Do You Think Your Own Posts Have Been Rank Ordered Effectively In Terms Of Rewards By Curators?

in hive-173737 •  last month  (edited)

If each of us is asked to rank order posts from any author (including ourselves), that will introduce all kinds of subjective biases that make it difficult to assess how well curators have been able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Also, different authors have very different degrees of visibility and very different sized networks on the platform. But if you focus on your own posts only, you'll be better able to make this judgement.

So, my question is how much randomness as opposed to do you find there to have been in the rank ordering of your own posts relative to your own perception of their worth compared to each other?

My own informal perception is that the range of random variation in my own rewards has been rather large. A few times a single-photograph post has caught the eye of a large stakeholder who has liked it and given it a big upvote. At other times a post that has taken a lot of effort to put together has failed to impress anybody or has escaped most curators' notice altogether. But the average degree of randomness is not terribly large. It is surprisingly good. Much of this can be credited to a number of centralized curation projects active on the platform. Dedicated groups of people who've taken up the task of scouring through Communities or the New tab seem to be able to catch a lot of the good posts on a small platform like this particularly if some users keep reblogging them.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I am in tune with your situation. Quite often a selfie, or two, ranked way better than some other worked footage or posts that I worked on for a couple of hours. I can't say that curation in here still has any logic. It' still more like a lottery.

I disagree with that assessment as I said in the post.

I said the range of random variation in rewards relative to quality in my own opinion among my own posts is large but the average variation is not. In plain English, sometimes votes haven't reflected value at all but usually that has been the case.

Food for thought. @Acesontop might have had a different experience than you, who knows? You did ask people to consider their own posts as a reference.

He began his comment with the sentence: "I am in tune with your situation." I figured he just read quickly and missed the difference between range and average.

That may be.

I also find it strange that the post you spent less time on sometimes gets all the votes and other master pieces get nothing or very little. Of course we all want to hit the jackpot at least once and keep trying.I think it makes it more interesting not knowing as I have no clue what people are looking for and make it interesting for me first otherwise it isn't enjoyable.

You're quite right in that the randomness is not just a negative thing. And yes, other people's value judgements may differ quite a bit from yours.

A few times a single-photograph post has caught the eye of a large stakeholder who has liked it and given it a big upvote. At other times a post that has taken a lot of effort to put together has failed to impress anybody or has escaped most curators' notice altogether.

i will agree with this and also agree that things are going better now. Still as everyone i guess, i feel a little bit sad when post i put a lot of effort creating, is rewarded that much while i know that if another person posted the exact same thing it would have 10xtimes the rewards

Still as everyone i guess, i feel a little bit sad when post i put a lot of effort creating, is rewarded that much while i know that if another person posted the exact same thing it would have 10xtimes the rewards

That's not what I was talking about. That person who gets the larger rewards may have been active on the platform much longer than you building his/her network or doing any number of things valuable to it.

the keyword is "maybe". On the one hand maybe we are talking about a more active person but on the other hand we may talk about a large stakeholder who gets the votes for various other reasons like fame, people that vote him because they expect votes back, autovoting by friends etc etc

So in a way at a certain point (and ofc this isn't the rule) it's not a matter of effort, but a matter of fame. The majority of our posts given then number of our followers (active/inactive) and ofc the upvotes and comments shows the sad truth that actually mostly nobody reads it. I am not saying that's good or bad, but it's a reality.

Yes, it's a matter of fame and effort.

This is why I originally asked for my readers to consider their own posts only because that eliminates the fame factor (except for longer timescales).