Will you still earn so much if rewards were based on number of Views?

avatar

I ran into a conversation initiated by @rem-steem that talked about the lack of views that video content gets on Hive. She was basically asking why video content consumers are so few on Hive and my response led to a productive conversation that you can read here

Basically, I talked about the fact that there's a Hive bubble and lots of people are living in it. Most of us, including me, have become so comfortable in the relative comfort that Hive gives us, and we've forgotten that in reality, it is a lot more competitive. I try not to get caught up in this bubble by interacting outside the Hive and make an attempt to grow my profile outside.

Take YouTube for example; with all the issues surrounding censorship and whatnot, there are still a large number of people joining the rat race to the top of the viewer ranking to receive ad revenue. Most of them will rather go through the months and years of hustle to get to the top, rather than jump into the more superior @threespeak.

I also believe that one other issue with the lack of viewership in the video content part, in particular, is because of the lack of aggressive marketing from content creators. Due to the aforementioned bubble that Hive gives us, people don't feel the need to shove their videos in everyone's face because they know that a few views here and there may result in receiving upvote.

I'm the biggest critic of myself and that's why this question bothers me a lot. I watched a video my cousin posted on YouTube that got 41 views the other day and it really struck me because the most a single video I've ever uploaded got was 24 views and that earned me $6, which is $6 more than what my cousin earned. I tell him about 3speak almost every time he posts on YT but he still prefers that route for some reason best known to him.

The point is, I feel like we'd be getting more views if we could implement the YouTube hustle mentality to Hive platforms as a whole. It is fine that all it takes is one whale to give you a fat upvote before you earn, but if you're not raking in decent number of views from your content, and doing more to promote your work with the earnings, then you probably don't deserve those rewards in the first place.

This is what I think anyways and it is something that keeps me up at night. I always wonder how I can get more views both on Video content and writing. @peakd did us the kindness to add some nifty tools that include view counters, and it is a tool I use regularly. All I'm saying is that views are as important as the earnings and the only way I can justify earning a single dime from my post is when I see more people viewing the content I create.


Posted Using LeoFinance



0
0
0.000
13 comments
avatar

For a start 3speak should not upvote every Tom, Dick and Sarah. Handing out participation awards helps no one. reserving this spot for further commenting cause I am work now and bored.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Imagine they placed a limit on their upvotes. Maybe every 50 views are equivalent to $1 upvote or some shit like that

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think there are many algos that can be implemented by the interfaces so those big accounts can vote as they wish. For hive it becomes more difficult because the more complex the algo the more data needs to be calculated and stored. That is why communities specifically the smts will be good because they will determine the algorithm that works for them.

On a chain level you cannot measure views so that makes the metric useless to the reward system. You can however have say circle of influence such as I voted you today then maybe my vote is less worth for a day on your posts. Might push people maybe not to watch or read more but to spread vote, further you can promote commenting a bit better but due to the stake based if you were to get more engagement but actually flag all the cunt comments then retaliation from that will just kill your account.

Effectively hive and none of them are about the content, 3speak sure that is their prerogative but only based on their big vote, it is their platform they can do as they wish. However this is still all just mining and has nothing to do with the content or engagement which we use as a facade.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You could literally make a post with this comment. It really captures everything I was wondering.
So at the end of the day, you mean it's not about quality or pulling crowd but still fundamentally just a blockchain where you earn from your stake

0
0
0.000
avatar

That is the mentality and I don't think it is the users fault although some do make the effort to be about the content. The chain I feel is inherently geared towards a quick buck mentality , I like to call it whitetrash thinking where most will think they are just owed the votes because. It becomes tricky because we want a sort of equality on rewards but also want people to do with their stake as they wish. I think allowing people to do as they wish when money is involved with no caps or barrier is a danger to the system. Why do we try to mimmick the real world by allowing the masses and "rich" to dictate things. The system might be better to take a stance and punish all equally such as having caps on how much people may earn forcing them to do more for less. It is a bit all over the place but I think you know what I mean, when a person starts to think of these things then it like 10million possibilities and a whole lot of frustration lol.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yeah there's so much to process. I believe that rich people will always get priority in everything because that's just how it fucking is. trying to create "equality" will only lead to an imbalance and even fuck up the system further. Also, saying that rewards should be equal across the board will be ridiculous, because people put in different levels of effort. At the end of the day, we're right back where we started and only have our dicks in our hands

0
0
0.000
avatar

Pretty much, but not so much equality but more a smaller deviation. A smaller deviation though means that instead of earning a little many will just not earn any. This is though at the benefit that no one can go around earning 600x of what others do just because they have a lot or know many.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thats a system that will require a lot of policing and work.

0
0
0.000
avatar

how so? It would be in the code.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Oh right. It is all hypothetical anyway but I doubt humans will buy into a system that promises limited earnings, irrespective of everything else.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

I guess it depends how you limit it, as in uptrennd limits it via even the biggest whales only giving 2x rewards , they do have an alternative moderator voting which can give 10x rewards that could be say top 20witnesses . Hive can already limit rewards on a post with max-payout but that is where I see an issue if you get a 1000 votes then should earn 1000x but an individual vote will be maxed. And if it is about their stake and they feel they have warranted that stake to get max votes then just pay it out to them daily like whaleshares. That would then be added to stake and not affect the content pool.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

What a radical idea for Hive - getting rewarded on the basis of people actually reading your stuff!

Wouldn't that be odd!

But that of course is more how it should be!

Posted Using LeoFinance

0
0
0.000
avatar

I know right. I think we're in the attention market and if attention is the currency, then views rather than who you know should be the metric.

It is idealistic of course and just a thought.

0
0
0.000