Online illustrations by StorysetThis piece is a continuation of a conversation I was having on my previous post on improving the curation process on Hive and distinguishing between quality and consumable content. I am not going to go over what a quality post is because I have discussed this many times in the past, and I have come to terms with the fact that it does not mean much in the grand scheme of things. By this, I mean it exists but it is not important. No platform defines what a quality post is in any context. That responsibility is reserved for the content consumers, and through their interactions, contents are ranked.
Now, content discovery and consumption are a lot better thanks to algorithms/artificial intelligence. The human element (which used to be a major constraint) has been refined using artificial intelligence and data to improve the curation process (on Web 2). Content consumers get content suggestions, which in turn helps content discovery.
In one of my previous posts, someone commented on how Hive supports small creators who would ordinarily not earn anything on a Web 2 platform, and my response was that Hive cannot grow based on charity and the benevolence of a few individuals. Being a small creator who makes good content doesn't translate to monetization if that content isn't being consumed by anyone. There is a huge danger of rewarding people for just showing up.
One of the major dangers in rewarding people mainly for their effort is that it desensitizes them from the creative process. For instance, if I know I will earn Hive for posting good content, there is no incentive to create engaging content; there is no incentive to share my content. What happens over time is that Hive becomes a bubble for regurgitating ideas; new users are not discovering the platform, and over time the number of active users declines.
In addition, the voting system on Hive is skewed to the detriment of the blockchain. It only makes some sense when it comes to governance, as you would expect that those with skin in the game determine how the blockchain resources are allocated. However, when it comes to content curation, every vote should be equal. This way, the social platforms are demand and data-driven.
Also, equalizing the vote of every account discourages the centralization of power and the need for curation guilds. Rather, such efforts can be channeled towards platform moderation, curbing things like spamming.
Speaking of spamming, one of the major pushbacks I get for advocating for a metric-based curation system is that it will encourage spamming. However, this system already exists and has had wide success across Web 2 social media. Unlike Web 2 social media platforms, Hive has a resource-credit-based system which makes spamming expensive and can affect the reputation score of suspected accounts through downvotes. So spamming is not a big enough threat to Hive.
Most creators/stakeholders are not supporting or advocating for the changes I am suggesting mainly because they do not believe they can succeed in a merit-based system. They would rather live off the social capital they've accumulated over time. Unfortunately, that makes the platform a lot worse.
CONCLUSION
Hive was designed to be a stake-centric platform with the main aim of having a robust distribution that secures the chain. Unfortunately, the social aspect of the chain, which is designed as the channel for distribution, wasn't given much thought.
For Hive to peak as a Socio-Fi blockchain, its reputation and curation system must be redesigned to become more effective and merit-based. I do understand that such changes are nearly impossible, so here are some of my suggestions that can work now:
Posts with the most engagement should rank higher than posts with the highest upvotes. This gives the trending page a better look.
Curation guilds should prioritize engagement over supposed post quality.
Limit auto votes.
Most of the changes I am advocating for can be made on Layer 2 built on Hive. I do not see any scenario where the Hive community comes to a consensus on some of these changes without fracturing the community.
Posted Using InLeo Alpha
Your view on this topic is on a whole new level. Engaging content on the blockchain should be prioritized in order to keep the community thriving and worth the attention of new users.
This can only happen if Hive changes its reward system and incentivise the right behaviour. There is no real incentive to engage, which inturn impacts the quality of content being posted.
Thanks for stopping by. I appreciate your comment
This post has been manually curated by @bhattg from Indiaunited community. Join us on our Discord Server.
Do you know that you can earn a passive income by delegating your Leo power to @india-leo account? We share 100 % of the curation rewards with the delegators.
100% of the rewards from this comment goes to the curator for their manual curation efforts. Please encourage the curator @bhattg by upvoting this comment and support the community by voting the posts made by @indiaunited.
I like the suggestions, some people are doing this routine: write, publish, get rewards, then the cycle repeats. There will be no interaction; maybe on some comments but not on the whole chain.
I also don't know if SEO works on Hive. If we just have a tool that can track the traffic and visitors from in and out of the platform, it will be better.
I believe internal traffic is more important for better content discovery and overall experience on the chian. Most people are looking for community and will glad join a platform that provides that.
How about Hive getting known more by people outside the chain?
The problem with that is that there is nothing interesting to see. I have onboarded over 50 persons in the last 4-5 years. None are currently using the chain in any way. This speaks to the overall experience people have on chain with various dapps and communities, hence why conversations like this are important. We need to introspect, share ideas and implement them if we want to see meaningful changes.