You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Curation Algorithm Works to the Detriment of a Considered Upvote!
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