Multi-Tiered Curation Idea

in #curation5 years ago

curator.jpg

Curating content isn't easy. We're expected to sift through posts using archaic methods for hours everyday for negative pay? We could just be upvoting ourselves amirite? To bad the system would implode and all our stake would tumble to zero value (it wouldn't).

Curation and upvotes are just a small helping hand that make this platform great. It helps distribution in comparison to other projects. In relation to a proof-of-work coin, the only way they have to decentralize stake is to mine and sell on the open market. Curation/upvotes give us an extra tool in the toolbox.


crux_sky-stars.jpg

That's all curation is: an extra feature.

It is not the crux of the platform like many claim.
The quest to reward high quality content is important, but overrated.
We would do well to remember this going forward.


As a Palnet/SteemLEO whale, I've been giving this a lot more thought. I never really had to think about it as a Steem dolphin.


Upvoting people over content.

I'm willing to bet that all of us have done this. You begin to trust certain accounts and no longer see the need to actually check the content they've made (or you skim it really fast). Upvoting a trusted account is easier than vetting content. I also tend to upvote holders.

@meno @krnel @taskmaster4450 @tarazkp

Here's a tiny list of accounts I know I can upvote and the inflation won't get dumped on the market. You can't really go wrong upvoting people you know are going to hold, regardless of the content they put out (which is also good).

I also tend to upvote people who comment on my blog. I feel like this promotes engagement and gives my content more value. However, it would be nice to be able to branch out and find new people rather than sit in my little bubble where I follow less than 100 people (many of which are not active). Also, the accounts above are already big stake holders... so upvoting them doesn't decentralize the platform much, if at all.

How do we make curation easier?

Well, I could find someone I trust and delegate them all my SteemLEO coins. I must admit, I've thought about this more than once. However, I've seen where delegations lead; they lead to laziness, corruption, and apathy. They lead to nepotism and corruption. Hard Pass.

pyramid-hierarchy-3-tier1.jpg

So what then?

I'd like to see a system created where users compete to curate. It is a three-tiered hierarchy.

  1. At the top of the pyramid you have the stake holder who controls everything and has the final word. If everything goes to plan, this person won't have to do any work and they can just check in from time to time.

  2. Here we have the arbiters; one or more people responsible for casting votes for the stake-holder.

  3. The bottom tier consists of the actual curators. These are the people sift through the muck looking for content/accounts that deserve upvotes.

All the real work happens at the bottom tier. Curators compete to cast the vote of the stake holder. Essentially, instead of being delegated the stake, curators cast a virtual vote in the form of custom JSON. The arbiter then checks the posts that have been virtually upvoted and chooses how much to ACTUALLY upvote them.

All of the curation money that is generated in this process goes into a tracked fund. Money from this curation fund is then distributed to the arbiters/curators. The details of how this is done could have some custom variables. In general, one would expect that curators who virtually upvoted the posts that got actually upvoted would receive more money.

This system creates a healthy competitive atmosphere where curators actually have something to lose if they do a sub-par job.

price-value-scale.jpg

Scaling

Nothing would stop a stake-holder from also being their own arbiter (effectively turning it into a 2 tiered system). There are a lot of options with this setup.

In addition, the system could scale up to a curation trail where there are multiple stake-holders in the top tier and multiple arbiters. You could even go so far as to limit the permissions of arbiters so that they can't cast the votes; they just filter them even further for the stake-holders to decide.

Conclusion

This post might seem a little hypocritical considering how vehemently again curation I've been in the past. However, I still think curation is valuable, just that it should be optional and deleted from the consensus layer. Curation is hard work, and I think that work should be rewarded with the same tenants as the tipping model that Steem is founded on. There are so many improvements to be made, I'm just trying to do my part.

What do you think?

Sort:  

It’s funny, the system you speak of was exactly the intent behind @hobo.media! There are senators, auditors and casters. Casters vote and find content, auditors make sure the casters are doing good work and the senators check in on the progress and have discussions about the direction of the service. If you’d like, you can join up! It’s in its infancy now but I’ve already curated one and I’m on vacation lol let me drop the link for them in the discord (wish we had a good Steem version..)

https://discord.gg/N8CCGf is their discord, I really like the project so far. They aim to rival curie with a strong decentralized component.

@ edicted This is actually what we at @hobo.media are trying to accomplish right now. :)

Please check out these articles if you get a chance:

The HoboDAO Reward System

You are being gifted 1000 Hobo tokens!

Hobo tokens are an SE token!

Many scoff at curation because small accounts don't make a lot, but I think that in time it will build more into a professional service. @ocd already pays their curators and has been for two years now. They have distributed a massive amount through @acidyo and the curators have earned well for doing what they do. Not everyone is cut out for it.

I also think that in time, it is going to be ludicrous for some accounts to keep curating themselves. 1 million steem produces a 17 dollar vote today. at 3 dollars that is a 170 dollar vote, at 9 it is 500 dollar vote, 18 a thousand dollar vote. $10,000 distributed a day... That is 100 posts earning 100 dollars worth of Steem a day (5.5 Steem :D each). 100 potential authors around the world from every 1 million Steem powered up daily.

The "small" accounts will be massive drivers of value that spread small amounts widely, the large will be attractors of all kinds of content creators, all kinds of projects, all kinds of businesses - a marketing dream. millions of accounts can have value distributed to them - and that is just from the steem pool. Then the token layers come in on top.

People take these small amounts of Steem for granted because they don't see the potential in what is to come.

I think it's understated that many of the problems we struggle through with 30 cent steem cease to exist with 3 dollar steem.

Posted using Partiko Android

I think it's understated that many of the problems we struggle through with 30 cent steem cease to exist with 3 dollar steem.

I agree. And 30 cent Steem in this market is not too bad in my opinion at this point due to usage. Later if the applications do their job, the price will rise and stablize rather than just be speculators diversifying across alts to make some gains.

I love the price. Orca is so attainable!

Posted using Partiko Android

Hello @john371911, thanks for dropping by and downvoting my comments to return those rewards to the pool for other users to enjoy. You are definitely setting the example for everyone here on STEEM. Please continue to post subpar posts and bid bot them up, and I will continue to be your loyal follower.

I think that we must do away with any silly notions that curation on here is anything like curation in a gallery or museum. Curation is another word for ranking, for review and opinion on the value of an item, and so looking at it as a job, or as work is a stretch and I think the reason it is such a chore is the reverse auction aspect of it. Curation should be fun, it should require minimum consideration and as such it should not be a mentally taxing task at all. The only reason it is so is because of the reverse auction implementation of it which makes people try to compete with one another, a scarcity mindset of "if you're not first your last" . If we remove that aspect what will probably happen is that curation will become less of a chore and much more fun. With that in mind, curation rewards are more important to the system than author rewards, as content on the internet is so saturated and it will only continue to become even more so, and I doubt there's anything that can compete with curation rewards for the importance of investing/ powering up, I mean I'd like to hear anyone make a case contrary to that.

You're very correct that curation rewards produce something other than curation of a museum collection, or upvotes of posts on other, non-tokenized social media.

That's not what I said at all, nice try twisting "curation on here isn't what museum and gallery curators do, curation on here is simply rating/reviewing/giving opinions on items" into "cURaTiOn reWaRdS aRe BaD mkaay". Your nonsense theories that people will invest money to reward others in the hopes that others will do the same and buy in to reward others exclusively also are as idiotic and removed from reality as they get. I defy anyone to fathom something more fantastic than that, that investors will lock in stake without curation rewards or any other return besides the hopes that it will increase demand for the tokens, which is as idiotic nonsensical as it gets. It's no wonder why no one has done such a thing in the entire history of mankind, because it's idiotic.

" Your nonsense theories that people will invest money to reward others in the hopes that others will do the same and buy in to reward others exclusively also are as idiotic and removed from reality as they get. I defy anyone to fathom something more fantastic than that..."

Reddit, Fakebook, Insta, and so on, so forth. All these places feature actual curation without any financial reward. You here confuse investing and ROI as somehow being only possible via curation rewards, and completely fail to grasp that since long before history began investors relied on capital gains for ROI. Despite no rewards existing on legacy social media, it is provable that people curate on those platforms, and flock to them to post despite no author rewards existing either.

Steem potentiates financial returns from using social media, and gaining author rewards depends neither on curation rewards, which demonstrably discourage actual curation in favor of profiteering due to financial incentive, or stake weighting, which again encourages profiteering rather than content creation.

Your inability to grasp factual reality consistently produces hilarity. I am always entertained when I bother to read your drivel. It further allows my pointing out said factual reality to be contrasted by the example of absurdity you provide.

Thanks again!

Loading...

Curation becomes incredibly more important when payouts are 50/50. Posts rely on it. Steemit is still 75/25 and I like having more rewards for authors because there a lot more work involved. It took me relatively 3 minutes to read your post. How much longer did it take for you to write it?

In any case people will vote by who they know thus tribes.. it's life and may be unfair. That's why it's important to network and make connections. It's the proof of brain portion of this Steem universe (at the moment)..

SteemPeak actually just added a feature that helps greatly with curation, LISTS! It may not be immediately obvious...but it does. You add different people to different lists, like maybe your favorite authors, or technology content creators, or artists, or photographers, then it makes curation really fucking easy...comparatively. Of the people you follow, and possibly even ones you don't, you can check them quickly, rather than necessarily adding them to auto-vote, and choose how much you vote them based on what they have posted, rather than just automatically at a set percentage.

I've been saying for a long time that Steem doesn't necessarily need one huge change to fix the problem of curation, but a lot of tiny features that just make it easier. Now, on SteemPeak, it's just a little bit easier to sort the people you might want to follow in different lists that you can check and upvote. Hopefully they also add a notification feature soon that's list enabled, so you can get alerts when people in certain lists post.

It's all about making curation easier.

I'd like to see a way where normal users can EASILY suggest posts for curation, then their followers can see that, separate from just resteems. Maybe then curators that work for different teams can see that someone they trust has suggested a post for curation, or even a few people, and then check that post, and then it makes it's way up the ranks, without having to go to Discord or some other shitty outside centralized app.

We all do curation on all social networks. We share funny memes and articles that we like, and those in turn have a chance to go viral. Problem is that they kinda borked it on Steem due to a combination of factors. So...curation here does kinda suck. Usually when they say curation they either mean just a whale getting paid for voting with his stake, or a bunch of minnows working way too fucking hard to find "good" content that should be rewarded, and getting paid pennies for their effort. So, in a sense, curation both sucks and is a really awesome thing, at times.

"Problem is that they kinda borked it on Steem due to a combination of factors. So...curation here does kinda suck. Usually when they say curation they either mean just a whale getting paid for voting with his stake, or a bunch of minnows working way too fucking hard to find "good" content that should be rewarded, and getting paid pennies for their effort."

I think rather than a combination of factors, it is the results of one specific factor, and that is replacing actual curation with profiteering, or the ability to extract financial rewards for upvoting. A combination of factors borking curation results from this incentive to upvote, and contradicts incentive to recommend creation with incentive to extract money from creation.

your on a roll bud and you should keep it up since you speak of things that makes people think and you say it in a way that is going to get through to people compared to me
i hate to say this but jerkoff or beanie and marky have the right to say whatever they want even though i think they are completely lost but they should not have the right to flag someone a 100 times for the same post
its like they are trying to cut their own throat
can youtell ive been drinking bud
lol
have a great afternoon my friend'

I had never thought to upvote holders because of that value that would bring to the ecosystem. It never entered my mind because honestly I don't understand the technical workings upvotes and how they could hurt the ecosystem. I would love to learn more about that since I spend soooooo much time here. I tend to upvote those I know and newbies to encourage them. Perhaps that is a waste of my time?

You're not wasting your time.
Diversity is important.
Everyone gets to choose how they think they can bring value to the platform.

cool. I appreciate the input. I'd love to support the big holders as a hedge as well.

Value isn't only financial. I never upvote content because I seek financial rewards from doing so, but almost always upvote content because it has value to society. We all assign value differently, and that's a good thing.

I hear you on this. I upvote for encouragement because that feels right to me.

Exactly doing what you are doing. Support good content knowing they are here for the long haul. I hate seeing people powering down all the time and then they complain the price is dropping. I don't even look at the price anymore as what is the point I am not selling anyway. In five years I may change my mind but there is no rush as this place has a long way to go yet.

In five years I may change my mind

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that.
Most people are such fearful scarcity slaves... sad really.
No one could ever fault you for abandoning ship five years from now if the platform hadn't made significant gains. Personally I "guarantee" it will only take 3 years, max.

I have always said give it time and 5 years was the minimum time frame I set. Unfortunately people don't have patience and want instant rewards and this isn't just going to happen. Three years is great and if it takes longer then it doesn't matter.I ain't going anywhere and this place is fun.

Yep ... the new trybes are making curation interesting. I also find my self searcing for content a lot more then before.... usualy end up on the hot posts...

The system above sounds interesting, maybe a bit complicated at first :) But making a curation a job to people is a great thing .... curators/moderators should be put in place and get rewarded for their job. Just need to find the right system :) .... transparency should have a big role

It's interesting to consider the differences between the job of a museum curator, who is paid a salary to select content to promote, and a curator on Steem, who is paid by their ability to profit from specific recommendations, upvotes, on content.

The former creates financial incentive to recommend only content of high social value, and the latter instead encourages promotion of content which best enables extraction of financial rewards.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.35
TRX 0.12
JST 0.040
BTC 70557.88
ETH 3560.83
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.75