RE: We're All Stars and Galaxies Make Up the Universe
When the shady folk are also the richest, the wealth concentrates, and it concentrates away from people like you, and that irks me no end.
Accusing the whole congregation of circle jerking because people tend to vote for friends and out of mutual admiration is indeed nonsense, but it does bother me to see the real people putting out the good stuff making sweet fuck all partly because of the skulduggery going on, and because they aren't, and don't want to be, party to that.
I too think Steemit is currently set up for making money with money rather than making money with content, but that doesn't mean that everybody who does well is a shady abuser of the system. There are some rather glorious exceptions, and my personal pet peeve is that they don't do much better at the moment.
I know there are problems and these issues can trickle all the way over here, and it bothers me as well. It's annoying though if one bad apple is ruining the whole bunch, giving everyone a bad name. I'd like to be doing better but if those with high value votes aren't interested combined with those with low value votes thinking I'm part of the problem, things just get worse. What is there to work up to if getting somewhere is frowned upon? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. People push themselves up to the top of the front page to complain and there's no mention of those trying to do something good. People complain about how nobody can get anywhere and there's no mention of those trying. No one to look up to, no leads to follow, it's all completely ignored and since there's no mention of the good it must be all bad.
I get your point. Those who think you are part of the problem should look closer and better. I do sometimes think, however, there are more bad apples than glorious exceptions at the moment, so I'm not so sure about that one bad apple.
Anyway, had I thought you were part of the problem, I would have let you know. Your doing fairly well does in no way automatically make you part of the problem; thinking that way is just stoopeed.
Let me guess who you're referring to - Boomdawg and the nameless fellow? Just because I see you on both of their blogs all the time, and I've noticed that despite the fact that they're providing top quality content in their niche, and it's a popular niche at that, they're making relatively little.
Can't help it if nobody can keep up with them shades
The last four people I resteemed on my blog are good examples, I think, but there are more who, I feel, deserve better.
Fair enough, I rather enjoyed all of them, though I will point out that @digitalis is working in one of the most competitive niches. Nature photography is all over the place. He's good, I'll give him that, but good enough to give him an edge over those who've been here so much longer, who've done so much more networking? I don't think so. You also have to consider the fact that he doesn't provide a description, something many, or rather most people enjoy - something which just improves the experience.
I will give plenty of credit to @Katharsisdrill for the well-written commentaries (especially considering the fact that she's not a native english speaker) as well as excellent drawings.
@ddschteinn is also a fairly good writer, although not exactly my style. Still, that's nothing against him, everybody has different preferences. His pictures aren't that great, but they don't need to be - they're clearly just there to add immersion, and I suppose dimension, to his writing, something they do quite well, making for some high quality posts.
And you already know I like the nameless fellow.
All in all some solid choices.
But yeah, I do have to agree with you. A lot of people deserve better, a lot of people don't get it. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be enough of a curation/content ratio to keep up with all the users, especially with all of the spam out there. Still, there are a couple of good groups/movements/people out there, which at least help people find their feet.
It is what it is. We can do our best and that's really it.
Or we could just murder everyone at the top. I prefer that plan.
And there's the fact that about a third of all SP is behind voting bots; adding, say, 15% of SP being tied up in content-agnostic voting circles, that would mean that only half of all SP is really curating, and also that the other half is diverting attention away from the real content providers and frustrating them at the same time.
I do nature photography as well, and even in that niche @digitalis is in the sub-niche of close-in macro. Maybe my doing the same thing makes me admire his technical prowess; he's very good at what he does, but not very talkative, I'll give you that.
And yes: ¡Viva la revolución!
Ok, seems like we're on about the same page about the problem, though I have yet to see a good solution...
And yes, I do agree that @digitalis is very good at what he does. Still, close-in macro is probably the most prevalent sub-niche in the nature photography niche, so that doesn't get you very far.
And yeah, I've also dabbled (here), and with a couple of other photos I haven't posted, because I'm in no way goo enough to make it into the niche.
I suppose much of the reason he doesn't impress me altogether too much is the fact that I have a close friend who's an obsessive hobbyist photographer. (Well, less obsessive now. But still going at it. I think buying a $900 dollar camera at age 15 is pretty obsessive, don't you?) And this fellow has dragged me through the whole process. Much to my chagrin I've had to look through many of his photos and hear step-by-step explanations of the process/camera technology (which I promptly forgot.)
And since he is a very good photographer (for an amateur at least), despite frustrating me so much, he's brought me to the point where a very well taken photo just doesn't cover it for me.