You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: @Curie - Meet The Witnesses #32
I had a very similar experience with Curie... first week in I got blessed with a megaboost and gained all the faith in Steemit that I needed. As it happens we might think of Curie as a simple curating group, but it also serves the valuable function of motivating new comers to stay on board and put in the work to this platform. I do not know the stats, but it would be a in interesting poll to know how many people were unsure of Steemit and then @curie made them believers.
I'm sure that number is in the thousands...
I have no idea how to collect this data, but it's possible one could figure out a way to poll the blockchain and compare account activity of Curie'd voters months later vs a control group who wasn't.
Of course, the conclusions would be colored by the fact the better authors more likely to get Curie'd would also be more likely to have stuck around anyway.
Could make an interesting post for someone without a 286 long log of un-/partially written posts.
wow 286?
Yes, if some one undertakes any such survey, it should be very neutral. I mean and I feel that there could be few hundred people who might have chosen to stay back on Steem because of curie's curation but then there could be several times more who perhaps got frustrated for not getting curie'd and were either got demotivated enough to quit this platform or are still slogging on, holding some grudges for meeting an unfair treatment. So the question remains, how much fair is the system of getting curie'd to all. Mostly, it's just a small handful of Steemers whose posts are considered by curie. But what of those whose posts despite being of probably better or equitable quality but never caught the eyes of any curie? That should also be accounted for in the survey.