RE: Draining reward pool with auto-votes by @dana-edwards (73 reputation)...We must stop it!
Now to be fair you did make one valid criticism, that I post based on news feeds, which is true. I do see news articles and do post my commentary, but the content in my commentary is entirely original, as are the discussions in the comment section. I'm guessing you don't really read my posts and just see that I post a lot on a particular day.
Anyone can read lots of articles and post original commentary, just like anyone can provide book reviews, movie reviews, top ten lists, or tell personal stories. Why don't you try that?
The reward pool is shrinking, but it's not because of me. The price of Steem goes down and there are less rewards to go around. People who post (including me) get less for each post. Our options are to either post less so as not to drain the reward pool or post more.
Originally Steem had a rate limit of 4 posts per day. This rate limit was probably to address the exact problem of some people posting frequently. Your solution to the problem is to punish the productive posters, which will only result in them not posting at all because why not post elsewhere for a guaranteed fixed rate per post?
Yes you are correct that we need more original content, but if my readers want more original content from me specifically (not from new posters) then they vote for me. New posters can and do make money commenting on the blogs of others, but if there is less reward pool money to go around what do you suggest we do about it? Should the established posters stop posting so as to be fair to the new posters?
You are missing the point. Your every article gets same amount of money no matter what you post. What I saw, you didn't write longer article in your words. Some people do write longer articles and after few articles they see few bucks or pennies. Who deserve more money? Who made greater effort to make article? You or them?
I wrote 4 long articles in last 10 days. For all 4 I woudn't get 30$. When I see one your 'here is news' article getting 30$, I don't want to post it because that is not fair. This is not about me, this is about a lot of people giving up after seeing same people getting all the money all the time and their effort not being appreciated. You are perfect example of that because you don't even write original article.
And there are people who get hundreds of dollars per post, and who post content which I don't find particularly interesting, but who am I to complain? They have thousands of followers and someone thinks their content is interesting enough. Steemit has always been where established bloggers have the advantage, or Youtubers who come from different parts of the Internet come to Steemit and bring their people and make a lot with each post, but this problem isn't such a big deal with the reward pool is large, yet when it shrinks people complain. This is not new.
You wrote 4 long articles but how many followers do you have? How many years have you blogged on Steemit? Do you have more followers than you have posts? I post long and short articles in the same day and you only post 4 long articles over 10 days.
Post frequently, try to post high quality, gain followers, eventually you become established, I've seen it happen on this site. Some are doing better than me by far, some worse, but keep posting. Post until you find a niche which people appreciate and if you think I don't write original articles you must not actually read my articles.
Look at some of the long articles I post if you prefer long articles. I wish there were a larger reward pool but again you offer nothing constructive to improve what you complain about. Finally the length of the post does not determine the value of the post to the reader, but the content and at some points the usefulness and timing do add value.
Also to note, there have been times, where I posted long articles on Steemit and only got less than $10. I could have complained about posts getting $100 or $1000, or I could have quit, but I kept posting adding value to Steem even through the recession, even during those times. When rewards are low people will still post, and when rewards are high people will still post, and months or years later those posts will remain.
It's not always the case that I get a fair reward for my posts whether I post one really long post and get way too little, or I post a series of short posts which some person thinks I get way too much, it's always going to be someone who is not satisfied. Now if the quality of my posts were not good enough to add value then I would have a problem.
Hahaha It's so funny to read someone's opinion who don't want to admit he was draining reward pool. You and me know you did that, no matter what you say.
(If you didn't know, writing good in-depht article sometimes take days. That is not 15 min. you need for 'Here is news' article for auto-votes x 10 per day)
You say it as if "draining the reward pool" by posting content is something the blogger isn't supposed to do. The reward pool exists to reward bloggers who post, including posts like these comments.
As far as how long it takes to write even a short post, it takes around 30 minutes. First you have to find an interesting article, then you have to read and understand it, then you have to write. It can take 20 minutes just to do those steps.
Then you have to provide commentary based on your understanding of the article. Some of the topics I provide commentary on are health related, or research results, which can involve reading academic literature or additional research beyond the article. Then of course there is time spent editing, responding to comments in the post, etc.
Honestly it probably takes more than 30 minutes for each post if I include responding to comments like I'm doing with yours.
And of course I know writing a really long deep article can take days. I've done it hundreds of times. At the same time if what you say is true and I'm capped at $20-30 then do you really think I can spend 12 hours or more on a single long article for $30? You're not being realistic.
I'm sure there are people somewhere in the world who can afford to spend 12 hours on a long article for $30 but if you have to choose between writing 12 articles for 1 hour work each or writing 1 article, which would you choose? Same amount of hours spent on your part either way so you'll adapt to the market.
When the payouts are high, I do tend to write much longer more elaborate articles. When the payouts are low then I have to compete with the bloggers who write shorter articles. That is just the market and not a choice. Either way it does not change the fact that if I don't put in those hours I won't be able to write many short or one long article.
"And of course I know writing a really long deep article can take days. I've done it hundreds of times. At the same time if what you say is true and I'm capped at $20-30 then do you really think I can spend 12 hours or more on a single long article for $30? You're not being realistic.
I'm sure there are people somewhere in the world who can afford to spend 12 hours on a long article for $30 but if you have to choose between writing 12 articles for 1 hour work each or writing 1 article, which would you choose? Same amount of hours spent on your part either way so you'll adapt to the market."
You said it all with this lines. :)
I clicked on your last 10 posts. There is no one that is more than one-minute read. That so great, you did some amazing research!
Just because the post takes a minute to read doesn't mean it's not concise. For example in my post about insulin resistance I explained plenty in that one minute or so you took to read it. Then if you look in the comments I was discussing whether Metformin should be solder over the counter.
It seems to me you are jealous or something. You gave no advice on how I can improve post quality other than to say make it more original and longer. So I show you that on the same day that you complained about I made original posts too, and even a fairly lengthy post, yet you still complain.
Can't make everyone happy.
Reference
Don't have anything against your posts, but have against reward you receive. Auto-votes to be precise.
The auto-votes would only be a problem if the content I produce is not of value. If I am getting 50-100 votes most of the time then the posts for sure have value.
The posts may not have value to you specifically but I cannot please a person who does not share their preferences. As far as bots go, the bots curate and popular bloggers have a lot of followers, so if I had bots would I not vote for the bloggers who I know tend to get a lot of votes so as to make more curation money?
The only thing I'm doing is trying to consistently provide quality content and add value to Steemit. And I try all sorts of different ways such as long posts, short posts, academic style posts, informal style posts, with the goal of increasing followers.
What we see here now is really just the very beginning of what Steem is or can become. It's about having followers for the long term. As far as the post quality, if original content is desired then that content will get the most upvotes and I'll post more of it based on that but so far the content which gets the most upvotes are the content which are commentary.
If I post something very original but it gets less than 100 upvotes but then I post something controversial and it gets over 100 upvotes, this tells me what the market prefers. As for how much money I get per post, that's not decided by me but of course I'm going to think at least right now that more money per post is better, but when there is less to go around then just as with everyone, eventually the $20-30 per post will become $15, then $10, until the market conditions change.
The options? Stop posting or keep posting frequently. Better to keep posting frequently to build the follower base for when the market conditions improve.
By the way, I don't know about you but I don't find it wrong if bloggers adapt to market conditions. That is normal. If bloggers make $100 for their long posts they'll keep making long posts. If the reward pool shrinks so that the amount of reward per post decreases then bloggers will have to post more frequent concise yet valuable content.
Just like you can't expect a blogger to post a book or dissertation in one long post when they can break it up into 20 posts. The people interested in following the research will still read these posts so the content has the same value whether it's in one large post or divided into 20.
The same with news commentary. Many video bloggers do exactly the same thing I do with news commentary but it is in one post as video. They pocket perhaps $200-300 in that one post, and post a few of these in a day, and that's a good day. If you blog by writing you have to write frequently because generally you find people don't have the attention span for long posts.
With every comment you show money is on first place for you.
Money is a means to an end. And if you actually ever read my blog posts you would have read the posts where I explained that wealth isn't only money, and that information is valuable.
Of course you don't even read my posts and probably are afraid of money. Nothing is bad about money if you use it in the right way.