This week's topic is really interesting to me, as I have noticed patterns in the curation process that show favoritism towards certain writers who, frankly, sometimes don't have much to say; meanwhile, there are other creators with more valuable and interesting posts who barely get any readers.
In fact, I'm not even clear on the criteria curators use when evaluating whether a post or comment deserves a vote. Does the curator genuinely like the content? Do they vote by process of elimination (the "least bad" gets the vote)? Or do they act out of favoritism and solidarity because they're friends with the author?
I have no idea, and no one has explained to me exactly why some are voted for and others ignored. I also don't know the criteria of regular voters, since they almost never leave comments. Because of this lack of feedback, it's sometimes impossible to know why someone is successful or why they fail when publishing.
Additionally, there's another problem that few mention: the difference in activity depending on the frontend you use to access the network (whether it's Ecency, PeakD, or InLeo).
For example, William-1977, a naturopathic doctor I came across looking for recommendations for skin problems, had a lot of extremely useful health posts, but he wasn't getting any views or votes. He was about to leave Hive when I suggested he post through InLeo instead of Ecency—where he usually did—since InLeo has a more active curation system. The result? He went from zero to over 100 votes per post, and thanks to that motivation, he continues to share valuable information with the Hive community today.
When I started in the community, I mistakenly thought that, beyond the interface, the curation system was exactly the same for the entire Hive ecosystem. However, that's not the case; each platform has its own dynamics and impact. InLeo, for example, offers better curation and is much more stable for slow or unstable connections like those in my country (Venezuela). Ecency gives you points to promote your posts and allows you to justify both margins of the text (something I can only partially achieve in InLeo), while PeakD allows you to break down your personal finances in a more organized way and cross-post.
None of the three platforms are perfect, as I've had problems with all of them—especially with Ecency. However, the fact that all three exist simultaneously has helped me publish when the internet in my country is slow, and that's a plus.
Ultimately, the Hive experience changes radically depending on where you decide to publish from. For those who are starting out or feel discouraged by the lack of votes, I suggest trying different interfaces before giving up.
I'd love to know: what has your experience been with the different interfaces and what criteria do you think carry the most weight when receiving a curation vote?
Note 1. The images in this post were created with Gemini AI.
Note 2. This post was translated from Spanish to English using Google Translate.
2 comments
With all that said. It would still be hard to tell how good a post is. Because, it is very subjective to each reader. However, I would say that when someone comes across something that they think is a good content. The easiest thing is to vote. Sometimes, one might not have much to say about the post.
Es cierto que veces uno tiene nada que decir. Pero como dije, los comentarios son importantes para comprender porque a alguien le interesa el tema y saber si explorar más temas en esa linea puede ser atraer o no publico. Si no hay interacción estas jugando a la lotería esperando que salga tu numero ganador y puede que no salga. Y también me habría ayudado saber desde el comienzo que inleo tenía mejor sistema de curación porque no me habría costado tanto despegar.