RE: Analysis Of Steemians Activities For The Month of April, 2018
Hello @ghulammujtaba, thank you for the contribution. However, as per Utopian rules, contributions must be unique.
All submitted contributions must be unique. Users must check if an identical or very similar contribution has been previously submitted.
However, your data overlaps with two reports and the message from it is basically the same with the following:
- April Steemit Post Benchmarking Report – BlockChain Business Intelligence
- Steemit Statistics – 2018.05.13
I also had a hard time understanding your report because of the excessive rows in the tables. Before I was able to read your next sentence, I had to do a couple of page or scroll downs which by the time I've reached your next sentence, I already forgot what the previous was.
Your analysis also did not have an outline and the conclusion was poorly formatted (all sentences were included in one paragraph) which made it difficult to understand.
Need help? Write a ticket on https://support.utopian.io/.
Chat with us on Discord.
[utopian-moderator]
All submitted contributions must be unique. Users must check if an identical or very similar contribution has been previously submitted.
However, your data overlaps with two reports and the message from it is basically the same with the following:
April Steemit Post Benchmarking Report – BlockChain Business Intelligence
Steemit Statistics – 2018.05.13
These posts don't include the comparison of the following analysis with the previous month plus paulag made a comparison with April, 2017.
Category comparison with the previous month, Comparison of Top 20 Authors In Terms Of Author Rewards with the previous month and percentage of rewards taken by top 20 authors from the total author rewards in both the months.
I also had a hard time understanding your report because of the excessive rows in the tables. Before I was able to read your next sentence, I had to do a couple of page or scroll downs which by the time I've reached your next sentence, I already forgot what the previous was.
I'm sorry but it's not my problem, according to Utopian rules, we have to give as much details as possible in the form of charts and tables and that's what I did. Being a moderator, I guess this is your job. I am not trying to be rude but this reason doesn't make any sense here. I just tried to give as much information as I could.
Your analysis also did not have an outline and the conclusion was poorly formatted (all sentences were included in one paragraph) which made it difficult to understand.
Where in the Utopian rules is written that we have to make different paragraphs or bullets for our conclusion? If you want, I can do it in order list in just 2 minutes. This again doesn't seem to be the reason for rejection.
Adding to that, analysis of promoted posts wasn't in the above two posts you mentioned.
In short, I see my analysis quite different from the examples you quoted and would like you to reconsider your decision.
Thanks.
@ghulammujtaba I am not here to reject contributions, I am here to make sure that contributions meet Utopian quality standards. The comments I made above are just observations from a reader's view. Did you have this contribution proof-read by another? If not, then just take my comments above as proof-reading.
I already re-scored your contribution, but honestly, you need to consider the points I mentioned above. I have to be straight to the point.
I suggest changing your attitude with this. Blaming the rules won't improve your contribution.
This is the point that bothers me. Including more information does not automatically make a contribution more meaningful. The quality of an analysis comes from the importance of the question being answered, the method how data was extracted, and how the results were presented to answer the question.
Sorry, this is another disturbing question. Don't be too dependent on the rules to make your contribution of high quality. It's just common sense if you want your reader to understand your points.
As an author, it is your job to make your analysis and findings understandable for your reader. And it is our job as moderators to make sure that contribution meet those standards.
Sorry if my writing comes across as rude, but this is the best I can muster without weakening the points I want to put across.