[Steemit] My Idea for Paid-For Whale Curation
I was enjoying a post by @brandonfrye explaining how to use the upvote bots. I enjoyed the video and found it informative. Especially that he encourages people to use the bots only with GOOD CONTENT.
Bribe-A-Bots
People are abusing the upvote bots and it's wrecking Steemit's curation system.
When an upvote is given for lousy content, as a result of a money transfer, it's a bribe. That is why I call the upvotes bots "Bribe-a-bot". Upvotes on garbage posts destroys the Steemit curation system and devalues the platform in general.
The automated upvote bots are fulfilling a demand motivated by wealth generation. Bots cannot legitimately curate.
If an upvote bot upvotes good content, I feel a bit differently. I figure it's something a whale would probably upvote anyway if they had the time to curate it. And it's worth promoting on to the trending page for more exposure.
That gave me an idea: Whales do not have TIME to curate. Maybe steemit users can pay a whale for his TIME.
An Alternative Idea: Invest in a Whale Curation
Here is a system that I would like to see on steemit.
Pay an established fee for a "whale curation", and receive a percentage upvote based on quality of content. Maybe different investment fees for time-frames for manual curations, premium for 1-3 hour, discounts for 8-12 hours or bargain price for 24 hour curation. Refunds for low quality content according to predefined standards.
This service would be a lot more honest and wouldn't break the Steemit curation system. It would also incentivize people to make quality posts before submitting them for review. It would also employ people to curate, similar to how curie works.
Also, the payout rewards could be HUGE, if the content is excellent, since the upvote is distributed to fewer posts. The fee is not for the upvote, but the curation and upvote potential. It's risk free, since you will be refunded your fee if your post doesn't qualify.
The paid for whale curation system is motivated by maintaining steemit integrity by rewarding quality content. Humans can legitimately curate.
Potential Problems
A single whale can't do all the curating. They would hire curators to do the curating.
One potential problem that would have to be overcome with this system is biased upvoting. Every curator has certain bias and it will show in their curating. Finding curators that would award post which meets the predefined criteria an upvote regardless of whether they agree with the content, is critical.
Another is personal favoritism or special interests. Awarding big upvotes to friends and families or even worse yet... alt accounts of the curators. That's a huge no no. Even if it's quality content, no cronism allowed on this system.
Would this work?
So that's my idea. It might not be original, it's possible this has been considered or even tried before. But there is nothing like this on Steemit to my knowledge right now. The closest service I know of is Curie. Would this system work? Would it flop? What are some other potential problems? I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
how can get upvote....?
I'm going to give you one - just because I feel like it...
thanks my dear friend.....
how can get upvote..my dear friend
Thanks for the excellent question.
For me, my friend, any idea which would help the quality writers get their good content out there is a good idea. Does it have some negative sides? Possibly yes, but what plan for anything is ever perfect.
Would this system work? I don't know. The only way to find is to try and establish something according to your idea and test it. One thing is for sure. Bad content will devalue the platform. That is why new ways of promoting good content are most welcome. :)
Great idea my friend. Let's hope somebody in the future will read this post and give it a try. :)
Thank you for your feedback! Appreciate it. @ironshield
Great thoughts! I have seen some services advertised that do something like this, but they're minnows, not whales. To really work, it would need to be whale's voting power, even if they outsource the review.
It would be set up like any other voting bot, with a large paid-for delegation. To sustain that, the "fee" for curation potential would have to be really big. That's why the refund. Maybe a 90% refund to help sustain the bot to pay for delegation fees. @ironshield
Very good suggestion @ironshield. Following the principle of BE-THE-CHANGE, why not make such a system or pitch the idea to some whales and help them manage the system. It would be nice to see you do such for the community. Cheers!
#AIR-CLINIC
I agree, the best path for an idea is to implement it. My biggest obstacle is time. Once we have a 48 hour day requiring no sleep, I can work my double employment properly. :-) @ironshield
I think there is different group trying to do this as you have mentioned, e.g curie, qurator etc. I am always in support of manual curation.
I would like to see more manual curation and less automated bot upvoting. @ironshield
Who are well wishers of the platform, they will always talk on behalf of manual curation. It will increase the value of this community as well.
I think it is a good idea to pay or honor curators for good content. Maybe we need some categories of "relevant" content ? Topics which are relevant to develop Steemit communites but do not get sufficient upvotes right now.
E.g. I think it would be brilliant to have more creative people here. I invited some adhd and autism friends with a lot of potential benefit. But it will take a lot of time until they get noticed.
Would you consider posing some links here? I wouldn't mind curating ADHD and AUTISM posts. @ironshield
Here's a question I have though. Who or what determines "Quality Content" Quality on some terms can be measured by predetermined standards to an extent, but quality content itself also is relative to how the reader accepts and interprets the content. So how do we come up with standards that can be measured but is also fair?
That's an excellent question, worthy of an entire post! I would say the parameters of "quality" is somewhat subjective.
As you said the predetermined standards are easy to come up with - nonplagiarized original content, respectable length, original photos (or maybe sourced photos) and video, etc.
As far as subjective interpretation, that's up to the curators. If they are impartial and balanced in their curating, you will usually see some quality standards develop that are pretty fair. It takes experience for a curator to develop reasonable standards of quality (beyond the obvious). Curie curators do this all the time, they look through tons of junk posts to find that one gem.
That's a small answer to a big question. @ironshield
You're correct. It could be an entire post, at the same time it's definitely something we should all keep in mind when building tools to make Steemit a better place. This community is amazing and people in it seem to care about the platform they're investing in.
That's an awesome idea and something I would like to see as well. I did learn today that @buildawhale (which is one of many upvote bots out there) actually does a curation post every day where they actually talk about some of the posts that they've upvoted. This is "sort of" a step in the right direction. But I think it would be better if there was some way to earn your upvote percentage based off of how good your content is.. and not how much you send them. Anyways, maybe we're a long way off from that but I would like to see it.
My wife @lturner curates the buildawhale daily digest and ironically, that's how we discovered your content. The digest IMO is a valuable added bonus to the promotion received by the upvote bot service. As I mentioned in the post, I don't take issue with the bot as much as I take issue with it promoting bad posts. Many users who use this service feel their posts are 'undervalued', but they are the ones to determine it's 'value' by their bid, not by their content. @ironshield
https://steemit.com/buildawhale/@buildawhale/buildawhale-curation-digest-01-03-17
I can see using an upvote bot for someone else's post as a gift or promotion of a good post.
I could see doing that. @ironshield
It's great to read your article. I have lots of up-votes and comments every day, I get the reply of the comment but I do not get the vote. Now how do we improve?
A few things I notice. First you upvote yourself far too much:
Second, you upvote so frequently that your voting power is depleted to almost 0. It will take about 112 hours of no voting to get this restored to 100%. I would suggest taking a week off and begin again.
@ironshield