I just tried to make a tipu transaction. The post still had over 2 hours to go before it is over 3 days old (as shown by both Steemit and SteemWorld). I got an answer in a refund tht the post is too old.
Does this mean that I must not try to transact on anything over 2.5 days (as it is with smartmarket)?
EDIT Now you have totally confused me!
I just tried for another post which is newer and got this:
@tipu refund: @arthur.grafo/autistic-child-kidnapped-by-state-ends-up-in-cps-system-before-being-trafficked | this post is too old (more than 1 day). Please make sure that the steemit link is valid (no #comments at the end for example).
So now you ONLY work with brand new posts?
Always, for most of my posts, I try to make a transactin with smartmarket so as to get a larger number of voters and then come to tipu. Working this way often means I have to make the second one, with tipu, after it is over 2.5 days, depending on when I get finds in. If the above is true, it means I cannot use your service anymore....typical of how life is, just as I made the decision today to delegate to tipu, this happens.
(if you are wondering why I chose to do the delegation to you, instead of to smartmarket, it is not because you are more profitable...I'm not good at working out who of the two of you is, it is because you answer my queries, whereas the wolf does not, so it is a pity.
ce la vie
Is there a reason why you can't use @tipU as soon as you make a post?
Yes.
I can only use tipu if I have Steem. As soon as I get some, I use it, so my next post(s) have to wait for me to collect on previous ones. I usually try to make certain that the next payment to me is not more than 2 days away before I make a post. I cannot narrow that to only posting when I have the money for sending to tipu, for then my posts would be very irregular and I would lose my very few readers.
If I may comment on the 1 day new rule.
Until 2 days ago I was able to use tipu on a 3 day old post. Now I cannot. Why could you not, as a courtesy to your customers, include in the narrative news (when notifying us that the funds have been received and allocated, about the imminent change, instead of leaving it for us to find out after it is too late?)
Too late? Yes, for as I mentioned in my previous comment, I always keep some of my steem for using tipu - if I'd known, I would have sent it all to the other service or even, powered up.
At least the 90 steem of today has now been used and I can relax until my next drawdown.
Sometimes I need to act fast when I notice the increased milking @tipU vp on older posts. @tipU is intended as post promotion service, there's no much sense in promoting 3 days old posts. You want to climb in the hot/trending sections right?
I have never ever even taken a look at those pages.
If you were to look at my posts, you would see that I mainly promote my fictional posts. When I write on factual, medical, the cps kidnapping of children or on politics etc., I leave the reward at whatever they earn. I think that proves I am not doing or wanting to do as you suggest.
Anyway, out of seven acquaintances made here who became friends, I am now left with two and one of them just let me know he is stopping. I am not as motivated to remain here, so maybe it no loger matters what I can or cannot do. I was mainly posting so that my books survive after me, but now I have the choice of using archive.org, where they auto convert my pdf to kindle and another five formats. so steemit is not as important to me as it was.
As for the money side. I joined in September 2017 and not once have I drawn a cent for sending to me or anyone else, despite my being a pensioner living on a State pension of about $120 a month.
No, I was and am just pandering to my ego...and the bigger the SP, the more I can delegate when I stop, helping my little Venezuelan friend grow.
#2
I just saw this:
Am I misunderstanding something?
I don't know, do you?:) What is the question?
I would have thought my previous comment was easy to understand, but let me try to spell out my thought processes:
In various arguments during presentation articles about the reason why HF21 is needed, plus why the re-alignment of curator/author fees is necessary, we were told that bot votes purchased by authors will no longer be profitable and it will either be stopped or reduced. They added to that argument their statement that with downvotes being free, it will be possible to downvote authors who buy votes, thus helping to stamp out this system.
The reason for all this, it was claimed, is that bot voting is so commonly used that it is destroying the reputation of Steemit and keeping investors away...thus knocking down the value of STEEM.
All I did in my previous comment is present a table showing that bot voting accounts for UNDER half a percent of all voting and I wondered how this could be so threatening. How can it be such a huge problem at under half a percent?
As for my asking whether I have misunderstood something, I was only admitting that I am not that knowledgeable about the subject and am willing to hear in what way(s) I have misunderstood the situation and their arguments.
Since you must understand far more clearly all the arguments they have put forward (plus I am certain you have previously read them) I also am puzzled by your question.
The amount of votes doesn't matter, it's more about their volume (the value in $$$).