I'm seeing it, but it seems like a brain dead reason to me.
If the content they want to highlight was attracting users, our user base would be growing and frankly it's not.
The fact is when you sit down and talk to people they fall into two categories.
First off is the mommy blogger types who just want to make a little extra income talking about whatever. These people are extraordinarily influential and inspiring to potential new users. We don't see many of them and they don't get highlighted very often, so unless they have a solid support network they don't stick around.
The second type is the investor type. They are interested in dollars and cents and growth. Posts like this that are simple, easy to digest, factual and balanced are exactly what I show them.
Having it hidden like this makes me look like an idiot when I'm out here in the real world trying to bring investors to the platform. Real investors and I'm talking about people that might want to toss $100k to $1M into something like this, want to know about things like engagement, retention etc.
They look at buying SP the same way as buying stock in Facebook and that's pretty much what I tell them.
I just lost a guy because he feels like the platform wouldn't be a good investment so long as the CEO feels it's his divine right to censor content he disagrees with into oblivion. He should use a lower powered sock puppet and maybe turn down the down vote a bit if he's really convinced that flagging and disagreeing are the same thing.
I mean look at this, 300+ up voters can't make this post visible again. With just the swipe of a finger of a single person. This is barely any different to an investor than what just happened over at reddit...
https://steemit.com/steemit/@williambanks/censorship-and-social-media-why-we-need-steemit-more-than-ever
Having smooth or one of the other whales engage in this is one thing. But having the CEO engage in censorship or at least giving the appearance of engaging in censorship, pretty much nullifies that whole "steemit is a censorship resistant platform" argument.
I'd like to ask the whales who are engaging in downvote curation to back off please. If it's trolling or something then fine, otherwise let people make the money they make. If someone can produce better content then the market will sort itself out.
But honestly the flagging system here is busted and it's making my job of trying to evangelize this place, that much harder. We need to find a better way.
For the record: 1) I believe you are exactly right about the type of content and focus, and distribution of rewards, that will attract and retain a wider audience (we may disagree on tactics to an extent, but I believe my actions are in furtherance of that goal); and 2) I always post a comment explaining the reasons when I downvote.
And with respect to #1 above, Dan is frankly clueless, dangerous and destructive not only on the actual positioning and marketing, but on how his actions on the site have been and continue to be perceived (Ned is as well, but somewhat less so), and finally on the negative effects they have (or he is aware and doesn't care, but that is too ugly a possibility to accept easily). Letting him wield a massive ninja-mined stake without sufficient perspective and insight is like letting a child play with matches. He may be good at developing blockchain code, but if someone doesn't somehow pry him away from being a user and influential stakeholder on the platform he is just going to continue driving it into the ground (if that isn't already a fait accompli), I'm sad to say.
Which was my point. It doesn't matter so much what the reason is, so long as a reason is stated. But burying a post on the price of steem does give potential investors pause for concern.
That is so far beyond any demonstrated capacity to understand or willingness to consider impact on others, it is comparable to expecting a first grader to comprehend string theory or negotiate peace in the middle east. Isolation is the only plausible method to stop the damage here. Failing that, the platform must succeed in spite of its existing and continued institutional handicaps. That's a tall order.
It's nothing to do with that. And there's nothing wrong with Dans flagging of these posts. They usually get only around 20 views even when on the trending page. I can't say for sure Dan's reasons but a number of us were flagging these posts for being overpaid before he started.