https://steemit.com/cambodiapolitic/@songsina/controversial-trade-union-law-having-desired-effect

Nice Blog.

hf20 will change things dramatically, will be going to 15-minute reverse auction instead of 30 and any votes in the first 15 minutes split with global reward pool rather than the author.

This will bring curation rewards far closer to 25%.

Can't wait to see how it will change things.

That sounds like it will make it a little more fair to the curators.

So are you saying we need to vote the 1st 15mins to get curation rewards?

I second that question. I vote when I read. I can't be on right when someone posts, and I don't want to use bots, personally. So I am being penalised for voting 7 hours later, 1 hour later? I think it should be 25% to curators, no matter when they vote. Why can't it just be that? Why does it have to be so complicated! KISS rule, Keep It Simple Stupid ;) Much love everyone. I just don't get why it'Ks so complex when it can be so simple. In my head it's simple anyway hehe

I think you put your finger right on a serious issue, which I don't see a lot of people talking about.

I don't live on the platform. I do other things. On days when it is a "writing day", most of my posts take nearly all day to put together. (I'll blame an endless love of words and the fact that I've been using a lot more illustrations for part of that.) On days when I'm not producing or just surfing, I very well may be coming to content a day or even over a week later.

Why isn't my discovery of value important or interesting to the system?

But let's say that, for whatever reason, I'm looking at my feed or Gina tells me that something has been posted which is related to my interests, I go read it, and think that it is worth rewarding. Why am I penalized for doing so soon after it's posted if it's a short piece?

The reward cycle on Steemit is a little wonky, to put it mildly.

The default state for new users is to self upvote on every post, but the common wisdom is that doing so handicaps your ability for other people to get notable curation awards.

You expend a significant opportunity cost with every upvote because you have no idea how many upvotes you might actually think things deserve over the next 24 hours. There's no way for you to know. You would have to be able to know the future – to make a good decision about whether or not to use and upvote now.

The reverse auction just pushes manual voters further out of the curve because it seems to be a system which is absolutely devoted to privileging automated systems, by both requiring tight timing and a preference for not sleeping or even ever leaving the platform.

From a game design perspective, it's kind of a mess.

Your scratch that your correct that everything could be much more simple and easier to deal with. Have upvotes go into a pool that pays out after 24 hours, with whatever split (75%/25%?) that seems reasonable to people (or is even configurable on a per post basis by the author). Have payouts be possible for any content as long as anyone is upvoting it, so that content which retains value in the future continues to reward the author. Take away the voting power decay/build structure and replace it with a settable pool of rewards by the curator, with votes essentially being shares of that pool which pays out every 24 hours.

These are the sort of architecture changes that would pull away from rewarding bots more than human intervention and interaction which engages with content. As it stands, very little of the system is about content at all.

As someone who cares about content, that's a real problem.

Exactly. Plus you mention about "deserving" and predictiing as though we should only upvote those who will make a lot of rewards from their posts. What I deem valuable and deserving is different than what someone else deems valuable and deserving. There are some who I always upvote and who almost always upvote me, but we don't always catch each other's posts.

The rewards can still pay out every 7 days, but after the first 7 days, the content can still generate rewards. Anyone new to the platform will search for tips and tutorials. Those month old, year old posts that have helped me so much in my first few months, deserved to keep generating rewards as new users upvote them. Some content never gets old.

It could be in the first 7 days, curators get rewards as well, but after the initial week, curators maybe get less and it's a show of cortesy to upvote past that date maybe. Or everything remains as is, curation and author rewards, just continuous payouts.

And yes, the whole voting power things is so confusing to me as to why it even exists. People are stingy with their votes because they don't want their voting power to go down. Whereas someone like me, votes and votes, especially on days I've dedicated to just being on Steemit. My voting power has gone down to 0 and I'm still voting to let people know that I appreciated their content. Sometimes I like to upvote a comment. If there is nothing else to add to the comment, instead of commenting back a generic type reply, I want to be able to upvote and let that person know I saw and appreciated the comment. Even if there is nothing to add, nothing to say. An upvote can say a lot. Leaving voting power high would make people want to upvote more.

I don't use bots, I kind of get why they exist, but I also don't. It could be so much simpler f there is no timer, no decrease. Just voting and rewards. Simple.

> Plus you mention about "deserving" and predictiing as though we should only upvote those who will make a lot of rewards from their posts. What I deem valuable and deserving is different than what someone else deems valuable and deserving. There are some who I always upvote and who almost always upvote me, but we don't always catch each other's posts.

I think you meant to say that the original poster talks about "deserving", though I do go on a bit about predicting.

My personal position is that my inability to predict how much content I will actually want to reward in the next time period keeps me from actually dropping some votes that might otherwise be quite deserving – not because I think that the writer needs to be rewarded per se, though that's true too, but because it's content that I want to see more of and would like to signal to the system to show me more of.

The very difference between what you think is interesting and worthy of upvote and what someone else thinks is interesting and worthy of upvote is exactly the kind of difference that the system should be making use of so that both of you get more of what you want.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

> It could be in the first 7 days, curators get rewards as well, but after the initial week, curators maybe get less and it's a show of cortesy to upvote past that date maybe. Or everything remains as is, curation and author rewards, just continuous payouts.

Let's think about this for a moment.

Is content that is evergreen, that is content that continues to have value to the reader/consumer for an extended period of time less valuable to curate? I think there is a reasonable argument to say that turning up older content that is still useful to you and flagging it as continuing to be useful by voting it up signals that it might be useful to others as well, and your act of finding it so and telling the system is also valuable. In that case, it's a reasonable position to take that curation should continue to be rewarded (and by extension that creation should continue to be rewarded) well after any seven-day schedule.

From that perspective, it's quite likely that you're right that curation and author rewards may be "good enough" if the window for reward payout never closes.

> And yes, the whole voting power things is so confusing to me as to why it even exists. People are stingy with their votes because they don't want their voting power to go down. Whereas someone like me, votes and votes, especially on days I've dedicated to just being on Steemit. My voting power has gone down to 0 and I'm still voting to let people know that I appreciated their content.

Mechanically, I think part of the problem is that Steemit conflates two types of positive reward signal.

On the one hand, you want to signal that this content is good and that other people should be made aware of it.

On the other hand, you want to signal to the system that this content is good enough that you want to reward the author financially.

For most users of social media, these are two different breakpoints. "Good enough that you think it needs more exposure" is a lower bar to meet than "good enough that you want to exchange part of one of your limited resources so that the author gets paid." That's not to say that we are stingy with resources, but it is useful to note that people like to be careful with something that's limited.

If these signals were separated the cognitive complexity of using the site would be slightly higher but the system would have a much better idea of how we want to differentiate one thing from another.

That would probably require separating the idea of upvoting from "tipping," and I'm afraid that ship has long passed sailing. If "tipping" were the mechanic that reduced my "tipping power" and upvoting was just a traditional social media positive-sharing signal, all of this would be a lot more intuitive.

> I don't use bots, I kind of get why they exist, but I also don't. It could be so much simpler f there is no timer, no decrease. Just voting and rewards. Simple.

I've made a deliberate choice not to use voting bots up until this point and I don't foresee myself doing so going forward, either. Even though some very "rich" people on the site have explained at great length why a creator who wants to be "fairly rewarded" for their investment of time and effort absolutely must use voting bots.

They make a fine argument from the point of view of "the system exists so it would be unreasonable to ask me not to exploit it." It's a good argument. They're right, it would be unreasonable for me to ask them not to make use of every tool that they think reasonable to improve their rewards. For me – not really my thing.

If someone wanted to phrase it in terms that more traditional media would have parallels with they would suggest that paying a voting bot is no significant difference from buying advertising, and that's most of the way to true. Sometimes you buy an ad to that doesn't drive enough traffic to your brand to pay for the cost of the ad, just as sometimes you pay a voting bot a lot more for votes than the value of the post ends up being.

I just feel it's a little tacky to pay for votes.

I get it, they're trying to make up for the terrible Discovery system on Steemit. It's very hard to get your work in front of people who would appreciate it. Vote buying is their way to get onto the Hot and Trending lists – maybe – for that extra dollop of promotion and the chance of getting their work in front of people who will care about it.

That the system actively encourages that choice because of the mechanisms that it fosters – well, that's why we have these kind of discussions.

I'm right there with you in believing that the system would probably be much improved without decaying voting power or at least with more votes that are somewhat less meaningful for a given 24 cycle. Things open up a little bit once you have 500 STEEM in the bank and you can adjust the slider to determine what percentage of your voting power you want to drop on a given vote, but even that interface is weakened by the fact that it doesn't tell you what that percentage of voting power will actually be worth.

These things can be fixed. Some of them, anyway. We'll just have to see what happens after the next hard work.

I suppose so.

Thank for taking the time to answer my questions and respond to my thoughts :)

About bots, I think I'd like to get more from my posts, but a part of me also takes pride in growing organically. It's tempting, but then with organic rewards, I can monitor how my following is growing and ow people respond to certain types of posts. What content I enjoy putting out vs the content I put out that people prefer. And then I can find the right balance.

With continuous conversation and us voicing our thoughts, concerns and arguments, we will find solutions to the system and implement those and hopefully things will change for the better. Open conversations are always a good thing ;)

Hey, if we didn't take time to answer questions and respond to thoughts around here, what with the platform be for? That's literally what makes it worth spending time on.

I'm curious exactly how much actual value one could milk out of the bot architecture, and a survey of the bots that are currently running is pretty – "shocking" is the wrong word for it. Surprising? There is a lot of power delegation tied up in these automated systems, so much so that I wish that we could get real, solid numbers on how much is in bot holdings as opposed to manual creator/curation holdings.

(In a real sense we simply can't determine that, because if we could trivially differentiate bots from "real people" we would've done so by now.)

Figuring out how to reach an audience is one of the hardest parts of being a creator on a social media platform. That's true no matter what that platform is. On Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, you can buy Likes and followers for money. On Steemit, you can buy upvotes and reSteems for the local money. Someone, somewhere, is always going to build a system to be able to do that, even if that system is a Mechanical Turk.

Myself, I really want to learn what I have to do to reach an actual, living audience on this platform. So far, that seems to be "write masturbatory pieces about STEEM growing forever and being the way to save the world, and Steemit being the best social media platform ever," and yet I seem to keep writing about role-playing games and being critical of a lot of the design choices around here.

I guess I was always a rebel.

hehe I like going against the grain too.

Are you saying that bots are withholding some of the votes we could be getting if people actually decided to vote manually as opposed to vote through bots?

I think I just confused myself, but that's okay. We'll figure it out, eventually...hopefully XD

Don't think of it as "withholding," because the value that is tied up in the bots is actually getting leveraged, and probably more frequently than a manual voter with the same SP could manage to do so.

That is to say, a bot never sleeps, and as far as I can tell, a bot will always use a 100% voting power vote split between all of the current bidders for that cycle. As a result, that pool of SP that it represents is always building toward being used with relative maximum efficiency – just not on things that a manual curator would necessarily choose to do with that power. And it does it day in, day out, seven days a week, as quickly as its cycle comes around.

If anything, the bots may be distorting the market by flooding the platform with votes which are effectively just advertising and elevate those posts which the creators (or, truthfully, a third party) believe should be advertised, not votes which are intended to signal that "this content is good and it should be rewarded" by someone who actually consumed it.

Seriously, the amount of SP floating around in vote bots is staggering, and I wonder if there's any kind of analysis that we could do that would tell us how much the vote bot architecture is distorting the market compared to human, manual curators, who do sleep and who don't engage in optimal efficiency voting most of the time.

There is a lot of opprobrium floating around about self voting, but as far as I can see most of the bot voting is just that – except that vote is contracted out to a bot to execute with a higher degree of SP leverage. The same people who bitch a lot about self voting are often the same ones cheerleading bot voting, so I sense a certain level of duplicity in some of the arguments.

It's really fair to be confused, because most of this makes very little sense if you consider the platform as a source of content that you might want to find. However, if you think of it as just a big game where the point is to drive up your numbers and the content doesn't matter – things come clear a lot faster.

I think it's exactly the other way around; you get higher curation reward by voting after the 15 minute mark has passed. Right now the same rule applies, but with a 30 minute mark instead.

Oh ok. I thought there was still a penalty for voting way past the 30 minute marker as opposed to as soon as it hits 30 minutes. THAT I think is unfair.

No, there's no penalty at all for voting later, as long as you vote before the payout is sent. You do however get higher curation rewards if you vote before other people, so it still pays off to vote early on some posts.

Oh ok. Well, I just vote when I vote. It's good to know though. But I don't want to have to worry about when to vote. I just want to upvote ;) Thanks for letting me know.

I try to do the same thing :) I for one don't upvote stuff in order to get rewarded for it, but I can also see why some people would do that. At 100k+ SP the curation rewards are very high, so "randomly voting" can cost hundreds of dollars in lost rewards for them.

Well, randomly voting would be like a donation to someone else, but a donation requires you to spend money, whereas an upvote does not. I understand people want to benefit, but stinginess and greed is something I just don't get.

I am interested in how people will adjust to it and how many people are unaware of what changes.
I noticed in chat that when SBD spiked, people who had been active here for months actually didn't understand how sbd and steem operated or how the internal market works.

I think a great many will be clueless about the change. The ones that are, I think it will dramatically curve the self-voting/bot traffic in the first 15 minutes.

This site isn't that big yet and truth is that average person does not want to do anything unless it is latest fashion so places like this can easily attract ''special'' people (who are bit dummy). Of course there are also people who are just dropping their blog-posts and few who see actual value in the future by their logic.

You can include me in that :) I'm up to speed now though!

Will this mean everyone is aiming for 15 minutes, including (most) authors?

I suspect so, yes. As both parties will "lose" the reward.

Best get your Steemvoters set to 15 mins now then!

I'm assuming first come first served - should be interesting for a tool that already misses votes and votes late during 'peak' times.

whether apvote with robot is recommended to always do ..?
@acidyo

For me... We must think about the development of this community. Not caring for rewards..... Because the development of this community means there are more opportunities in making friends and enjoying and earning some money.....
If we're just thinking of winning money. That means that this community will collapse.

Curation is one huge part of steemit that I need to understand better. It's integral to the infrastructure of the platform. I'll have to really dive in when I have the time.

Always appreciate the time you put into this system, Acid.

@shayne

this is a very good notification of friends, thank you for sharing.

I see peoples post all the time that are amazing but I don't have near enough power to help them out. Many of them to disappear of the steemit block chain for ever. I don't post quality content anymore because it is not worth the time. There might be a fix out there but no one has a clue yet. There are all kinds of curation teams like curie but do they really help? You have to have some attention before anyone actually takes the time to submit your post.
I would like to thank you for shedding some light on this topic.

Curation groups like curie are the main reason we have some sort of retention in authors, a lot more would've not stuck around if it wasn't for them. Distribution would be a lot more uneven.

I agree 110%, curie is a little small scaled right now to fix the entire problem though.
No negative tension meant in my last comment, it was just a question

I agree, @acidyo I've been on, here, for around a month posting in relative obscurity (despite being an established author, outside Steemit).

One post of mine was fortunate to be promoted by Curie, which encouraged me to stick around a while longer. I'm afraid I'm back to most posts being overlooked (making cents) and would be grateful if ocd might consider my poetry/prose.

Many thanks, for your attention & consideration,
Yahia

nice blog buddy

Upvote and resteem.

Very good pattern. Nice post. Thanks

good topic and good writing skill @acidyo.i like your post and following

good information , sir
thank

This is good information to know, I'm still trying to figure out how this whole thing works..I'll keep trying, thanks. Upvoted and resteemed, I'm sure my followers will be interested in this post.

great post I really like your post

Curator has the right to vote the best post according to his own version, as well as the robot that already has the criteria of post that will vote automatically. The important thing is we have to write our own works with as good as possible, the vote of the curators will surely come accordance with the quality of our posts, including from @blocktrades

I quit upvoting myself a long time ago, it just never felt right.

You are an awesome ambassador for Steemit. One could argue that the minnows are the most important for the platform because without new people the platform will stagnate. So it's definitely important not to just play favorites but to look after everyone. Most of us have all been there. Posting and almost getting nothing. Over and over again. And I many times think that certain votes or comments was what kept me from giving up. It can make a world of difference. As I mentioned before OCD has me hope and confidence to continue and it's definitely a big reason why I am still here today

I don't like the voting bots. They should be banned

Thing is that we can not get people to think or act in the same level

great advice, this new guy thanks you and will uncheck that upvote box on my own posts. I would like to get this figured out and be at least a good curator until I find time and bravery to post more of my own content.

Your best use of time right now is to interact with content you are interested in. Figure out how to search tags and look for these authors and their posts. Meet them. Provide good feedback (and constructive criticism.) and get to know people that you will get along with.

Mix it up, between newbies, veterans and people that have 3-6 months in. This is the best way to get started.

This way you will see what makes a Great quality post(not based on it's upvotes, but style and clarity), and what makes an ugly, hard to read or poorly prepared post. This can teach you how to post better!

Good luck!
Thx

I appreciate that great advice, I am trying to do just that. There is so much here to explore and a whole new way of doing things to learn. Also..nice profile pic, he was a cool Doctor eh.

My estimated curation rewards last week: 0.346 Steem Power. I'll probably not be able to change that too much with my 600 SP. ;)

However, I should definitely study this whole curating thing more as I don't understand it to well. I do understand what it is and why upvotes are good and all that obviously. But the split and how that works is far from crystal clear to me.

Perhaps I should just wait for HF20 before I try to get a better understanding of it.

Still trying to learn more about curation and rewards! Thanks for the good info acidyo!

I try to pop into the new section on the tags that I like a few times a week and vote up peoples posts, just wish I had more voting power to reward them. I do agree that people should be curating more, not only because it allows you to find new authors that you enjoy but because of the rewards you're talking about. People seem to be really stingy with giving out votes sometimes, like they're losing out on money if they go around and vote on things. Hopefully that mentality changes at some point, it feels like it has a little bit at least since I've joined up a year ago.

Good to see whale authors like yourself sacrificing thier curation to help Minnows like us.
Truely giving back to the community.😊

Thanks. As a relative newbie, I was just confused about checking my own posts or not. I did a lot of searching on the topic and was still confused. Your post here gave me the best explanation of why it's not good for the community and in the end, not good for me as an author.

Since I have so little SP right now, I need to save it anyway to reward other people who might stop by to comment. If I get a few votes quickly on posts, I might swoop in later to give the post a check, but I won't do it right away.

Anyway, I appreciate the time you took to explain this, and I think it's helpful for lots of us. We weren't upvoting because we were being greedy -- we just didn't understand exactly what we were doing. :)

The topic confounded me too, so it's good to see one of the bigger players take time to explain it from this perspective. In the end, doing what's right for the entire community can help everybody.

@acidyo is a great whale to learn from!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me also, I will help if I am able!
Thx

Buen articulo !

You have a big heart @Acidyo! :)

i'm already watching for undervalued posts and i vote them since last 2 months but unfortunately not every day because i don't have that much time :( Now i'm following some trails that promised me they only manual curate. like @curie @r-bot and @humanbot

If only the darn minnows would stop trying to get rewarded for being here, steemit would be so much better! I will gladly stop self voting when I can scroll the "hot" feed on steemit and see the majority are doing so. Currently none are.

For now, I am overwhelmingly grateful for my increased rewards and that is where all my steemit effort is going.
- posting 4 posts a day
- posting 30+ comments a day
- replying to all
- upvoting good comments people give me

I do not know what you are saying about autovoters going early because I made the decision early as a curator to only vote after 30 minutes and only on posts without big bot flows on them. If the person has 100 votes for 20 cents - I'm not looking at it. Problem solved of trying to time votes, which put me over the edge in my first weeks here. You can make just as much if not more by voting after 30 minutes than wasting precious time watching the clock tick.

Anyone who wants to learn curating skills should join the curation league of @abh12345 and get a great education. I was in it for Sept -Nov and learned so much. All of us in that league agreed to stay away from bot posts if you are a manual curator. People who followed other people's trails stopped when they start working in the league.

But now I put my own voting on an autobot! Yes I did. This week I found out about @steemdunk and now I will not be manually voting on any posts at all. What I did was:
- set up the people I want to support to receive my vote at various percentages.
- set steemdunk up to upvote on me daily - he gives a nice vote once a day.

Very simple and quick and easy to change.

So now:
- I can go daily to my steemdunk report and see who posted out of my friends and go visit their posts to interact. I also know if they are not posting and so I can go check on them.

I plan to get this bot to reliably vote me down to 88%-92% daily. Then I will vote on anything I want - mostly comments, and keeping myself above 85%.

This is a miracle and a relief to get something off my very full steemit plate!

Now I:
- catch my friend's posts at minute 27-33 depending
- do not have spend time to trawl for posts to vote on and wait for them to age
- still have power to upvote good comments during the day.

Removing the need to search for posts to upvote leaves me more time to create content and generate rewards in this time of plenty.

Good information....thanks for the post

I like the idea that witnesses get the ability to change the critical timings of curating. This would allow the witnesses to shift the time when curation rewards changed from author to curators based on what they see.

If they could also play with the percentages, at least it would force a little tougher game for the auto votes.

Sorry to say, but do timing votes, autobot selfvoting, minnow support systems actually get people to read the post or just circle jerk for digits?

Nothing gets people to read the post other than putting it in front of people who might care about it – and none of the mechanisms on Steemit (other than, very remotely, tagging) are engineered to actually do that.

If/when we get Communities or someone builds a front end which actually makes real curation possible, then we might see mechanisms which drive people to actually read and engaged with content they're interested in.

Outside of that, the mechanisms primarily exist to "reward" the content creator (which is a worthy and valuable thing to do, don't get me wrong), or just circle jerk for digits.

"Discovery" is the term which is never bandied about nearly enough. And that's a shame.

As someone that doesn’t really get almost anything in curation rewards since my votes are’t strong at all I still agree and don’t mind giving the full 25% of the rewards I make as an author to the curators. Curators are the ones giving us these rewards in the first place and it is only fair. I’ve been included in Ocd daily and initiatives like this only help the community and the platform and I hope they get the rewards that they deserve! Thank you for being out there for us minnows! :)

Oooo nice amazine

Congratulations @acidyo! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/70x80/http://steemitboard.com/notifications/voted.png] Award for the number of upvotes received

Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here

If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

> By upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!

This is so nice of you to do that.. and thank you for the details insight, I do not have many SP , so it doesn't make too much different for me, but it is really nice to know how it works.. probably the best explanation I have read so far about curation ..

amazingly explain ..and your sacrifice of curation for others is appreciable ..Thanks for great information @acidyo

I don't like the voting bots. They should be banned

Autovoters win the curation and manual voters usually end up losing @acidyo I hope there willl come a time that steemit could solve such problem just for fairness and justice.

It will take some time, until we all become aware.

Auto voting has it's merit and demerits.
If one is using for the purpose of curating autos and contents he likes, it is good but where it is used with the intent of gaining a large chunk of the piece of pie, then such should be an issue which needs to be corrected.

I like what you have to say about author's not upvoting their own posts. You really seem to care about the Steemit community, which I think is super cool. Unfortunately, I feel that a lot of users on here are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves and they really do not care about the community. It is hard to resist serving yourself first but I think that it is important we build the best community we can on Steemit. It is still in the beta! Building a strong community will help us all in the end by bringing in more users and more money.

I will still argue that voting bots have their place. By voting lets's say with x ℅ power on you favorite authors ( emphasis on favorite not popular) you can give them a steady and reliable reward every post. This leaves more time to manually curate undervalued posts.

Yeah I always thought it was weird to self vote until I found it was generally considered “ok”. I always make sure that I do it at the point when the curation reward is fully allocated to the contributors.

I always find it weird to see it when you’ve got people who consistently rake it in, ensuring they have got in and claimed 100% of that curation on the post. Seems a little against the ethos of the platform.

Can i ask you a question @acidyo?

Well, it is always not easy to change someone's behaviour. Need time to make it.

Nice post am glad I came across this post.... You actually explain in detail what I have been searching for in weeks

I've been doing this for a while as well - not voting for myself within the first 30 minutes. But I also don't always vote on the post after that because I don't want to encourage people to vote for me just for the curation reward either. I also don't like my self vote percentage being over 5% because I received my delegation at what I consider a fair price that allows me to earn a curation reward (usually between -10 to +20 of what I pay per week) and I'd like to see more people getting the deal I got. I don't bother front running on popular authors. Sometimes it I know there's something the votu community would be interested in I'll vote and pass it on to them but I find if I vote after 30 minutes on a good buy low rewarded post I can do better that way.

I wouldn't mind the curation ratio being increased if they also increased that donation window. I think it's actually a good way to discourage people from trying to front run popular authors.

Your activity is a perfect example of how changing yourself can change the platform. Thank you for that. Good luck to you and good.

I had autovoter running for one month I did not liked it because sometimes it votes on a post which I don't like so I switched back to manual voting.

I have a 50% auto on myself at 30 minutes. Can't say fairer than that.

This post have some pretty interest stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Bots are going to either make or break steemit.