You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 636,333 WITH 194 MEMBERS AND COUNTING
So basically you're setting up, one big circle jerk? Don't you think this devalues the whole platform? Isn't the idea of curating all about actually reading posts rather than just upvoting them? This makes the whole platform nothing but a big money printing ponzi!
The guy behind this stupidity is one of the guys that helped scam thousands of people out of millions of dollars with Bitconnect.
Should you really be expecting anything "wholesome" from a guy like that.
he and craig grant are behind steems big price rise early 2018 which coincides to the bitconnect exit...they brought their profits here only to lose a large chunk of it as steem price decreased in dollars and in satoshis
So that makes this ok? Even if i believed that, which i dont, i dont see what your point is.
my point is don’t trust them
Them causing the price was would of been nice now not back when I wasn’t as active on here or held as much sp
Then i missunderstood you.. :)
OK, I didn't know who was behind this. I should have known a leopard doesn't change it's spots after all. Fast buck merchants. Very sad for the chain :-(
Coinbase is giving away a free $50 of stellar. If you want to check it, here's the link. (You can also get rewarded for sharing the link).
https://coinbase.com/earn/xlm/invite/y7m4rw9f
No, it gives people a base minimum of earnings. It doesn’t mean people aren’t reading posts, it doesn’t mean the content isn’t high quality. With that logic you’re against curie and every other curation trail. You think everyone following those trails is reading the posts? They exist to reward people that are contributing high quality content. I see this more for people who are contributing regular daily content.
Posted using Partiko iOS
Curie and C squared manually curate every post they upvote. Following is a sad ability to allow here though. Follow for follow and vote for vote IS an even worse idea. Who is checking the quality however and of they are checking it, why not read it too. Seriously, these 'schemes' where the priority is simply grabbing rewards will kill this blockchain and keep the overall content quality low thus discouraging new creators.
One curators reads a post and a few others approve it with curie. The several hundreds of votes that follow are automated. Also, what is high quality content?
People have been saying “THIS thing will ruin this platform!” for years now. No it won’t. I need to go ahead and buy some drama tokens for moments like this.
You said:
Then said when describing curie:
So, you are admitting that content voted by @curie is actually reviewed before voting so that would make that process fundamentally different.
With that in mind, it doesn't really make sense for you to assert that for one to be critical of this "curation" trail that one must necessarily be against manual curation projects.
Posted using Partiko Android
The point that I was making was that the OP said that the issue was that the people weren't looking at the posts they were upvoting, which IS the same in both cases. I never said they were the same thing. They obviously aren't. But if your issue with this was that people are voting on something that they aren't reading, that's the same in both cases, in the case of curie, for the other 99% of the people following the trail.
Automated votes are not necessarily the issue.
Think one thing needs to be made clear. Strictly speaking, this is not a curation trail. It's a voting trail as the initiating trail vote is not the result of a quality assessment performed by a human.
That, in and of itself, is a degradation of how content discovery should work ideally.
But, hey, damn near everyone and their mom is pushing some sort of voting scheme so can't really single any one out in particular. They all suck imho.
I'm just saying. Let's call a spade a spade. It's an automated circlejerk with bells and whistles. It's not anywhere near on par with @curie.
Posted using Partiko Android
Woah woah, I was not trying to say this was the same as curie at all, and I have no delusions about what it is. You can call it a circle jerk, or you can call it a bunch of people using their SP to cooperate to earn more Steem. The functionality is the same whether you frame it negatively or neutrally.
So let me be as clear as possible. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with content discovery as that doesn't even really exist on this platform unless posts are in the hundreds of dollars. Its a bunch of regular steemians choosing to use their SP to cooperate and earn a little more Steem. Period.
I'd welcome any concrete argument that can demonstrate how this is in any way harmful to the platform.
I'll put it like this and it's similar to my argument against bid bot voting schemes.
The more SP that is dedicated to processes that do not seek to reward novel content via manual curation on the platform, the less novel content we will find on the platform.
You can frame it as something as merely as regular Steemians working together to earn more but everything has a cost and often that cost extends beyond the group.
The cost is the more users we have opting their SP into collusive voting schemes, the less SP we have involved with users going out, discovering the type of content they would like to see on the platform, and supporting it.
If we really want this platform to be full of content that we believe will captivate and draw in other user / investors, I believe we need to start changing the way we think.
This sort of thing. It's not it.
Yes, called them out when they started self voting with ned's posting key.
Before delegation was a thing.
I read my curation trails.