http://www.brainscape.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fa76e076b17687729b_2wm6ba75a.jpg
Image Source
Hey everyone, I wanted to share some of my thoughts with you today about curation on the platform.
First off,
Automatic Curation
I'm guessing most of you users on the platform are already aware of auto votes, either through Steemvoter.com, own custom bots or following curators through Streemian.com.
For those new followers who are not aware, what this means is basically; your votes will be cast on posts without you needing to do it yourself or be present at all.
There are quite a few scenarios how people use Auto votes.
The Patreon style
If you are aware of Patreon.com, its a platform where people can donate to their favorite content creators in a monthly basis with $ to support them. This is one aspect how I view autovotes especially through Steemvoter.com, there you can set up your favorite authors you want to vote on and at which post age your vote should be cast on. The age of the post is important because of the curation penalty the blockchain has, if you want to read more about that, I've written a post about it some time ago that explains it. But there is also another aspect of it why it is important:
Front-running autovoters with autovotes
You get more curation rewards if you were one of the earliest to vote on a post that will become popular. Even if you take, say a 50% curation reward penalty (which goes to the author as posting rewards instead) you might make more rewards if you were infront of the other autovoters that will be voting a while after you. Say you notice a popular author gets x amount of autovotes at 15 mins post age, you would set your autovotes to be cast at 14 mins.
In one way this is good, because it brings up competition, those autovoters at 15 mins might notice after a while (if they care enough) that the curation rewards from those authors aren't as big as they used to be, and if they dig the blockchain for the reason to it, they might decide to front-run your 14 min votes by placing them to 13 minutes. If this keeps going on like that its good for the author cause he will be receiving more and more posting rewards from the same votes but there might be a limit to where the curators think that its not worth it anymore and instead switch to another author.
If the front-running was that competitive as you, you'd have a healthy amount of auto-vote switchers from authors to authors leading to more unique authors getting these autovotes over time, but say some autovoters maybe don't care that much about the results, they are often lazy and don't switch.
There are of course a lot of other factors involved, but I want to discuss some of the problems this may cause while comparing it to manual voting.
Manual Curation
Some advantages of manual curation:
- You read a post, vote on it and often add a comment to it - increases interactivity
- You might stumbled upon posts from underrated new authors which other manual curators after you might reward thus increase your curation rewards
- You can spread your distribution of rewards to a more unique author base, be it followers from your feed, authors someone has sent you links to - making the voting on the platform more diverse, if we were all manually curating we wouldn't have as much of the same authors trending weekly
- You can vote on good posts that many other curators might have missed, increasing the rewards of that author who might have gotten disappointed seeing no rewards for the amount of effort and time he has put into his posts - increasing the satisfaction of authors contributing to the platform
Some disadvantages of manual curation:
- You might not have time every day to read 10+ posts a day and curate them
- You might miss some favorite authors you usually vote on that day
- Your curation rewards are according to Jerry Banfield around 3x lower than from autovotes so you lose out on your investements ROI
- You might vote on posts that turn out to be plagiarism/abuse/etc making you lose curation rewards after steemcleaners flag them
What would be a good solution to this?
Mixing automatic curation with manual curation. You would be able to support your favorite authors, while at the same time finding new ones when you have the time to curate posts.
This is a bit of a philosophical problem, cause as an investor who wants to earn as much as possible, you might choose to go full auto votes for those increased rewards while spending little time on the platform.
Is voting on the same authors time after time again the correct path to take for the platform to succeed in the long run?
Is voting on the same authors time after time again fair to all the new authors joining the platform and putting the same if not more effort and quality into their posts?
Do autovotes make authors lazy in the long run, knowing their votes and rewards are just waiting for them to press "post"?
Since curation rewards is something no other platform offers, wouldn't it be great if we didn't focus on maximizing rewards but instead focused on where our limited daily votes are going?
Let me know in the comments your thoughts on this! Thanks for reading!
https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/331165119612452894/353956387350380544/acidyo-posting-banner.gif
I think the rewards settings as they are work pretty good, but if we would like to aim to reward quality content maximally, I'd suggest a few tweaks:
Automatic voting does not imply viewing or reading the content. I'd suggest to limit the potential reward of a vote when the viewtime on the article is low. So for example, to receive the maximum rewards possible at least 3 minutes viewtime on the post is required, else your rewards drops with a corresponding percentage.
At the same time, I would have 50% payout of the post for curation and only 50% for the author.
Also, self-voting should receive a percentage of penalty when it comes to rewards.
With these few tweaks, we would see a dramatic reduction of low quality posts, we would have way more manual curation and interaction and the average quality of posts would be way higher.
This will however probably never happen on Steem, but maybe a new SMT might take these thoughts into consideration?
https://s1.postimg.org/5cbxmhtihb/joao-silas-72563.jpg
Hello @acidyo
I think the two kinds of curation both has their advantages and disadvantages.
Automatic Curation.
This is the favourite way to reward authors who you know post quality content. It is does well for them and the platform because it will encourage them to always provide useful Information.
On the author hand it can drain your voting power if the author chooses to post multiple posts in a day. I have seen people who have the priviledge of Automatic curation post up to three times in a day.
And with the Introduction of Zappl, this might get out of hand if you don't regulate it.
Manual Curation
This is also very Important as it helps create context and also exposes the curator to a lot of useful Information daily helping increase his/her knowledge. It will also keep the Author on his/her toes knowing that the curator will review the post.
This also helps create relationships which is the paramount thing in this platform.
In Conclusion
Both curation has their Importance, but I believe that Manual is better. Though post might not be curated at all times. This will also prevent over dependence on Curation help.
Manual curation will help fuel more community Interaction as the Author will have no choice than to source for upvotes from other sources and this requires building relationships.
If some people are placed on Auto Curation, they will just drop their posts and leave without Interacting with others.
I have seen a lot of bloggers on Steemit who have the priviledge of Auto Curation who always ignore the comments dropped by readers in their post.
Auto Curation is good as it is helping me a lot, but I still know that it is Important to Interact with people and my readers.
The thing is that, it is not everyone who has this level of understanding.
@ogochukwu
blockchain-blogger
This is a great discussion @acidyo! Thanks for brining it up! You've got quite the engaged conversation going here. I made it through most of the comments before I wanted to add my thoughts.
It seems like the whole point of the reward curve has kind of gone by the wayside with the autovoters being able to pick when they vote. It actually works out to penalize people who are manually voting! If I am in my feed and see a post that just came up, I will open it and read it. Then I have to see how long it has been up and decide if I want to wait to vote it or not.
I think a more sensible solution, that wouldn't take too much coding I don't think, but I am not a coder so I don't know, is to have an alogrythm that looks at each users voting history and penalizes them if they use their vote constantly on the same users, and gives a penalty for that rather than when you vote.
Someone suggested taking away the upvote on the feed button as well, and I think that might be useful although I have found myself forgetting to vote when in a post then going back and hitting it in the feed.
I don't know. For every scenario you can come up with to "Fix" the system, someone else is going to find a way to game it.
So I just stopped worrying about how much I make in curation and reward stuff I like. I upvoted this post like two hours after it went live and is sitting at over $100 payout, so my curation for it is going to be slim to none, but I got engagement out of it. So that is my reward!
Hi @acidyo
I'm quite into the topic, as my posts over the last month would suggest.
The key factors are:
- How much SP you have (and therefore your $ vote size)
- How much the post will make in total
These should drive your vote weight, time of vote, and who you vote for consistently.
An example in relation to your posts, assuming everyone votes at the same time with 100%.
You take on average $200 a post, $50 of that is curation and split between say 400 authors.
@thejohalfiles has voted with a vote worth $100 and would command $25 of $50 curation reward, leaving $25 split between 399 voters. It gets better though (or worse depending on how you look at it!), your vote is almost $50 at 100%, and so you are looking at $12.5 of the split.
So we have $37.5 of the curation taken up in this rudimentary example - 75% of what's available. 398 voters have to share $12.5 - 25%.
$12.5 divided evenly between 398 people is 0.003 each. (However, there are still some reasonable votes from wackou and v4vapid to consider, bringing this sum down further. )
To conclude, I think anyone voting with 0.01 - 0.03 (and probably up to 0.10) will receive a % return less than 0.001 (or 0.0005) and therefore will receive 0 in curation rewards in this example.
This is only a rough example - feel free (anyone) to shoot it down.
Cheers
Asher
Perhaps the open voting system and curation model is imperfect to start with (with large numbers of participants for this reason) and with this pressure of it being devalued a new app on top will evolve, and this issue is us seeing the evolution in action. So I don't think tinkering with the base mechanics there will solve it; let it fail, and something better will come out and if it's working for the creators, then maybe that's the best curators out there...the bots.. and human curators were needed just to get steemit the push it needed to get started...are human curators chasing a dying industry?
Options? Ok. I would think that people will always pay for quality and stay away from spammy things. So first, I agree, I like the Patreon style for a high value curator.
An idea: Or maybe there's a way for a human curator to create a 'magazine' (lack of a better word, but you get the idea) or pay-wall hidden application that curates older well-written posts. For example, maybe I write 20 awesome posts over the year, and I made some money on them, but they're effectively disappeared from my feed now, so I can pay your magazine a fee to include them in your upcoming release of your next 'digest' so I get exposure to my personal profile. Or maybe I just buy advertising in it.
The issue I have with steemit, is that it's designed to always be now, now, now and no rewards for a great post later (unlike Youtube that continues to reward for views). So perhaps an older good-quality post can be included in a 'magazine' to bring me attention now.
my two cents.
(sorry for the duplicate post below, that was Steemit, not me.)
This is a a concern, for I've seen single sentence posts at $30 simply because of auto-voting. That's bad. If someone has people auto voting them like that, why would they care about the quality of their posts?
I have not used any automated services and probably never will. Even going through new user intro posts is done manually. Yes, it takes time, but I want to find quality new users to support. A robot or service cannot do that for me.
There's also a problem where people will reply quickly to a new post, and then their reply gets a ton of upvotes from bots. They are abusing the system in other words. When you ask the person who replied where all the instant upvotes to their reply came from, they feign ignorance too.
If I have a decent reply to a trending post, I'll ask my friends to support me with upvotes. I'm not timing my replies though, and I don't reply to game the system or gain profit. My reply is to further the discussion or add something valuable to the author's post.
Quality replies to trending posts is a great way to get more high quality followers. I never want to automate that process though or abuse the payout system to do it however. I'll stick to manual and personal replies in all cases to genuinely welcome new people and genuinely add to a discussion.
That will improve our population of Steemians over time instead of making it worse through auto voting.
Thanks for posting about this topic. It is always a worthy one to discuss!