Well, you are talking about @jerrybanfield. I see that you have not mentioned his name, why? Are you afraid of downvotes or you don't believe in your point of view?
I don't know about the tricks to increase the followers on Youtube or increasing the number of views. And yes, I may agree partly with you, but not totally. You asked to watch the video just for 5 minutes, but I watched it for 10 minutes.
And what I found is, he is not asking you to self upvote your posts, in the next 5 minutes he explains that how upvoting other's comments and posts can bring you more money. I think you are biased in your approach here. He was the number 4 in the top author's list, and you are not, maybe it is not he who is ranting, but you. At least he has the followers and so many things to show to us, what you have?
I am angry with you, because I followed you for some good stuff. You think that the matter of @mindhunter was known before, but you didn't let me know about it, he let me know it first. And that $100 he paid for the article, deserves credit, not criticism, because it shows how much he values the quality of content here. You can always buy the time with money when you don't have much.
Look at the number of pictures he posts in his articles, and what you have here? You just took the screenshots of his picture or video and earned $200. I am a minnow, but I must say that your article is a BS. Downvote me if you want, I am a minnow, but I can't appreciate your BS just to get a upvote.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
"I think you are biased in your approach here."
Agreed. He conveniently neglected to point out that Jerry just discovered the same thing we all did.
I made a similar post after HF19 pointing out that the interest from self-voting was now over 150%, and could this be right?
Also, the whataboutism here is nuts. Why do you handwave #1 and #2 away and decide to go after #4, Jerry? Could it be a personal reason that he rubs you the wrong way?
How is paying more money to have someone help edit his posts (so you can read them better) or witness (so it runs better) bad?
I did not mention his name because it's not about Jerry, he is not the only fake social media success we have here. I am not addressing Jerry or asking him to defend himself, I am addressing the people who chase a mirage. If we want celebrities to come to Steemit we need people, we need an audience, we do not need cheerleaders. Once you understand that, then you will understand my point. As for fear of downvotes, how is mentioning his name will contribute to me getting downvotes?
Man this part is what ticked me about Jerry's post, according to this @mindhunter is the #1 author and Jerry is not so what Jerry has? followers :/ exactly my point. Followers who think they can make hundreds of dollars a day on steemit following some guide. If that is the growth we are looking for then fine.
I come from a background in crypto where airing dirty laundry is a bad thing. You think I should track all the abuse and make posts about it to keep you informed. My post was not an attack on Jerry, it was simply to show him anyone can do these dirty laundry posts. We need to leave this garbage off the platform and let people who know about it handle it their own way. There are proper channels to report abuse. There are people working night and day to prevent it, and the fact they do not post about it is because it has to be handled the right way. Not spamming garbage on the front page. Did that post solve the abuse? and you knowing about it, did it help solve it?
you and I both know my post was not about getting upvotes, and the number of pictures in his posts! what exactly that has to do with anything? My article is BS just like his, I only fed him a spoonful of the dish he was serving my friend. I do not like drama, especially drama that goes on the front page, because it's bad for steemit image, sometimes you have to fight a disease with a little serving of the same bacteria that causes it so we become immune from it. I do not downvote anyone. Maybe I have done 2 or 3 downvotes since I joined steemit in the early days and they were in the testing category when Dan asked us to downvote his test posts in the witness channel.
Dude I feel the same way as you man. Steemit nowadays is full of fucking fraud and non quality posts but still they managed to have their stupid followers upvoting on them. That guy is obviously just to provoke you. Shame on you guys who upvoted sanjay post. It's obviously so immature that you think this author will scare of downvotes. Why did he even put it up in the first place if scared of downvotes. Sanjay argument is purely immature and BS. Guys look at his profile and wallet, wouldn't it be more obvious that this guy is trying to get more upvotes than the guy who already owned 200$ per post? Are you guys really so dumb to see the drama played out here?
@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.
"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
You spoke my mind.