You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Simple No Hassle Bot Setup Guide to Upvote the Same Posts as Any Top Curator.
Is there data to support this claim? My tutorial is a lemming setup to follow a top human curator. Cannot comment on the algo part.
100 votes, 9 views of average is not "evident" enough?
Evidence of what? Your comment seems to imply that there would be more views with less bots, where is the data for that claim?
I can tell you what there would be less of with less bots and that is votes.
Every bot that leeched the $10/9/8/7/6/5/4/3 bucks from the account creation, diluted steems value to a point where only whales count... Look up the definition of "curation", blind voting is something very different. Bots playing ping-pong bidding on posts for x or y reason.
It is not blind voting, that implies the votes are completely random. I was not around for or aware of bots leaching the account creation funds. Is there any documentation on this?