Imo rewards should correlate with engagement. Which is the only thing that matters in terms of adding value to HIVE.
So I'm yet to see many posts on Trending do better than, and thus deserve more rewards, than the popular posts made by different people in this Community.
I agree that engagement is important for Hive but I disagree with this statement:
Which is the only thing that matters in terms of adding value to HIVE.
While you're free to have you're own opinion, it's just an opinion. There's no consensus on this assertion.
I recall a few years ago there were many disagreements about how to evaluated quality content and there's no agreement there either - it's subjective.
The reason I bring this up is because we know that posts with a large number of upvotes do not actually equate to "value" or "quality" either.
The number of upvotes a post receives can be gamed with the creation of hundreds of alt. accounts. Some then suggested that "views" should be a metric used to measure actual value, but 'views' can also be gamed - bought and paid for.
So my point is, "engagement" or the number of comments one receives can also be gamed with alt accounts. The OP can inflate "engagement" by simply commenting as much as possible under their own posts to improve appearances.
People can inflate their "engagement" with low effort comments such as "thanks", "great post", "I like beer too" that, I would suggest, do not actually create any value for Hive at all.
Additionally, how is the quality of this comment "engagement" measured?
Is it simply the number of responses one receives?
Some posts receive only a few comments but does that really reflect poor "engagement"?
In this unequal ecosystem, those who receive the most responses are most often those who already possess large VP - there's no mystery as to why. It's just the way this system is set up. People follow the money.
Imo rewards should correlate with engagement. Which is the only thing that matters in terms of adding value to HIVE.
So I'm yet to see many posts on Trending do better than, and thus deserve more rewards, than the popular posts made by different people in this Community.
I agree that engagement is important for Hive but I disagree with this statement:
While you're free to have you're own opinion, it's just an opinion. There's no consensus on this assertion.
I recall a few years ago there were many disagreements about how to evaluated quality content and there's no agreement there either - it's subjective.
The reason I bring this up is because we know that posts with a large number of upvotes do not actually equate to "value" or "quality" either.
The number of upvotes a post receives can be gamed with the creation of hundreds of alt. accounts. Some then suggested that "views" should be a metric used to measure actual value, but 'views' can also be gamed - bought and paid for.
So my point is, "engagement" or the number of comments one receives can also be gamed with alt accounts. The OP can inflate "engagement" by simply commenting as much as possible under their own posts to improve appearances.
People can inflate their "engagement" with low effort comments such as "thanks", "great post", "I like beer too" that, I would suggest, do not actually create any value for Hive at all.
Additionally, how is the quality of this comment "engagement" measured?
Is it simply the number of responses one receives?
Some posts receive only a few comments but does that really reflect poor "engagement"?
In this unequal ecosystem, those who receive the most responses are most often those who already possess large VP - there's no mystery as to why. It's just the way this system is set up. People follow the money.