The answer is ̶L̶o̶v̶e̶ Math (my own POV, what to do about plagiarism)

in steemstem •  10 days ago

I'm thinking out loud, again. It's just my style and I would also like to spark some debate in the comment section. It's probably not going to happen, but anyway.

As I can see, we have two or three problems at this moment:

  • Plagiarism
  • Shortage of good authors
  • Too big quotas for votes (surprising but true...)

The answer is - Math


Structure of Rewards


Currently, we are using the following voting system:

  • 5/5 %
  • 20/20 %
  • 65/65 %
  • 100/100 %

In order to make the top award attractive for enthusiasts, students and experts in particular fields we need to have about 1.000.000 Voting Power.

Do we have it now - well, yes, thanks to Utopian-io, Curie, steemSTEM, and witnesses who support the project.

Can we sustain the system?


The short answer is - Yes!

According to the current system, we can reward per day:

  • 10 x 65/65 posts
  • 12 x 20/20 posts
  • 20 x 5/5 posts

Are we using all our voting limits: No!?

Currently, we have about 150 active authors (those who post at least once in two weeks).

The system could sustain even 300 authors, posting on average once every 7-10 days (reasonable...).
About 50 of them should be really good authors, capable to produce 1 good post per week (7 per day + 1 "Magazine" + 2 occasional authors). Now we have about 20 such authors.


Stolen from free, from Pixabay

Can we sustain the growth and/or become independent?


Not really :(

Currently, 1.000.000 Powers generate 500 $ per day.
If all 500 are converted to Power, after 1 year, we will have additional +200.000 Power.
Even if somehow we have 300 authors, making +500 Powers per day, 365 days later we will have +400.000 Powers.

This is almost sci-fiction story at this moment.
Who knows, maybe the prices and ratios became more favorable, but at this point, we need to attract "sponsors"


Also, from Pixabay

We need new people and we need new sponsors


Let's define what type of post do we want:

  • Very narrow, difficult, "hard-scientific" posts
  • Enthusiasm, Adventure, DIY, Tutorials
  • Original calculations/ sharing the point of view about the topics
  • General posts, but from 10 sources and many details
  • Posts based of Books/ Wiki/ How to
  • Tweets

There are 3 parameters how we could rate each one of them:

  • the ability to attract sponsors (the first page on Google Search, Open-Source, problem-solving), very important
  • the ability to spark a debate and strengthen the community, important
  • the ability to attract non-STEM votes, actually not important?!

Let me explain the last point, why non-STEM votes are not important.
Last year, @kryzsec made the analysis about steemSTEM members.
Median Voting Power was 75. Let's be generous and say that it's 100.
Per day, we could have about 30 posts. Even if every single one of them attracts astonishing 30 outside votes, it will cover 100.000 Power, or 10% of our "needs". In reality, it will be more likely to have up to 30.000 Powers, no more.

In other words, we are "selling our soul", by fostering low-quality content attractive "for masses" for merely 3%, at best. Keep in mind that regular users will anyway click several trending posts, thus the "content for masses" maybe contributes to 1% in reality.

The price is way too high for this gain because: curators and mentors have to work more, we are chasing away really elite authors (why would Mr.Big participate in Wiki-Rephrasing community?), and we are fostering plagiarism and easy-money schemes. At the end, we actually ostracise such members and the result is nothing but a moneypit.

I'm also wondering, what is the value of Wiki-Rephrase content?
If someone wants to read Wiki - it will go to Wiki... Why would anyone read a poor, butchered text on Steemit?
It also harms the platform, because it's a wonderful anti-commercial.
Come here, to this platform with sh-content, buy sh-coins so you can generate more sh-coins and produce more sh-content!!! :)


In Pixabay we trust!

My proposal for content:


  • Hard Science, 65/65, something like "lab diaries" by @scienceangel or toxicology debunking by @sco
  • Adventures, 65/65, something like @dber or @highonthehog
  • Comprehensive Tutorials 65/65, like @terrylovejoy or @robotics101
  • Point of view that sparks the debates, 65/65, something like @abigail-dantes or @nikolanikola recently
  • General posts, but the top content, 65/65, something like @amavi or @ruth-girl
  • Interactive content, "ask an expert", "identify me", "help me to solve", something like @mountainwashere or @worldwildflora, 65/65 or 20/20, depends - NEW!!!
  • Useful tools (methods, software, tips&tricks), 20/20, something similar to SteemHunt. Short, precise, comprehensive - NEW!!!
  • Comprehensive Photography Courses/ Reviews, 20/20. People love it and it's a sort of technology - NEW!!!
  • Tweets, 5/5. Extremely short, but the Top Content, available only if the author has already won 65/65 "expert awards". The latest scientific news. - NEW!!!
  • Rephrased whatever, 0/0, read Wiki, it's a very nice website
  • Book chapters, 0/0, read a book, books are written by those who know
  • How X works, 0/0, nobody cares, especially if it's rephrased from Wiki or even worst website


One more "business photo" and I'm going to puke... Anyway, thanks Pixabay

My proposal for New Authors:


  • Hand pick the enthusiasts, massive "shotgun FB shares" don't work
  • Offer some support for adventurers, 1 post = free gasoline (and food) for that adventure

The natural size of units (from military experience) is:

  • squad (about 12 men strong), in our case "biology" or "physics"
  • platoon (about 40 men strong), in our case Science, or Tech
  • company (about 150, and this is where Dunbar's number strikes). It's our position now.
  • Next formation is a battalion, about 500-800 men strong. In the current situation, this growth simply can't be achieved due to lack of resources and it would probably require splitting the main project into several subprojects

Let's keep the number at 150 great authors and gradually grow towards the number of 200 or 300.
When we achieve the cohesion, mutual interactions and unity - we can start thinking about the future expansion.
"Masses" haven't joined although this exists for more than a year, and they are not going to join. It's a human nature.

My proposal for New Sponsors:


  • we should openly give the credits to witnesses who support us. Advertisement = maybe more support
  • we should orient to something applicative and strength the connections with Utopian-io community
  • we should connect to the "real world" (more details about this in closed discussion)
  • we should foster only excellence, because 5-10 excellent people from the same field could make some wonders. 500 average users can't do anything (@hidden84, please support this with a reference)

If you have any ideas to share - don't hesitate, and let's have a productive debate.


Let's make something great

not "grate" (the allusion on Wiki-Rephrasing)

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I don't understand your new proposal for content, which is what we already do (except for tutorials where I disagree)! You can check this post for more information.

Please also make it clear that those are your ideas and are not shared by the steemstem management. especially the sponsor part and the goals. This is by 1000% not what steemstem is trying to do at the moment.

[upvoted for visibility]

·

This is my own point, with a very first sentence "I'm thinking out loud, again" :)

Sorry if anyone misunderstood this

Even though in the current system, we have sufficient sponsors, I do hope some other whales would dare to step forward and provide us with some more so that other than focusing on articles, good comments of any kind that can be deemed as helpful to the subject of discussion can be rewarded. Maybe around 1/1 or 1/0 or 5/0. I don't know, the management can decide.

Rewarding useful comments can actually encourage people to really contribute to the subject being discussed instead of "nice article" or "I like blah blah blah".

·

subject of discussion can be rewarded

It's a great idea <3 it!

·

I would vote you with all of my 4 hands if that would be possible :D
You are quite good at commenting, I have read many good things. Medicine is that field where EVERYONE should know the basics. You are doing a good engagement work.

I like all the 'NEW!! proposals' you suggested for new authors @alexs1320 :)

The observation you made about the 'wiki-rephrased' posts is an important one. I wonder why those who go for that writing style are shying away from putting more thought into their work.

This is a very interesting post Alex, I am looking forward to following the discussion that is bound to unfold here :)

Best.

·

Thank you for the encouragement :)

Concerning the "easy-Wiki-money", it's probably something you could explain better.

When I write, I write for myself. I'm curious, I want to find out something new, I want to improve the existing and add some new value to the world.
How much money that post will earn - honestly I don't really care.
I like to see a high number of $ because it's boosting my ego, telling me that I was good, but in reality - it all depends on Steem price. And that's something beyond my control.

Plagiarising requires a completely different mindset, values and moral that I can learn about that phenomenon but I can't feel it nor understand it.

If the reward is 5.000.000 $ - I could understand the temptation to sell the principles
But for 5 or 50 $ - I can't understand

You don't want to read about how a washing machine works? :(

·

Are you from France or what :D ?

Last week I've got an offer for insurance with the most terrifying picture for every Frenchman and Frenchwoman.

Waaaashin Machine!!! From Hell!!! It will flooood the apartment, maybe the whole world. *(Noah's wife used one according to the scriptures)

The gates will spontaneously open! And the water will run as a river (of Hell, of course). And a foam of apocalypse will choke a spider. Lovely bathroom spider :'( R.I.P. my secret pet

Fortunately, there is a text about it @ HowStuffWorks:
https://home.howstuffworks.com/washer.htm

I can bet in 5 Steem that there will be a post about wahing machines :D

·
·

I'm not from France. I'm American. There's already been a post about washing machines.... Throws up in mouth a little

·
·
·

LOL :D

·
·
·
·

Burning some excess VP you win a $2 prize

·
·
·
·
·

Cool :)

·

That will be some funny stuffs though.

I like the ideas and I will send your article to mentees for a long time to come. Not all people have the flow of ideas and words with them and if we only focus on the people that will make it we are bound to lose some authors, some of them good.
So I give them example posts in their field of posting and we talk about what the posts should have or not.

MOST IMPORTANT:
Some of the mentees show no interest of posting any article judging by the way they talk after they understand what it takes. By getting more involved myself, I inspire them to write one or two but if they don't see results, they quit.

What I love the most is when articles have that personal touch which makes them much easier to read and enjoy. When I see a mentee doing that I am really happy :)

I had a talk with the leading tech writer of Romania a few weeks ago at a rocket presentation, she was there for the rocket show, but we eventually ended in talking about Steem, SteemSTEM and what is our showcase. It caught her attention and while she refused to being a part of SteemSTEM or Steem in general, she wanted to know what real use cases we have.
This is what I am really interested in, the ripple effect. Teaching tech students about STEM while getting financed by SteemSTEM (them, not me :) ). They will make it and some of them will make it big and us with them.
It is harder to estimate the level of ROI but many financial policies have the same method. I don't want to limit our horizon to only the immediate wins.

Without ranting a long post, I want to say that you do throw in a lot of good ideas and the classification and exemplification of articles is also very useful, even if it's your own view only.

I have more stuff to say but I have to fight the chaos in my head :D
Cheers!

Loading...

Tweets, 5/5. Extremely short, but the Top Content, available only if the author has already won 65/65 "expert awards". The latest scientific news

This is actually a pretty good idea, that only acclaimed authors can get 5/5 for "scientific tweets".

·

From my perspective, the quality should never be compromised, but there should be several forms according to writing/ reading preferences: tweets, abstracts, full posts

If you see something worth sharing, just share, 1 min to write and 30s to read.

KISS principle: Keep It Simple and Short

Interactive content, "ask an expert", "identify me", "help me to solve", something like @mountainwashere or @worldwildflora, 65/65 or 20/20, depends - NEW!!!

This is actually a good idea! Maybe we could make a Q&A platform on a Steem blockchain like it's Quora where could people come and ask for a help for something that they don't understand and contributors could be rewarded. That could certainly help us as a community to be promoted on Google pages.

·

Ah, I read someone post about this Q & A app for Steem in utopian-io, he put the GitHub pages too

·

That's nice! Order a post: Demand --> supply

·
·

Definitely agree with this. Sometimes that little bit of motivation from someone interested in a particular question is all someone needs to write on a topic.

I have read your posts several times, but I ran into a problem trying to understand where your original numbers come from.

Currently, we are using the following voting system:

Who is the "we" in this statement? Is it SteemSTEM or Curie or all together or ??

·

It's a grand total. 1.000.000 with 100% currently gives about 50$ on the screen.

steemSTEM trail + Utopian-io has about 1.400.000 Powers

I should explain why 1.000.000 is a nice goal:

1.000.000 means 500 $ generated per day
It also means that we can become more independent and able to award 10 nice posts every day or up to 50 authors.

1.000.000 is not impossible to achieve: 2750 per day, divided by 300 users: 9 power per user per day. It's difficult, but not impossible.

1.000.000 is also nice for "politics", because it's equal to 2.000 MV. That amount of votes can move a witness up for several positions.

There is something more. If we manage to fill the First page on Google with our good content - it can be a selling point. Look, we have done a lot, we have a vision, support us to make even more!

·
·

So when you say "grand total", you are talking about all the posts on Steemit, not just posts related to SteemSTEM, correct?

I thought the numbers would be higher. I agree that what you propose is totally doable. Not sure everyone understands how to help make this happen and what would be the benefit to them. Have you thought about writing a second post for the general public? Your post is great, but highly technical, and if you really want to reach that goal, you are going to need to appeal to a wider audience.

·
·
·

"grand total", you are talking about all the posts on Steemit, not just posts related to SteemSTEM, correct?

Only for steemSTEM. The total power of Utopian-io is 3.6 M.

This post is mainly for STEM members. People have? free will, there is nothing that can be done globally (on the platform). However, as in real-life, you can join a community and if you act together, maybe you can change something.

·
·
·
·

Very true. Working together we can make a much bigger impact.

Now that I understand that this is only SteemSTEM, it makes much more sense. Thank you so much for the patience. I want to go through it again and think about your proposal. Cheers!

·
·
·
·
·

STEM is a very special and precious place that must be protected.

Median value of Steemit Post is 0,03 $
Average is 3,00 $

Minimal steemSTEM award is 5.00$ !!!
It's something incredible, and million thanks from me to all the funders.

If someone wants to read Wiki - it will go to Wiki...

Lol, and then again lol :)
Proposals are nice. "Help me to solve" sounds interesting. You stated how quality authors and quality posts are needed... Quality authors are not born, they are made. Maybe we should be looking into tutoring/mentoring/coaching/something for the new authors by those that already produce high-quality posts. The chances of "super" people landing in our laps are low. It is possible but not very probable. Seems to me that we are in need of some mentoring program...

·

Quality authors are not born, they are made.

Amen!

we are in need of some mentoring program...

We have it already but... There is not enough good material. I used to play basketball, I was solid but I can never be Drazen *(Jordan).

From my perspective, we need better scouting. Can a 175 cm guy become a basketball player? Maybe, but the chance is 1 in a 1.000.00. Can 215 cm tall wonder of nature become a new NBA star? Maybe, but the probability is 1 of 6?! Seriously, 1 out of 6!

So... Who is out focus group than? Honest enthusiasts + students + passionate hobbyists
Or random guys who know nothing about anything?

In the first case, you get X good people per invested emotions, time and resources
In the second case, you get Y

X > Y

·
·

hahahahahahahahahahaha, tell me something darling... What is the probability of you talking about probability while I am writing my post about probability? :D This is too good to be true...

Anyway... Yes, I agree, we need better scouting and the focus group you presented seems legit.

I believe you underestimate the amount of good posts. There are many people posting personal stuff about their daily lives. There are many people posting art and stories they created. The original stuff is there. I tend to post on information I am interested in. I have used Wikipedia as a reference...cited of course. I try to draw in as many resources and links as I can, as I don't want to be discredited.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" Hitchen's Razor

·

There is no problem with Wiki, Wiki is a great source. I use it for some facts.
The key element is the additional value of the post in comparison to Wiki.

Take the Wiki page --> Rephrase --> Rubbish
Take the Wiki page --> Expand something --> add remark --> take something from outside source --> take more Wiki --> Great! You made the post better than Wiki, the additional value

Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 16 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.

I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 8 SBD worth and should receive 150 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.

I am TrufflePig, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!

Have a nice day and sincerely yours,
trufflepig
TrufflePig

·

Thank you my dear Bot

Currently, we have about 150 active authors

I am sorry, 150 active authors where? On Steemit overall? This sounds awfully low.

·

On steemSTEM :D

I am totally agree with your new proposal. But there are many powerful members in Steemit who may not agree with you.