I've got plenty of VP I'd use if there was good content to support and I could find it without spending hours sifting through a dumpster.
Too much time spent with very little reward. Doesn't make it very enticing, does it?
I can attest to this as well from a new users perspective. I have a rough time finding quality content creators to follow so I can only imagine how annoying it probably is for someone trying to use their VP to curate for the good of the platform.
Hey @berniesanders feel free to checkout my blog and provide feedback. I have thick skin so don't worry about hurting anyones feelings.
That's exactly it... it makes no sense that whales have to spend hours upon hours sorting through crap content to find the miniscule percentage that is actually good.
Granted, we have some great content creators, some awesome ones if I may say so, but what is the percentage that is any good... 5% 6% - Possibly I'm being generous there.
On the other hand, if anyone hits the new tag on the home page you will see a ratling gun of meaningless copy pasta, and poorly written pieces.
So, it's hard to convince a big investor (i've tried) hey... put a million into Steem, sort thru the garbage, you will find good stuff and make money. I'm good at sales, but I'm not a wizard.
That's why this makes so much sense to me. Investors can have their R-Shares, content creators can darwinian themselves to the top.
The best ones should thrive.
That's why they should let me do the finding good stuff part for them. I'm good at it, and I like it.
Being a good curator is something you must enjoy.
Exactly. But I don't enjoy curation enough - does that mean I'm not able to profit from the investment I made with Steem?
Should I sell my Steem and invest in another PoS coin with dividends, that doesn't shame people for wanting to take profits from their investments?
Because self-voting and selling votes is bad, right?
PS: Not completely serious - just asking provocative questions.
As the hybrid word that does not exist yet would say: Presactly! (precisely and exactly) - But, we need to get over the emotional bumps on the road that don't allow us to have a mature conversation about this.
Whatever path we take, it must be a win for everyone, or its pointless.
This is very much the problem - it's a lot of work to find content you value here and every dApp we add makes it harder. We need one or more effective mechanisms that present audience members with content that they will enjoy. The original idea behind Steem was that the curation system would do that, and at the top levels there seems to be a lot of denial of the fact that it is an abject failure.
Fixing it in some fashion, whether it's algorithmic or manual or some combination, ought to be a priority. Probably the first priority.
Youtube has A LOT more garbage content than steemit. How they solved the problem? By personalized content filtering system.
Bernie, you're in a very unique position as a whale in this platform that actually cares about it and with big enough balls to let public hear your thoughts. I think you could do lot more here, if I remember correctly, you created the first vote selling bot and even though I don't like the effect they've had on the platform, it still says lot about your creativity.
What do I mean, well for example, regarding this problem you could list your needs as a whale for what it would require to make your curation process easier. Perhaps totally new website just with content that is selected by community selected curators that can be voted out? I don't know, but I'm sure there's plenty of devs who would like to hear what whales need and want to see developed.
Isn't that the point of Curie and OCD?
Low-staked users manual search for "good" contents and submit.
Reviewers select.
Curie votes.
High-staked accounts AKA investors following the trail do likewise automatically.
Except the elephant in the room is this miserly 25% curation reward.
Then, why not increase the percentage?
.gif)