You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Draining reward pool with auto-votes by @dana-edwards (73 reputation)...We must stop it!
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.
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.
"...what the market prefers." You obviously look at Steemit only thru money perspective. Do you ever post because you want to make positive change or because 'market' wants it? According to your words, you post frequently as 'market' wants.
We all have to make money to fund whatever it is we are doing. So if Steemit wants people to become long term content producers then of course it has to have enough resources to encourage people to continue to improve the quality of their content.
Markets can encourage quality content. And yes I adapt to the market, as that is what any rational person will do. Do you think people can afford to blog and provide content to you for free?
Whou said it should be free?
By number of your comments I see I touched you on wrong place. You can't count this many of yours comments on last 10 of your articles. :P
I'm not against your criticism of Steemit auto-voting, feel free to post on it and I posted a similar question myself asking whether or not Steemit is for AI or for people. The difference is I did not post it from a position of jealousy where I singled out any blogger to claim that because that blogger is making more money than me, or posting content more frequently than I am, that somehow we need to do something about the bots because this blogger is getting upvoted.
If the bots are a problem then explain why they are a problem and what to do about it. Show bloggers how they can earn money under your improved system if you have any improvements, and if you have criticisms on content quality then give suggestions. Otherwise it just looks like you have a partial argument but based in jealousy.
Yes it's a valid argument that bots could be influencing the content for good or for bad, but manual evaluation could still result in the same and then are you still going to complain? If a bot or a human values a particular content it will be upvoted, and it is true that bots auto-vote, but humans also subscribe to content producers.
So either way you could have complaints. You could complain that some bloggers have too many subscribers and are draining the reward pool. I suggest to you to make a new post which addresses auto-voting without turning it into a hit piece against me.
Jealousy? :D Yes Dana, I have pick on you! :P
If you don't get it, my suggestion is no auto-votes. If you like the article, is it so hard to upvote it? If you like the author, you will read his articles and not give him upvote without reading it.
Is my suggestion so hard to understand?