I fully agree with you man ! I ll will follow you and not in the idea that you will so the same but because I feel an commitment to quality !
I am sorry for my english errors but I am a french speaker :).
Thank you for caring about the voting system. Quality is the key, education is the key. If steemit want to be different than what facebook will be when they will swich to the blockchain, THIS QUESTION MATTERS A LOT !
Steemit could be the plateform where the independants searchers and teachers, artists and leaders of a better society could federate a very usefull knowledge.
Thank you so much for following me and for that kind compliment! There is a lack of quality control all over the place and I think we can do much, much better.
What exactly about my thoughts do you think can be improved? I'm constantly striving to improve and would appreciate any suggestions.
I would love to see a platform where independent searchers and teachers, artists and leaders could collectively aggregate a wealth of knowledge. I've touched on something similar to that in this post on an etymology of different things here. That article needs to be updated and organized better, but I believe the general idea comes across. I'd love to hear your feedback on that as well!
I think a simple way to improve the quality would be to let the posts gain value without a lilit in time. Because smart content take time to read, time to be writen and most of all it is valuable more longer. This is the difference between fast news and deep journalism, between a comment and a book,..
There is to variables : quantity and quality. Industrial times pushes us toward quantity but it has been seen that to prooduce in quantity, with an ammount of ressources (here it is time) limited pushes producers who cares about rentability to care less about quality. The attractiveness linked to the money is a sad but effective way to convince more people to come see what steemit is. And it is also a perfect way to free people from the need of a job they don't like or don't exerce freely.
Steemit limits the way we upvote to enhance a choice. This is to create a value of the vote but also to force people to think of what they want to upvote. So it s a paradoxe to push people to post so often. Or it is because they want the plateform to grow. But if it is that it is a bad move cause it will destroy what makes steemit so great. Again it is only my opinion and I don't blame cats or babies or food lovers. The system should be different indeed.
I think we can take the fact that meme posts on Dmania are worth thousands of times more money than my criticism of the value structure of the platform is evidence enough that this, if the voting remains the same, is not the platform for me.
I think you nailed it on the head. A voting system that works for more intelligible content must, by necessity, be more complicated than an up or down and time.
I'm not so sure it's sad, necessarily. I think Steemit is a great way of creating value for those that would otherwise not be able to create that value with certain creative avenues. I think humans crave creativity and I think today's societies make a very small effort to provide livelihood for those pursuing creativity, but Blockchain technology is, and will continue to, change that.
Absolutely!! I love cats, babies, and food posts too! However, I believe they require an objectively smaller amount of effort to create then a well thought out post. Or at least, they show up in such a greater proportion on the front page of the website that it leads me to wonder why the disparity.
Check out my Dtube video on how I think we could improve the system, not only in the respect of voting, but in all respects. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Unfortunately, I don't think there'll ever be any agreed measure for site wide quality control. Some people seem opposed to the concept itself. I have seen individual communities, such as @steemstem, taking QC into their own hands, at least. Only thing I'm really interested in a platform is usability and finding like-minded individuals.