And exactly this is why creative, relevant posts get overlooked and generic posts about the love-life of ants get good rewards.
None of your ocd posts would ever make it to a trending page on reddit.
None of your ocd criteria apply to the real world.
cui bono?
OCD was invented to secure @acidyo's and @anomadsoul's payouts and to feed their 'curators' - bypassing the built in reward dynamics, transferring funds from the posting reward pool into their own wallets without actually having to write posts.
If you know exactly what a good post looks like, why don't you write your own?
Mind if downvote your comment? Seems kinda weird to snap and then self vote it to the top so everyone can see your meltdown. But I thought I'd ask first.
Maybe instead downvoting you can find arguments against his points?
You have to agree that >200$ vote for a collection of well-known trivia might not felt appropriate by people.
There are six beneficiaries listed. Half of the total goes back to the community members who supported. Maybe some of that stuff is common sense in the post, but when you look around, do you see these things? So maybe some people could use the help. I don't know. It's not for me to decide.
I wasn't going to downvote. I was only joking. If someone wants to put on a big show they should be able to handle a little bit of friendly razzle dazzle.
The author felt it was a good time to sum these things up again seeing the big influx of new users.
Selfvoting comments is something that's been a pet peeve of mine, though, especially if what they're spewing is untrue.
Did you really?
Are you trying to pretend you just run ocd out of philantropy?
If I ask a friend to upvote my comment again, will you downvote it more? Or is that not a selfvote, then?
Either way - the more I think about this, the more I disagree on all ocd votes, actually. I have little to lose here. I was just commenting on your reward pool - sponsored party.
Yeah I sensed a bit of sensationalism there. The self vote didn't help matters. Maybe do some big open transparent statistic post, describing what's happening. I dunno.
I guess once people make up their minds like that they wouldn't believe it anyway. These things always comes with flak though. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It doesn't take a statistics post to see how curation circles contradict the whole point of the reward system.
We could save us a lot of code and hassle if we just let you guys moderate all posts, but I don't think the stuff you choose to reward has much value.
I don't need a comittee, or a party. This very technology was designed to free us from that stuff. And the first thing you guys do is elect a fucking comittee.
And now you are mocking me for getting angry about your ignorance. Fucking idiocracy this is.
I'm not part of any organization here. Nothing man. One man show. Do my own thing. How can I take your concerns seriously if your goal is to pin some shit on me that has nothing to do with me.
You're being a total dick. No need to be a dick to me. You made up your mind, you're not going to believe what I say. How is that mocking you? The sensationalism is there in your words again. So whatever. Be like that. I don't care.
Who's the one raging now?
We very rarely put stuff on trending, most of what we curate is selected posts in communities and outside of communities often times 1-3 days late and there's over 50 different people suggesting stuff to reward now based on many factors aside from just the content. On top of that we're also curating so many post daily now that to vote something as high as onto trending it needs to be something really special. It's like most of the things you disagree with aren't even something we're actively doing. You see one post in trending and bring all of those things up that we don't even take part in.
How do you not get this annoyed by people front-running, constantly voting on the same authors with autovotes and stacking them high to always have the same authors on trending, etc. If you think that's a more deserving trending than some unique authors we put up there every once in a while then I should stop wasting my time with you.
I wish it was well known, if it were then she wouldn't need to write this. As curators we are often being asked why posts weren't curated and at times harassed and even near on blackmailed to try and get votes for people.
As NoNames has pointed out, 60% of this post payout is going to beneficiaries, if that helps you to feel a bit better about the rewards on it. Sometimes there is more going on under the surface than is immediately apparent and I don't mind this kind of support for someone paying it forward.
But the point is, that even the best post can be easily overlooked and often is. So I can understand people why they are not going the extra mile. I for myself stopped doing extensive research on some of my topics because it simply doesn´t pay off.
And the reward system actively penalizes upvoting underdog posts. I am wondering how many of OCD upvotes go to posts that have <1$ reward until their upvote. Would love to see a stats about this, but unfortunately I am not a programmer.
Why is it that just because of this post, OCD became the bad guy for not upvoting enough underdog posts? Do you know how many posts we have to scour every single day on Twitter posh curation alone? Currently at 150 damned posts. 153 to be exact as I curated supposed to be yesterday but I just recently finished because I got busy with real-life matters. If OCD had all the voting mana in the world, I would have recommended all those posts for varying degrees of upvotes. I felt even bad for decent posts that I skipped for simply not following the posh curation rules. I also made sure those posts that are recommended for upvote are really low that having a $9 pending payout is already skipped. That's just for posh alone.
Curating with Love Sniper for intro posts is another thing. We have to scour at least 50 posts per day and upvote those decent intro posts and most of those are <$1 and very overlooked. That's for love sniper ALONE.
I'm the one compiling for other niche communities curation support to encourage users to post in appropriate communities. Do you know how many curators and community leaders drop posts there for undervalued posts? At least 7 per day with an average of 10 posts for curation per day. That's for other communities.
Do you know how many communities are supported by OCD? More than 30. Do you know how many posts are dropped per community? 3 to 8 per day. Still not enough?
OCD Daily, posts promoted by curators pro bono, and intro posts dropped in discord, those are not even counted in the curation. Still not enough?
Now, why is that OCD is still a bad guy for overlooking some of the "best" posts? Can OCD upvote all those "best" posts in a day? No. That's why other curation initiatives exist. Still the bad guy, eh?
It's easy to say this post is over-rewarded because of the pending payout. What wasn't accounted was the hours of consultation, discussion, and editing of the post. What wasn't accounted was the reputation of the author. Not the number beside the username, but the years of engagement with other authors through bears and bulls of the market. What wasn't accounted was the potential help of this post to new authors, which is clearly shown in 99% of the comments. What wasn't accounted was the wisdom of different curators who are clearly beneficiaries of this post. All people see are the numbers in the pending rewards, not what's happening behind the scene. And then complain about how this post is over rewarded.
"Curators just upvote their circle of friends". Where's the proof? If that's the case, I wouldn't have recommended all those Venezuelans I had no interaction on chain. If that was true, I would have recommended Filipinos only. If that was true, my friends would have been rich in upvotes.
OCD has been heavily scrutinized and nitpicked when it has been very transparent in its actions. And if curators are upvoted, they're simply rewarded for their hard work. Or do you want curation work to be free, eh?
Well I didn´t do all these accusations you mentioned. And I also do curate manually without getting noticed for it or asking for some thanks by others or creating some extra posts about it. Chill.
So what does this imply?
So you really want countless hours of curation work to be free? How noble of you. Sadly, that's not sustainable. Why would I spend my time on doing curation if I won't earn anything? I'll just have it automated and go somewhere else to have worth of my time. And that's what other curation accounts have been doing without regard of quality. That's why many of your so-called "best" posts have been left not upvoted. And OCD is doing the sweeping to those accounts even if it's heavily penalising curation wise. And yet OCD is still under scrutiny for rewarding its curators.
We have rules in place to look for literally underrewarded posts but if they have great content we still vote them a bit even if they have the usual maximizers frontrunning them cause we don't want authors who put a lot of effort into longform content to stop since the rest of the stakeholders stop voting certain posts cause they're already at $1 or to not feed the leeches more rewards.
I'd also be interested in seeing more stats of our votes.
I certainly don't disagree with that. I can't count how may times I've come across something amazing that managed to slip past numerous curators and is almost at payout. I'm glad that both ocd and curangel will still vote them with one day left to payout and I'm good to be in a position to raise some noise for them via the communities. Unfortunately, posts still slip past us, even with the best efforts.
As for how many ocd upvote with <$1 reward, I can vouch that they do a LOT, although they aren't anywhere near that by the time ocd are done with them 😉, which could be why it feels like it doesn't happen much. I've just spent this week flooding ocd with posts around the $1 mark and under, with the joint HomeEdders contest. Just finished wrapping up, so apologies for my late reply.
I would mind.
I read that using a really deep and sinister voice for special effect. Sounded way cooler like that.
Could you do an evil laugh for me next?
Do you realize that you guys are the bullies?
Who's "you guys?" I'm only one me.
I'm just some guy who showed up here and felt like joking around. If you're having a bad day, that's okay. I won't interfere. Carry on.
He always has a bad day.
Does me replying to your comments make us "you guys" now?
Shit. If it's guilty by association then "you guys" is a massive horde of people that won't stop growing until I stop talking to everyone I can... because that's what we do here. We don't talk in fear of... something. I dunno. Whatever conspiracy is trending.
You, the people who participate in it, defend it and support it, yes.
You obviously have a vested interest.
Do you realize how arkward this will be, if you ever gather up the courage to go to a hive meetup or hivefest? Chances are, I will be there, too.
You guys are trying to moderate the frontpage. At least let me fucking comment.
Which real world are you talking about? HIVE is a bit different to other social media as it's rewards based.
We aren't Reddit, so that has no relevancy. We're HIVE.
She does, and has. Often.
The OCD curators work TIRELESSLY to bring rewards to unrewarded users. I'm talking hours and hours and hours of work, dealing with plagiarism, begging for upvotes and people trying to get around the system all the time with alts and sock puppets and so on. It used to be a mystery to me about where the rewards came from, but when I joined the team, I really understood how hard these guys worked and why they worked so hard. And if curators get some good upvotes for the hard work they do, that's awesome, because they really do work tirelessly, and care about the people they're curating. You're talking in total years, collectively - I've been here for three, working super hard on my own content (which I think is okay, even if it might not be your cuppa tea, which is fine, because everyone likes their own thing) and trying to build a community so I can support people who post in that passion area, and I know people like @crosheille, @galenkp, @livinguktaiwan, @derangedvisions and many, many other people in the OCD team work their asses off to find and support 'creative, relevant posts' - honestly, they do! - and sure, we're human, so sometimes we get it wrong, but bloody hell they work hard.
I guess that's why I had to write this, when I normally scroll on by because I do my best not to get involved in drama. I know that none of the Hive folk I work with would have anything to do with OCD if they thought it was unfair or unethical or only out for itself. I've known many of them before they were part of OCD or before I knew they were part of it.
And as for @acidyo (I dont personally know @nomadsoul), all I've seen is a guy who works his ass off to make sure rewards go where they are due and to make sure that HIVE is as awesome as it can possibly be. I guess that's hard to see sometimes, if you don't understand what happens behind the scenes.
Anyway, I thought @crosheille did a brilliant job of putting this together with beautiful intentions.
Big upvotes from whales are often a mystery - this post tries its best to clarify it for those who might be missing the mark more often than not and don't really know why.
All the best.
You are Hive?
I doubt it.
All OCD posts have beneficiaries going out to curators, community leaders and moderators so this makes this sentence untrue.
Also hi, been a while you came out of the woodwork to be annoying.
If all I cared about was post rewards I'd be posting 2x per day on my own account where the autovotes are more than enough without me even having to selfvote with any accounts.
You most certainly make more money either way since you started ocd.
Remember when we were sending each other posts in steemit.chat?
You were already getting good rewards back then, but you also tried helping out others.
It became a problem when you turned it into some sort of business model, which is about gaming the posting reward pool.
Did the content get any better than it was back in the day?
It is all the same now; 3 pictures, 3 paragraphs, citing sources, writing about irrelevant shit - ocd is rewarding school essays.
I would not even mind, but the peace love abundance passive aggressive attitude of your curators just gets to me sometimes.
The issue is you consider rewarding curators who spend way more time than the usual stakeholders who either vote whatever they see on trending or votetrade with their buddies through autovotes to be unfair that they get extra rewards for their work through compilation posts than other stakeholders. Yet fail to see that this is something necessary else no one would put in extra effort to make sure new users are better taken care of, guided, rewarded and retention goes up. Same thing goes for community leaders and moderators, the framework for more additions and rulesets to communities was cut short due to the Steemit acquisition and the people working on it quitting so this is sort of a hack to that nonexisting solution for people who don't post or have a lot of stake to be rewarded through curation for their work to also be fairly rewarded for the amount of work they put into improving the communities they're part of.
Rest of what you say is personal preference, we're not stating we're only curating noble prize quality content but the content has definitely improved and new users know how to improve better, which is literally what this post is about.
There's like 50 people in OCD now all with personal opinions, you don't like how they respond to your comments? Maybe the way you approach them initially is the problem.
Well... if they were not competing for the reward pool, I would not challenge them. There's a lot of money involved though.
I don't think so, I vote the ocd posts based on effort and time spent on them, I think on average curators make about 1 hbd and equivalent of hp per curated post in post rewards and that's with today's prices. It could be you're not aware of what goes into curation, it's not just picking up a post from your feed and throwing it into a new post to get more rewards out of.
I decided to create a project where more people can help me in curation and distribution instead of votetrading and autovote maximizing ROI. Again if all I cared about was maximizing returns you wouldn't see me actively using Hive or spending countless hours per day voting on other people's posts but instead have an army of alts I'd pretend to be unique people that I selfvoted and maximized in many other ways that the rules of the chain still allow to this day and the majority of stakeholders participate in.
Like you couldn't game ocd for that exact purpose...
You got 300k HP(!) what are you on about?
What are you on about?
That link is most likely some kind of scam. Just leave it alone, people.