I sway back and forth while sitting on the fence, because there are good generous curators(NM is one of them) and there are the greedy self-serving ones(which I won't name). The problem is the trending algorithm along with the souless upvote trails not interacting with those they vote on.
The great thing about Hive is that everything is public. I encourage everyone to visit the communities wallet and view the transactions to see if they are powering up their earnings to grow the account or just lining their pockets.
When I see a curator sending all of their earnings to their private account and taking advantage of their delegators, I'll avoid that community like the plague. This is happening, but I only see one huge violator of this trust, who only servives living off the welfare of their delegators.
It would be less of an issue if this practice was advertised on each curation issue, but it isn't. As a matter of fact, some curators claim 100% is used to grow the account in public, while privately draining the earnings for personal gains.
As for the trending algorithm, upvotes should take a backseat to genuine interaction through comments. Seeing the majority of trending articles with 1 huge vote being the only reason they are trending with few or no comments is disheartening to new users and older ones that work their asses off.
I hope that after the devs perfect the back end code, they start playing with the front-end to make the feeds more accurate. First and foremost Hive is championed as a Social Media site and the social aspect needs to be what determines the trends.
As for curation trails being necessary? I don't believe this is the case.Communities can do a very effective job uplifting the content individually without putting out a collection showing off their actions. For me, curation collections are like showing off our good deeds, which is less humble than it should be.
I don't read curation articles and never will. Not once has a curation collection showcased a group of articles I found useful and I'll bet many feel the same way.
It's interesting that the recent spat of articles on the subject are by curators justifying what they do. If they were making Dolphins and Whales, you'd think that random users would be posting about how great Curation Projects are, but you don't.
There are many posts about how Hive has changed lives, but none or few about how Communities and Curation Publications have. There are many ways to curate and curation articles help the least. A Community can support authors in many ways that help them more. Curation Articles are simply a way to fund the higher upvotes from the Community, which brings in delegations and followers of their voting trails.
Some interesting points there, all of which I also have a view on - but I am too tired right now. Heard, and acknowledged.
I have to say we don't need humility, always - and I dont see the curation posts that way at all. If you don't read curation articles, that's your choice, but if you've never read them, how do you know they haven't contained useful posts - a bit of a contradiction there haha! I find LOTS of useful posts in curations, but then, Iread them when I can. You can't find something useful if you don't read it. Oh dear. I'm going into some weird rabbit hole...
Yes, it's indeed interesting that curators are justifying what they do, because it's equally interesting that some have criticised them. That's the ebb and flow of HIVE - interesting dialogues about how it's managed. There's a place for everything I believe, unless it's hateful and vindictive.
About how curation has changed lives - that's not true at all. I see people posting all the time about their first big upvotes, and support from communities - if that's not from curation, then what is? I've also seen people write about their excitement for being featured in a curation, and that's really sweet - perhaps you just haven't read the same posts I have, or spoken to the people I have. That's fine too - we all see HIVE differently and I kinda loathe the either/or thing - do it this way or the other. Yawn. You might not find value in curation articles, but others do. Curation articles as simply funding? I don't think anything is 'simply' anything. Ours are certainly not created in the spirit of 'simply funding' at all!
Oh dear. I responded anyway - going for a nap. I'm afraid I probably haven't spoken clearly - as I said, I'm just really tired today!
Of course everything means something different to each individual. The world would be lame if that wasn't the case.
It comes down to this, if you can receive 400 votes, but have less than 1% organic interaction, it's not bringing any real value, except for the author. This happens a lot and especially on curation posts.
Of course I've read and created curation posts, which you know, but I haven't read any in a long time. I live on the trending and recent feeds. You may not realize this, but I joined Steemit in 2016. I learned early on that curations weren't a great way to find the content I want.
To sum up my take, curation posts, while highlighting individuals are not popular and actually over shadow the authors being showcased. They really don't get much of a boost if any from it and the project makes bank, from the curation posts, not the whole of what constitutes curation.
It doesn't need to be that way, but in the current form it is. An this is just an opinion.
Lastly, I see many comments praising Communities and curation, but not posts. Most of those are a courtesy and not really authentic. Many that seem authentic are just attempts to gain cred to get better votes. Not all, but enough.
Interesting! I think we are both probably on the money any way, you know. Xx
!ENGAGE 25
ENGAGEtokens.