You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Meet Steem's #1 so called "Added Value" Self absorbed Influencers

in #steemit7 years ago (edited)

@mindhunter isn't doing anything wrong. He buys votes from a whale. How is this different from booster or randowhale etc.?
Banfield is attempting to whip up a mob with pitchforks without actually bothering to find out what is actually going on.
The fact is that the platform code allows people to vote for themselves and it allows people to post multiple times a day and it allows payouts on comments, so doing so cannot be wrong. Jerry is trying to make it morally wrong by saying that only the most popular people deserve high payouts. He is trying to equate his popularity with the quality of his posts, which is a simplistic approach to attaching value.
In his post Jerry tries to equate himself with the hugely popular @papa-pepper so that people will think that he is talking sense, but even the pepper, whose posts are great, sometimes has videos in posts with under 10 views, so, not exactly popular.
Would Jerry say that Papa didn't deserve the high payout for those unpopular videos? Like I said, his attitude is simplistic and badly thought out and probably based in greed.

Sort:  

"tries to equate himself with the hugely popular @papa-pepper"

Which he successfully does...with inarguable math...

"Would Jerry say that Papa didn't deserve the high payout for those unpopular videos? "

Obviously not, since he didn't even say that about Mindhunter and tamim.

The last time I checked personality doesn't equal maths and a large part of his argument against those guys was their lack of votes compared to payout, in his post, "Meet Steem's #1 Author!"

I think reward earned per view is one of many valid metrics to look at when evaluating the content of a poster.

It's undoubtedly one, but in it's evaluation how do you separate people that voted and liked the post from people who merely voted for the curation rewards?
Or, like Jerry, do you think that popularity = quality?

"It's undoubtedly one, but in it's evaluation how do you separate people that voted and liked the post from people who merely voted for the curation rewards?"

I'm afraid you can't, at present. I've been posting a series on suggestions to improve curation to break that link. Until we change that formula, it's going to keep happening.

"Or, like Jerry, do you think that popularity = quality?"

Popularity and quality may be different things, but the formula for financial reward is not:

Quality = Reward

it's:

Quality * Reach = Reward.

You may appreciate this post, despite disliking the facts as they are:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@lexiconical/steemit-like-life-is-a-popularity-contest-embrace-it-or-devote-your-efforts-to-other-pursuits-your-problem-is-not-the-reward