Happy flag day, human.
Given the amount of effort that went into the production of this post, there is little doubt that it would have performed well without the buying of votes.
Expect many more flags to come.
Happy flag day, human.
Given the amount of effort that went into the production of this post, there is little doubt that it would have performed well without the buying of votes.
Expect many more flags to come.
There you are!
Agree with this
Not everyone prefer to earn 5$ net instead of spending 10 and getting some visibility.
This is $100 not $10.
Steemium reports $34 used to buy votes. That's way more than needed to get a reasonable visibility jump start, and probably doesn't count all the bought votes.
34$ is USD so 34*2/0.6 = 133 SBD
I say spent 10$ as example because that's about the cost after downvotes.
"Given how good this product is, there is little doubt that it would have sold well even without advertising" ... if this reasoning held true, the advertising industry would not be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, wouldn't you say ?
But ok, steem is a lot less crowded by good content than the markets are crowded by good products so perhaps you are right in the case of steem, I'll try as well.
However what you are implying is that because bot-usage can be abused it means all bot-advertising is bad and should be fought.
Think about it: because some people abuse bots, all bot usage is bad ? Does that sound ok to you ?
You’re welcome to use bots to boost the visibility of your posts. All you need to do is decline rewards. This way you won’t be taking from the rewards pool.
Wait a moment ... I fail to see how that makes sense ... if I publish content and do not use bots, it's ok to get rewards from the reward pool ... but if I publish content AND in addition send steem to bots (which also requires some effort and thus, as the steem whitepaper notices, it is a form of work), it becomes "not ok" to get any rewards at all ...
In other words, "it's ok to work more, but only if you accept to spend for working more instead of being rewarded for working less" ... what kind of logic is that ?
You’re really reaching here.
I do not know this expression (do not forget that I'm not a native speaker) but I guess it 's the expression you use when you are short of logical arguments and do not want to admit that you don't make sense :-D
No, it means that you are struggling to justify the use of bots to increase your exposure.
I’m also not interested in debate. As you can see by the value of downvotes on your post, many Steemit users dislike the use of bots. My vote value is the least of your concerns should you continue to use them.
I am actually not interested in the vote values.
The debate, on the contrary, is central to the future of steem. In general, these types of debates have always appeared in new social systems, they are bound to appear.
These are debates about how the system behaves when people are not doing what the creators of the system have hoped they would be doing, but are rather trying to "increase their utility".
I do not feel a need now to justify the use of bots. Do you think companies need to justify their use of ad-agencies to advertise their products ?
Have you ever seen a company wringing its (virtual) hands because they felt embarrassed that they advertised their products ? You haven't, right ?
On the other hand, I have already written a theoretical treatment of the topic of "advertising bots", you are welcome to comment it:
https://steempeak.com/steem/@sorin.cristescu/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bid-bots
In short, bots offer a service which is potentially desirable to people from outside the steem system. Bots can add to the number of people who take the jump and decide to buy steem with fiat. And the steem ecosystem needs those people, as I explain in the above paper.