That is very good, and we respect @yosuandoni , nonetheless in the case of the plagiarized photograph case here a simple reverse image search would have sufficed to detect the grotesque and blatant plagiarism of a photograph taken in Boston, who the user stole, edited and then invented a story about it being taken in Sweeden. So no check was done there whatsoever.

First of all: no one is infallible; he is not either. Moreover, checking daily 109 members publications, actually, it's a very hard job, so what we're thinking about is getting more Copyright Guarantors to help him with his tasks.

You apparently refuse to understand what is not convenient for you to understand, namely: that you have been deceived and fooled from the start. She has been with you for 9 months? Ok, here you have a photoplagiarism case that is 9 months old:
https://steempeak.com/steempress/@rahesi/elcircuitomgicodelagua-3yisrk6ahq
We also have a case in which the user posted a screenshot of a video and passed it as her own photograph here:
https://steempeak.com/antiabuse/@jaguar.force/photo-plagiarism-case-6-caso-de-plagio-fotografico-6-rahesi
and we have a similar one that is 2 years old that we haven't published yet
Accept it, the user is a professional fraudster and plagiarist, not an "excellent photographer".

The first case you refer to, that 9-month article, I can clearly see where she puts the sources of her photos and, in an article 9 months ago, you could not edit it now.

The other article you showed below this one, the 5 days ago one, was the one you caught her not publishing the sources and attributing her the other's photos. So, well done by your part and she got expelled for that. But don't try to confuse people with one thing and another. The nine months article has clearly the related sources and the second one is the one she did the wrong things.
We would never have expected this from her, sincerely.

We dont work for anybody, we are an independent cleaning initiative, that being said some projects that really care about fighting abuse support our initiative as a sign of appreciation of our work.
Additionally, we dont see the votes of those initiatives in the plagiarized posts, but yours are still there.

Please, the entire community know that you, Walden, are behind this Jaguar, in any or other manner, and the same way, the entire community know for who you worked during a long time and for who you did some dirty jobs.
About the votes there is easy as not vote her or unvote her before throwing it to the light, more when you're all belonging to the same monopoly witness. And I wouldn't unvote something that has already been flagged to 0.00$: easy as that.

Yes, we agree that you are against plagiarism, but only in a reactive manner, you are not taking a proactive approach and even go in your comment above as far as to bizarrely state that this serial grotesque plagiarist is an "excellent photographer". You might be able to count the plagiarism cases your club was involved in with one hand.... but wait... we discovered already 6 in the last week and a hand normally has 5 fingers. In other words: the reason why you havent discovered plagiarism in your club is simply because you are not looking for it .

I begin saying we're a talent club, not an specialized antiplagiarism project as yours. That's why we have an admission procedure for members and we work against plagiarism in a preventive and, in a final instance, reactive manner.
I continue saying she's and excellent photographer:

And I remember to you and the people who drive you for their own benefit, that great artists or writers plagiarized in their day, and not for that reason they stop being great artists and recognized people today. And I have a clear example of a well-known Spanish writer who plagiarized: Arturo Pérez Reverte. And he's one of the best writers, maybe in the world.

To finish this discussion from our part I would want to quote you this paragraph and answer it to you:

Since The Talent Club doesn't curate and only provide automated votes, the biggest delegators feel confident that once an initial screening is done no monitoring will take place and that is their weakness. We support and commend active curation initiatives like Cervantes that actively curate.

As we said previously, we have 3 different filters for assure, as far as possible, that the people joining our club are fully trust people:
-First, to only allow to join, as far as possible, recognized and trusted users of the platform-
-Second, to study their profiles while during the application admission seeking any evidence of plagiarism in the past or the present.
-Third, to maintain certain vigilance on their profiles thought the Copyright Guarantor watch.
That's why, we can trust on give automatic votes to recognized people and as I said previously some mistakes doesn't prove the system is bad.
And I tell you much more, about you arguments of the better way of Cervantes manual curation: the CEO of The Talent Club, @dresden, left Cervantes precisely because they were doing many things bad, in my opinion.
And do you know what were some of those wrong done things or errors? That even curating manual they had a lot, but I remark, a lot of plagiarized content manual voted by its curators. Trust me, I was there and I was some kind of leader of their curators and I was tired of telling them to revise the content before voting.

I can assure you and I would even bet my house, that my club has given many fewer votes, in automatic, to articles with plagiarism, that Cervantes did and does in manual curation.

So please, stop the circus and the attempt to ridicule or discredit this club to favor the reviled Cervantes because all we have provided in this community it's a new system of democratic and not monopolizing community for giving rewards and happiness to most and many qualified members that were ignored by other projects, including the one that you defend.

You can also say to your dear friend Pablo that should not be so rancorous and just accept that things have gone pretty well on our own, without needing anything of them.