You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Steemit Just A Consensus of Greed Over A Consensus of High Quality Content?
@alexgr, I think the goal isn't equality but quality of posts. Being an established member shouldn't mean your quality can suffer and still trend. While I admit it's possible that there are lots and lots of people with very bad taste in poetry who are voting up a storm, I fear Occam's razor suggests that the simpler possibility of there being a real flaw in the curation structure. You probably understand this better than I do and would love to have my mind changed.
For poetry in particular there may be a "flaw" in that the curators may not be poetry experts - so they may be upvoting without the proper "criteria", if you will.
The number of big curators is small. Meaning that the range of their accumulated interests will also be small compared to the diversity of a platform that has thousands of people writing. Still, if they are interested in technology, and not art, photography or poetry, they may be upvoting art/photography/poetry etc in order to diversify the content of the platform and incentivize that material as well. In that case, yes, perhaps not the best poetry (or art) will get upvoted but it's better than no poetry (or art) getting upvoted. This could be fixed through something like what Smooth does where he hires a curating committee... perhaps you could have art experts, poetry or novel experts etc etc and have them determine where the whale upvotes should go.
I frequently vote for posts based on "feeling". I'm not an expert in photography, poetry, or many other fields. If I like the person and they are supporting the community by engaging and sharing the wealth per say, I will upvote a post I like even if an expert would find it flawed.
Would I do this if I was a whale? Probably. I'd just lower my voting power to distribute more.