I see that differently (probably also because I earn more by writing articles instead of rewarding them). I believe you that sometimes you really get rewarded by discovering undiscovered stuff (I know that you are a very good curator), but I think often curating is more about to reward stuff of famous authors at the right time.
Of course there are curators like you who seek "hidden" stuff, but I have to disagree that articles are "good" only because they have many votes as @vandeberg wrote. I can conclude that also from my own articles where I often have more than hundred votes but only lets say 15 views. How can the 90 % of voters, who didn't even read my article, decide if it is good or bad?
Another example: let two persons, one of them being a "famous old" member, and the other one an unknown "minnow", write exactly the same article: you will see that the well known user has many votes within a very short time, whereas the unknown user has only a few votes within a long timespan. I will bet on that.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This observation is correct and it´s exactly the reason, why reward-oriented curation tries to spot content from unknown users. Trust me, try to maximize your return on curation for a while (if you can afford spending the time that this requires…) and one of the first things you will stop doing is voting on high-rep authors. As you say, the usual suspects of the trending page collect rewards so early after posting that there is simply no window of opportunity for performance oriented curators. Therefore I say, incentivizing content discovery actually counteracts on this kind of inequity that you find faulty here.
Thanks for your interesting thoughts!