The Curation Algorithm Works to the Detriment of a Considered Upvote!
I see a major problem with the curation algorithm. If your blog hasn't received 'traction' in the first 30 minutes it is unlikely to receive more upvotes later because the reward for curation falls away.
My suggestion is a simple one. The number of upvotes and pending payout should be hidden from view for the first six hours to avoid people just upvoting for what is trending without reading the blog.
The time frame for curating would also need to be reconsidered, perhaps randomised in some way, although greater minds than mine would need to design the algorithm.
This would encourage us to read older blogs and not feel under a time constraint to upvote. I'd be interested in what people think!
I definitely feel that a time constraint is against the spirit of curation.
The point of curation isn't to to find new content. We have the created queue for that. The point of curation is to sort good content from the bad. It shouldn't matter how old the content is, so long as the act of curation causes an uptick in traffic to said content.
I totally agree. I posted what I thought was my best blog today and go zero upvotes in the first 30 minutes, after which, I'm guessing no one bothered reading it. One or two previous post, not so well written I feel, got the traction early on and paid out in the $100's, which was more than deserved to be honest.
IIRC it's the other way around, meaning curation rewards are zero up to 15m, start increasing up to 30m, and then are maximized from 30m+.
So if you upvote after 3 hours, it's more valueable than, at let's say 32 minutes? At about 30 minutes I often see my one upvote raise the payout substancially but only by $0.01 too much later. I could be wrong. Thanks for the feedback, I will need to investigate further.
No it's flat after 30m. The payouts and their increase/decrease have to do with a complex algorithm and price.
No, just that the optimum time for voting is probably somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes exactly. Late curating (after 40 minutes or so) is not hugely rewarded, as you suggest, so it does favour timely and contemporary postings over "slow burners".
That is incorrect. There is a "reverse auction", so if you vote within the first 30 minutes, you share some of your curation rewards with the poster. I.e. if you post after 1 minute, you share almost all of your curation reward with the poster. If you vote after 15 minutes, you share 50% of your reward. And if you vote anywhere from 30 minutes onward you receive 100% of the curation reward. So it usually makes sense to wait until the 30-minute mark. Although if others are already starting to vote before 30 minutes and you think many more will do the same, then it might make sense for you to do so, too. Basically, there are 2 opposing factors that you must take into account during the first 30 minutes.
I recently read a post about the best times to post on steem and when curators are most active, it was kind of wierd, felt like an ebay listing almost. I agree a better solution to this is required, one that honors quality over time of posting and user activity. Easier said than done though I guess.
I agree, I admire all those brilliant programmers who make all this stuff work. I'm just hoping to push the boundaries to something greater. I guess they are too and probably working on it as we speak 😃
I do hope so. I had mentioned in a comment on another post about how steem could so with a greater diversity of influential curators and reach a stage where steem becomes the go to place for bloggers rather than maybe wordpress.
This is wrong-headed. The whole point of curation is to elevate good content into the view of others who don't have time to read every post.
Good point, I didn't think of that. However, much great content gets unnoticed, while 'popularist' content is oftentimes upvoted because of the human nature to follow the trend, hence the creation of the modern day phenomena of being a 'celebrity' for being a 'celebrity'. I suggested the hidden vote idea as an attempt to overcome this problem, where people don't know if it's popular until they have cast their vote. Also, once cast not allow it to be reversed.
I understand why you proposed hiding the vote temporarily. And I explained why that is a bad idea. Also, you use the phrase "great content". But according to WHOM?? The value of something can only be judged by the extent to which it is appreciated by people. If the content YOU consider "great" is not getting attention, then maybe it's actually not so great. Or maybe the audience that would agree with you and appreciate the same content you do are not on this platform. In that case, you have 2 options. Either 1) adjust your concept of what "great" is. Or 2) help attract people to this platform who share an appreciation for the same content as you do.
I would recommend #2. But since that won't happen overnight, I recommend you give up on the idea of blogging for now. Concentrate on curating. And make thoughtful comments when appropriate. Through these efforts, you can slowly build your reputation and your steem power. And you can also slowly build a following. Later you can try posting to your blog again and see if you get a little more traction than before. Keep repeating this process. And keep working on your writing skills along the way. You can't expect to be an overnight success. That's just not realistic for most people. Anyway, good luck!
80 votes might reward $0.01 as opposed to 5 votes rewarding $300. Maybe this doesn't indicate a problem with the current curation. I beg to differ.
Why should those 80 votes carry any weight if those 80 accounts haven't earned much (if any) reputation? And how do we know those 80 votes didn't come from 80 accounts controlled by one or a small number of people? It shouldn't be that difficult to understand why curation has to be stake-weighted.
A fair point
Your argument is not correct, but your observation is. If your blog does not get traction in the first 30 minutes, the chances are small that it will afterwards.