Rewards as an indicator of quality

Over the last few days I have noticed a few comments posted about reward / payout as an indicator of content quality. This view has a few fundamental issues that should be addressed. Though I am probably not the right one to do it here goes.

Firstly, quality itself.

Quality is the standard of something when measured against similar kinds of things. Some factors are objective (materials), some more subjective (craftsmanship). From a manufacturing perspective quality looks at defects and consistency. But when it comes down a lot of consumption goods, quality is often in the eye of the beholder (subjective), just like beauty. And just like beauty, social proof and culture does play a role.

However, social proof and reward alone is a poor indicator of quality and usefulness as if it was, the Twilight Saga would be acclaimed the world over as the triumphant return to quality film making and acting.

Secondly, the rewards.

Most of the rewards at Steemit go to established users. The ones who have been here since the beginning and built up a customer base. Remember though, their base also contains people who have been here from the beginning when rewards for simple posts ran into the tens of thousands. That turns into a lot of voting power and curation awards in time too.

There are of course relationships that have been built and maintained in the last year also and many continue to support each other still and with high voting power, this translates into high rewards for the receivers.

You may notice that some posts only a minute or two old are already running into the higher figures. This is because bots of high influence are automatically supporting some posters. Quality of post doesn't necessarily come into it but it is quite possible history of quality does. This would be the consistency mentioned up a few lines.

There are also some topics that attract more of the high voters too. Steemit and cryptocurrency are two of these. This makes sense because the high voters with equity in site are interested in these things plus, since they are also likely among the first users, they are also likely the type of person who is interested in these technological areas and their development.

Tagging these topics does not guarantee reward success though because remember that the bots are mostly targeting longer term users and the topics are saturated with attention grabbing attempts.

Quality + Reward

Combined, rewards as an indicator of quality falls down for some of the reasons mentioned. It is not, not an indicator it is just not a very useful one since it doesn't actually rate quality therefore doesn't narrow the field of choice significantly.

On top of this, a new user to the platform could post the most brilliant, thoughtful and practical post the site has ever seen. Yet, few see, upvote or resteem it as they have yet to establish a user base and unless an influential user votes or shares it, it is unlikely to gain traction in the system.

There is also another factor where perhaps I find myself currently. When joining Steemit there is quite a lot of good support ( for example @curie ) to help new authors build a following but at a certain reputation, (62?) the support stops. It is meant that at this point there is a large enough support base to keep the author going. This is not always the case of course.

After some time, of slogging away, it is possible to again gain some bot favour by continually delivering quality content. But this takes time and a lot of work but (I hope) the continuous action is worth it in the end. Personally, in this reward lull period, I have increased my output a little, diversified content and also invested heavily in honing skills. There is of course the temptation to flood content and take many small rewards. The risk I see here is that it is hard to build a reputation (not the platform rep) of engaging content that users will want to interact with.

How to actually rate quality?

There is no easy way to rate the quality of the content but the first step would be understanding what you yourself understand as quality. This would mean being objective with what you read and reading from varied sources to form a quality baseline. This is subjective. Outsourcing this stage to others means that you consume what others think is worthy. Anyone out there in a career they don't like?

Secondly, you may want to read some of the comments that are received by authors. Social proof is of little value on the large scale but at a more granular level, it can be very valuable. You can learn a lot about an author and what is on offer by the way in which followers engage with the work. It is also beneficial to follow and chase the author recommendations made in the comments. There are curators with little financial influence but spend a great deal of time reading and sharing quality.

Which leads to the third. What is of value to you. If jumping on popular, upvoted content is of value to you, go ahead and jump. But in general, quality has to provide functionality as well. And even an article you disagree with can do that. Evaluate whether the content you are consuming is adding value to your life. Not just monetary value of course but there may be that too. Look to consume the kind of information that will broaden your thinking and support your development. Faster, stronger, higher kind of stuff. This way, regardless of whether there is money in it, there is value.

Many Steemit paths

There are many ways to both receive and provide value in Steemit and in the long-run, many of those may not be tied directly to a currency reward. In time, this platform could really develop into something great if investments are made into growth areas. In general, quick rewards are short-sighted with narrow benefits for a few only. Given a chance, this can provide wide-ranging benefits to many and push into as yet, unexplored areas.

To do so though, it needs to differentiate itself further than a reward based Facebook. It has to evolve into a platform where people can grow and learn as individuals within communities that provide value. To be an individual one must take the path to discover the self and already in Steemit, there are many authors of writing and thought quality to peruse, consider and question. Many of these do not appear in the trending pages.

But if only the ones with high rewards are getting read, this will mean that the range of topics stays narrow and the overall attractiveness of the platform is left to only doing it for the money. Doing it for the money is what people do at jobs. Many people are here to get away from that kind of behaviour. They are looking to build a life of value and if we act well, post well and support well, we can make a real difference in real people's lives.

To finish off

This is obviously not a guide. I wrote this so people that are new in can get a bit of an understanding of what is going on and how it works. I also hope that it will inspire people to do the hard yards and look for quality and more importantly, post quality content. Maybe it will also motivate someone to push through the lull period where I find myself. Maybe it will help someone new, find someone new.

I am quite sure that our infatuation of blindly jumping on popular and calling it quality is part of the reason the real world is in such a shambles. Social-proof through fame and fortune is a big part of what has lead to massive divisions between groups and a largely disillusioned populace globally.

At Steemit, we have the chance to rebuild the world starting online but, if we build the foundations based on the models of the past we are bound to eventually run into the same problems in the future. This is why history repeats, it is not because it has to. Aren't we here to try something different, build something different, show the establishment what is possible, how decentralisation destroys their outdated and discriminating model of control?

If so, we have to rethink what quality of life actually means.

Taraz
[ a Steemit original ]