RE: Moving to hive
This is my observation of Curie. I think it is a great concept, but, like every other part of this platform it has checklists that get gamed. I have seen people who are curators or reviewers making comments to prospective submissions to the effect of "This is a great piece, I'm on the line and its probably @curie quality but I'm trying to move up in my rank and I need to get a 90% or 95% accepted to move up in rank. ". What may have been put in place as a way to discourage spammers from overloading curators with shitposts seems to have turned into a disingenuous kiss-up to try and play politics to certain curators. I don't know any of these people very well, and am not familiar with who might be more disingenuous (and I had some friendly support from some people in their discord chat when I got phished), but please tell me HONESTLY that you feel there is just a genuine " we celebrate quality posts " thing going on and not another , as Bernie calls it 'circle jerk'? I want these things to be real, I love cool, interesting stuff , but I just got the feeling after poking around a bit that it was just another pecking order game :/
We genuinely are here searching for quality posts and that is all. There is no circlejerk or ranking. We do not accept suggestions of which posts to submit for review, all of the searching is done ourselves manually. It is a meritocracy. Curators perform well, find good quality content and they get to submit more posts per week for review. That's it. There are many curators working really hard as we believe in this platform and that quality content should be helped to be made visible as much as possible. If you would like to chat more about it and understand what goes on, then, by all means, pop into our discord channel.
I'm totally with you @markangeltrueman and the @curie team. You've helped me get the word out on more than a few occasions and i thank you for that.
"It is a meritocracy."
Other than the massive, socialist bias that you must have a tiny rep.
Thanks for replying,
Sorry, I wasn't clear; internally it's a meritocracy - you perform well as a curator at finding posts, you benefit from more submission slots.
However, id like to make a point on the rep thing with a recent example....
https://steemit.com/video/@marinauzelac/cymatics-film-about-the-states-of-water-exclusive-on-steemit
Rep hasn't been part of the guidelines for a long time. It's all reward based. There is the inherent probability that high rep authors receive more reward, hence they tend to not get curie upvotes but it does happen. It's not like the current curie upvote would particularly help out the majority of high rep authors anyway; the average curie upvote at the moment is around $30-$40 which is pittance compared to what most high rep authors are getting (high rep being 60 or above from my point of view)
Hi @lexiconical, you have been on the platform for a while so I assume you formed your opinion about @curie when there was in fact an upper REP limit. For some months past now the upper REP limit has been removed entirely; Curie now upvotes exceptional content by authors who have been persistent/consistent with little reward lately (any REP). I invite you to join the Curie Discord server if you want to see the most up-to-date guidelines. For reference the old REP cap was REP 52 - I just ran a query on Curie upvotes from past week.
Curie upvotes on REP less than or equal to 52 in past week:
Curie upvotes on REP > 52 in past week:
Lest you think I cherry-picked the data by choosing REP 52 as the cutoff, here is same thing (past week Curie upvotes) for REP 60+:
I don't think this fits very well with the narrative that Curie "only supports lower REP". As I know you to be a thinking person I hope you take the time to inform yourself of Curie's current operations. Cheers - Carl
That's a rather absurd claim.
Do you mean a curator comments on a post, that it is fairly decent BUT that s/he wouldn't submit it because he has a score to maintain? That sounds really ridiculous as curators would typically skip posts that fail to pass their personal judgement of exceptional and good enough for a curie, without having to write that stuff you made up. I think it is unfair that you used that as the sole basis to discredit a system (the curator scoring) put in place to manage Curie's very very limited voting budget. A dynamic quality bar adjusts according to the quality/quantity of posts under review at any given time, and the available voting power. Trust me it's a difficult balance to maintain in a community where all the influence is battered while there is a pressing need to reward actual creators who put in the time to create valuable content. I will implore that you take the time to go through curie guidelines and read her white paper; and talk to a few curators in the Discord server and have all your doubts and uncertainties dissipated.
I agree, that it is not fair to pass judgement on the whole system. I did see the version of the comment I wrote several times. I'm not sure of the titles of people (ie reviewer vs curator etc) exactly but it was in this way: 1. a post was submitted in the chat 2. Somebody who appeared to have authority to allow submissions or deny them to pass up for further inspection did actually write out the explanation that the post was very great and they were tempted to select it, even saying that it might be picked up by someone else, but that they were going to pass because of a percentage they were trying to hit. Like I said, I don't fully understand the system, and I also %100 understand that there had to be 'funnels' put in place because people who really just want to make money will burden you with low quality submissions- I have seen what you deal with, just as i see what Steemcleaners and others deal with. Its tough. But, I am very observant and noticed that underlying, disingenuous sort of political game play and it kind of turned me off. The idea of helping point out great content really appealed to me, but I don't want everything I do in life to become a game I have to play with people clamoring for some sort of inorganic authority. I honestly thought long and hard about even mentioning it , and I thought about bringing it up in the chat itself, but pointing out that someone is being pretentious publicly is not a way to come to an understanding, and honestly I thought I may get on some 'bad list' if I criticized and Curie is a large presence.
I think you misunderstand how the process works, that is where the confusion is coming. May I invite you to read the whitepaper at curiesteem.com which explains how everything works in details. Also, as others mentioned feel free to drop by on discord and ask anything. I will be happy to help.
Only curators can propose posts, and posts are not proposed in chat. They are proposed on streemian.com/guild/curie. Anybody can become a curator, just need to be recommended by one of the top curators. I hope this helps.
But my claim is not absurd, it is what I saw on several occasions. I don't appreciate you saying I made it up . I am not a troll or any sort of an antagonist, and I have nothing specifically against Curie. I just said above I shy away from those sort of political games and that really stuck out to me.
Well, I do understand your stance. With what I see you say, I believe it's a case of you yourself trying to "game" the system in some ways. Ordinarily, what curators do is to look for deserving posts all around (organically). When it comes to the case of you suggesting a post to a curator, you probably are putting them on a tension. Note one thing. curators are paid for each posts submitted and accepted, soa curator would ordinarily want to have "submittable" posts in his reach. Apart from getting paid for each post, your level of accuracy in your suggestions would open up more priviledges to you (at least, no sin in an encouragement for a good work done). Conversely, your poor performance would only invariably earn you a lower position (those checking posts, i.e reviewers can't afford having undeserving posts submitted to them by a large number of curators all around). I have felt this when I told a friend to suggest posts to me and it looked like i aas wasting my time in checking them. So, for me, if anyone trully told you what was said, they have the right to it as yhey are working with a stated standard (which is openly stated in the curie guidelines).
Ordinarily, all i tell anyone looking for a curie vote is that instead of bringing your post to me, use the appropriate tags relating to your post (there are many curators out there hungry for unrewarded quality posts) and if I don't see it or I couldn't decipher what the quality in the post is, another curator would see it while doing his own search and do the needful. Infact, this has happend to a user I know. He received 3 curies right under my nose (i couldn't decipher when his post is deserving mainly because I am not an authority in vetting his type of content.
In the end, @kilbride, I advise that you just keep makimg your content (quality) and do so as it there was no @curie guild in place and when your post is deserving, someone would gladly come for it. You are still young on here, just about 2-3 months in.
I dont think you understand what I was saying. I wasnt trying to game the system or really even very concerned with participating. The comments I saw were not in response to anything I submitted, I was just checking out the chats and asking questions, along with seeing what people were doing. I was recommended to steemit from a friend who had not really spent much time on it, she just thought I would like it because Im very active in creating discourse on FB and she liked my writing. I had no intention of this being my job . I found Curie one of the more interesting aspects and spent some time checking it out, just the same as I did when I found steemcleaners. I saw a similar gaming there, but it is no reflection on specifically Patrice or even the moderators. If I come across something organically I report it, but I noticed people who were 'looking' for particularly large accounts to report so they could make money. I may have submitted two things to Curie and I had no expectation, and my thoughts were that I would just organically submit when I came across stuff, which I still probably will. Once again, I just felt like those comments made it feel disingenous, and no matter how pure the intent is with anything there will be people who create a disingenious experience trying to move up a 'ladder'. That was my comment and Ive seen plenty of response from people that seem very sincere, so that is a good sign ✌ I dont even like the mentality that people are 'making content', it actually feels like one of the most inorganic things about many of these types of social media. I feel like we should just share when we have something we feel is worth sharing, not because we are on a regiment of content making. I am in no way 'making content' specifically with the idea of any specific parameters except interesting and comprehensible, or because I might learn something and want to pass it on 😉
I see you actually write a lot...lol. it costed me much to do what I did up there but it kinda comes easily with you. Thanks for understanding my stance as I have understood your stance too.
Also, I remember names, but people seem like good people and just like they were behaving i n a not uncommon way to a reward system, so I prefer not to do it like that :/
Ive been curating for @curie for 3 months now and must defend any accusations of wrong doing here.
I seek work that deserves more than a $ and which should make our trending pages shine.
Sadly, and even with the support of @hendrikdegrote, the @curie trail cannot get close to a 'promoted' article.
This is a sad state of affairs in my opinion.
I would hope that everyone finds room in their 30 votes to support this project.
Feel free to find me at the curie discord server at any time, I'll be sure to clear all the above misconceptions.
Cheers,
Ras