


Thanks, was fun to write.