RE: Hive Ecosystem | Data on Curation Groups & KE Ratios!
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Hey, I saw this post because I was tagged. Did you see my data about rewards : word count? I think it might provide some additional inputs and broader insights for your post:
I would argue that
a) Not every post is equal
b) they should be assessed against their peers
c) KE based curation would not serve to appropriately award those who are putting in a great deal of effort and actively have their ke go from big number to small number
d) There is already a great deal of nepotism on HIVE
An example, from my personal circumstances, with a KE of ~6.1.
I took a lot of my HP into Splinterlands, and it never came back again :) It came out from Splinterlands, and went into buying various photographic gear, which I put back into HIVE posts.
I definitely agree with you that there is way too much of a free lunch on HIVE, but my argument is that it might be the autovoters getting a lot of that free lunch.
We need more manual curation, and more encouragement of the genuine engagement that users participate in through initiatives like topcomment, for example.
After all, HIVE is a social platform. If we do not have people genuinely engaged in discussion, creativity, sharing, and other things, they will leave. I've been on Steem (and HIVE) for almost 9 years now, I have lost so many people in those years.
So many people who create content that is on par or if not better than most of the content I see in trending daily that is published (and voted for) by users with low KE scores.
I can also posit something else, which may be a dangerous statement to make: perhaps those with a low KE, with large, and high HP, and lots of friends in similar situations, may indeed feel threatened by the prospect of higher quality content trimming down their own earnings.
KE may not be the point of discussion, but there's one thing that I have observed.
People who are going to create things, are going to create things - whether there is a reward or not. Whether they choose to publish it exclusively to HIVE is another matter all together.
There are shit posts, and then there are shit posts yours is neither of them, and I look forward to seeing what sort of discussions it raises in the comments during the coming days :)
@topcomment this 👆
D.
There is another,
E) Not all content "creators" are in a position to invest external funds into HIVE to "increase" their KE, and such a policy by curators would likely see an exodus in those content creators should curation communities elect to vote only based on KE, and not objective matters such as post quality.
There's also option F) - All of the above
But the more I think about the comment I made above, the more I have ... more thoughts about curation.
I am not planning on going anywhere anytime soon, but I am definitely not currently in a financial position to "fix" my KE - other than through earning it.
The reason I want more HP (and I'm trying to earn it through good posts) is so that I can award content that I stumble across here that I wouldn't stumble across elsewhere.
Curating stuff is much fun and rewarding!
(Manual curation is hightly appreciated, no, I really do mean so). But this thing is a bit rare to find...
The curation isn't the reward, it is the joy I get from sharing in the joy (or sometimes misery and struggle) that the creator had in creating whatever they created. :)
I am going to bed now, but I will be interested to read other comments in the post.
I do hope the community generates a discussion around this post!
Good curation criteria should be comprehensive -> and not formal, not mechanical but manual. For me personally, KE / person's HP strength / amount of efforts invested in a post / user engagement, activity -> all these aspects are important.
Example (negative).
Look at 10 posts in a row from a common 'successful' Hive blogger, and you may see each post got solid support, while having 0 comments; or just 5-10 formal comments from bots; but did not attracted a single Hive user, all skipped it (even if they gave their votes for this content) - I see it as an internal vice.... and to me such rewarding is questionable. (And, yes, I understand very well when we add such a formal criterion for curators - it will not lead to anything good, except for hundreds of comments a la 'Brilliant click / Successful post / Have a nice day', etc). heh.
Or, you see an interesting topic - and see comments, and the comments are a combination of
"THIS POST HAS BEEN CURATED BY X"
"THANK YOU FOR HODL HIVE ENGINE TOKEN Y"
"Nice post Deer"
"Hmm, interesting"
And ... you get disappointed that there's no genuine engagement or discussion behind a potentially interesting post that you decided to read.
Yeah. Hell yeah. But watching all sorts of sh..... er... stuff along the way (you labeled it politely as 'nepotism') - one is getting frustration and a thick layer of bitter feelings at the bottom of the soul by the end of day.
For me it is a fire to ensure that no one should be ashamed to create the content that they would like to see. I don't care what the content is about - (unless it is abhorrent or unmoral, or sees people being hurt, injured, or threatened physically or mentally) - like I think I said in another post somewhere - it could be content about someone making tasty charcoal skewers while on a skateboard, I may not be interested in it, but if it is quality, GO FOR IT.
If an audience wants to reward that, fine, but don't do it just because the person has a financial metric imposed upon their ability to earn.
Do it based on the output.
We cannot judge people by their "bank balances", we should judge them by their actions and their output.
I'm mostly going from the point of view on how to make Hive work and sustainable long term. Post Quality & number of words in that regard is more or less worthless in my view. That said, it is nice to have great posts on Hive, and there certainly is a problem also with low-quality auto-upvote posts.
All I'm saying is that there should be a balance, where exactly that is is up for discussion, but the KE Ratio in general is a good starting point. Just click a random post on one of the curation compilations and see if the person is a net positive or a net negative for Hive. That ratio is simply horrible at the moment, and there needs to be a clear reason why people should want to buy and stake Hive which right now simply isn't there. All of this isn't forcing anyone to actually invest, but just to keep a fair share of their earnings invested to give at least something back. Again, everyones sitiuation is different, and I do think that leasing Hive Power should fully count toward it.
I don't think you are bad for Hive by the way (not that I'm here to judge). If anything, I really appreciate those who are here for the long run and clearly put effort into every single post while are also willing to keep some Hive staked. I would pose the question, if you only kept 100HP just to do the needed activities on the chain, do you think that would fine?
I think people (who are not spamming) could probably get away with 20HP worth of RC to do the social thing of posting and engaging - but and this is a very big but, they may be missing the whole point on HIVE.
I know that we must all have some confidence in our own abilities as an author, creator, writer, curator, whatever label we wish to put upon ourselves; and I know that we have a lot of very smart people on the chain.
To me, the value proposition on HIVE is that there are few other places on the Internet where you can obtain immutable (in terms of being able to see the entire edit history of a text) - and that enable people to write longer form content.
Other front ends - eg Facebook, Reddit etc, are not optimised for multiple-images, rich text, video, sound, and all the things that HIVE has. The exception are places like Medium, Substack, or someone's personal word press blog, and all of these platforms are increasingly being over-run with AI generated trash.
Peakd (my preferred front end) is actually really beautiful for long form posts, and while it is only markdown and a bit of basic HTML, the readability of content (if you can discover it) is really good, whether I am on my desktop, laptop, phone, or some other device.
Sorry for that tangent - I just woke up, but to get back on topic - 100HP (One hundred!) in the "bank" for someone who has been here for years, would have me questioning their motivations. My motivations are to reward content that I deem, in my set of criteria to be quality - if it is interesting, engaging, shows me a new perspective, or exposes me to something I didn't know could be interesting - it would get a vote.
Unless that person has taken 100k HP and turned it into 100HP, I'm not likely to bat an eye. They have already gotten value. They will probably, inevitably, get value again - I mean, they had to do something right to get that 100k HP in the first place.
I will also not usually vote on something that already has a high reward, but I tend to value and engage comments with my votes, as it stretches the author's defence of what they have written, or may elicit more detail that they didn't include in the post. I'm probably that guy at the seminar that asks the annoying questions that creep the scope of the talk ;)
In regards to your other comment: I have to also disagree with your other response regarding the other metric - word count to reward ratio, because, while all things aren't an academic text - some authors are publishing long-form stories, or in depth analysis or reviews of literature, video games, and other things that I would have, in the past, required to have a magazine subscription to obtain the same level of quality.
Or perhaps, it is things that would not make the cut in the traditional publishing world but do get some eyeballs on HIVE.
HIVE has to be a place with content, first and foremost. People do not get onto reddit to understand its economics, to understand its database structure, or to forensically analyse a user's history prior to engaging with or enjoying the content. People go to somewhere like reddit to connect, to discuss, to have discourse, and to learn. That's what makes reddit valuable (along with its advertising revenue, no doubt!) - it is the social.
My belief is that Hive will only thrive if it is social growth that drives it. Sure, there are things fundamentally wrong with the tokenomics, but we haven't had a hard fork in a long time - (in terms of changing how rewards work) - since around HF11 on Steem, if I recall correctly.
Most users don't care about that, they care about the social. There are always going to be people who are in the game to extract value, but there will hopefully always be people like me, who see the value in what the platform represents, not what the token is worth.
We bring value by creating value.