Manual Curation
The 50/50 move made by HF21 was with the idea of people actually curating manually vrs the auto votes that had been used up to that point. I think at least that part of the equation has failed miserably. Don't believe me? Just look at some of the guys who usually get a nice amount of votes and rewards, follow a post of theirs and you will notice that before five minutes that post gets a few votes but at exactly the five minute mark all of a sudden it has 150 votes and well over $5.00 in rewards.
Of course this was happening long before HF21 in fact I guess this has been happening since the beginning of Steemit, but HF21 was supposed to put an end to this , because with such a huge reward as 50% of the vote going back to the voter everybody would manually curate. I made the observation that this was actually a kind of dumb rationalization because regardless of whether my vote was manual or bot driven I would still get 50% curation.
Many people disagreed with that idea, I believe by now they have to know they were wrong I mean if they don't it's just that they don't want to know it. Now is this wrong? Well it is if one of the reasons for executing a hard fork were based on fraudulent ideas because this one was a fraud, auto votes haven't stopped and the best articles aren't getting the most votes.
I can even tell you these guys with big votes are lazy I had a discussion with one of them and he actually told me to point him out a couple of good authors so he could vote for them, damn he doesn't even want to read.
Now wouldn't it be nice if some of the real big guys, you know those who even now when the price is so low can still give a $15.00 vote actually took an hour of their time to read some 20 or 30 posts and voted at 100% for the ten they thought were the best? This would help the aspiring authors enormously, and hey this whale will still be getting $75.00 in one hour just for up voting some content they like? But it seems this is just too much work, it's so much work that there are even down voting pools so they don't really have to see what they down vote they just know it is being down voted.
Why don't you big guys try it, spend one hour a day looking for good content and up vote it, OK give 20 votes, it still is the same thing, just don't go with these voting guilds, read what you vote for, and vote for it because you actually like it. I can bet you Steemit would become a much better place in very little time.
That would be me except that I get about 40 cents in autovotes, not $5. My own maximum vote value is about 6 cents. About 70% to 90% of the vote value coming my way comes from manual curators.
There you are bitching again and distorting the facts. First you complain that there are plenty of quality authors who aren't getting shit. I ask you to tell me who they are so that I can vote for them - and bring their work to the attention of the heavy hitters. You fail to produce a single author you consider to be under-rewarded. Now you bitch that I asked you to point out a couple of such authors because I'm too lazy to look for them myself. LOL
Why should I tell you who to vote for? That is just plain lazy, you go out there and read and make up your mind who you think deserves your vote. You think I should do your work for you? No wonder this platform is fucked up. At least it seems you like what I write , you seem to read a lot of it, but since you don't agree with me don't read me, read someone else someone who you can give your vote to and make the platform grow.
I'm not asking you to. Trust me, I will make up my mind upon seeing a post.
The context was asking you to prove your claim that there exist plenty of under-rewarded posts. So far you have been able to produce none.
It's everyone's job to help under-rewarded content get the attention it deserves. It's impossible for one individual to find everything. Steem relies on crowdsourcing content discovery and rewarding. You adamantly refuse to be helpful. Instead, you just complain. Judging by the fact that your post was resteemed, some people think it deserved attention.
You are certainly not helping.
You're delusional. This piece caught my eye because it was resteemed by someone else.
I commented on your drivel because you made a reference to one of our old conversations in a way that didn't accurately reflect its content.
So just don't pay any attention at all to what I write re-steemed or not, that is what I do, for example I never read anything you write.
Yeah, well it takes longer than an hour to read 30 posts. Particularly if you're commenting substantively. So, that's silly. Fact is that folks that are interacting socially on Steem tend not to be folks with day jobs, like me. Now, there are a lot more people that have the time to read and post on Steem than there are people with large stakes, and people with large stakes tend to have tight schedules that come with maintaining those stakes. The twain scarcely intersect.
Basically botting is the only real way to control voting of substantial stake for ROI. The ninjaminers' dream of moon is broken by their rapine, so they're trying to come up with easy fixes that will get people to buy their stake. However, people are drawn to social media for reasons other than financial, and this does not mesh with the lusts of ninjaminers, leaving us with this bizarrely broken system.
The funny thing is that if the ninjaminers were able to forego their pecuniary obsession and implement the social media mechanism they baited us with, the moon would eventuate despite the extremely objectionable ninjamine, because people focused on social interaction would create a large market for Steem. It's exactly the focus on financial manipulation of rewards that discourages the growth of the social media mechanism that is the sole potential means of imbuing Steem with value, and the incessant extraction of rewards that should be encouraging authors to come and grow the market directly drives the abysmal retention rate that keeps Steem price nothing more than a dim reflection of BTC.
Reverse the rate at which rewards flow to authors/substantial stakeholders, and the substantial stakeholders' stakes will become far more valuable because far more people will want to buy it. Instead of 90% of rewards being manipulated out of the rewards pool by whales, let 90% of rewards flow to content creators. Simple, effective way to grow a market. Capital gains is the primary mechanism that has encouraged investment since time immemorial, yet the greedy bastard ninjaminers can't bear to see tokens flowing into the wallets of creators and not flowing into their wallets, so they suck them all into their wallets and in so doing keep the price from rising by keeping the market from growing.
It's retarded.
Well maybe I made a mistake on the reading part, I read real fast.
Well maybe I made
A mistake on the reading
Part, I read real fast.
- gduran
I'm a bot. I detect haiku.