I meant the "Content Creator" will take a risk. Most will not take investment risks on shitty content if they have a reasonable chance to be flagged down.
I love that it is expensive to exploit them continuously, and those who are using them have to face the rest of the community in order for their investment to count. Yes, a few users are taking some undeserved rewards, but for the sake of distribution, I've decided not to be troubled by that.
Don’t they make the money back, though? Doesn’t sound too risky to me.
And getting flagged isn’t a big threat since no one even looks at the trending page, let alone moderates it.
I can’t comment on the quality of the posts - whatever that is - since there’s never anything I’d click on.
Others might. Or otters.
I do think we need more otters.
The bidbot owners in many cases are not the stakeholders. They are merchants, and if you glance through all the different bots, they are varied in who owns them and what they currently own. (new hands)
So, we are basically creating a merchant class. Some might call it a middle class. If your goal is to stop a specific group of people from earning... I just don't have anything to say about that. My goal is to see as many people as possible generate as much money as possible whether I like them or not.
Due to those "middle (wo)men" new people are being rewarded. They are not being rewarded because Ned likes them. They are being rewarded because they were willing to back up their content with stake and put it out there for the community to judge.
Those who are paying attention to trending see what we have a much better selection of content. Much of it doesn't interest me either, but I don't think I am the target audience.
The owners are stepping up the criteria for who can use the bots and who is abusing the bots. The community is flagging more and in some cases have talked the bot owners into removing their votes. It is slow and painful, but I think we are making progress. As ATS states it is a mess and it isn't going to be unraveled quickly.
Otters... You are correct, we are lacking Otters. :)
The disconnect between you and I on this subject is that I never saw a ”need” for a ”fair playground” for everyone. As in I never saw a need for minnows to have that shot to get their stuff to trending right away.
The way I saw it was you were supposed to work hard on your content and network.
Trending was a lot of the same people every day, but legit stuff rose to the top every now and again, still.
Now no one curates and everything is next to pointless.
Unless you’re a stupid bitch who takes her clothes off on a platform full of crypto nerds who like to masturbate to you, that is.
It just comes down to personal preference. I understand that you like the current, sort of more business-oriented direction better - I originally joined for the social media direction.
When it comes down to preference, neither is right or wrong.
But the fact of the matter is that Steemit no longer represents what the original idea was.
Edit: I also think it’s possible that our views are affected by the fact that I was doing well in the old model, while you weren’t.
That makes us prefer one model over the other.
I agree with some of what you said, because the content side will take care of it's self. I am not worried about it... Yet.
I do want to be clear on one point. I also don't care about fair. I don't care about a minnow getting to trending. I care about a content creator getting to trending. Professional, mature content creators are used to this model.
Also, I don't mind if a minnow gets to the top if they can handle the scrutiny.
You are correct, I care about the business model first, because the content can be corrected at any point. If we don't have an audience, content creators will not stay.