A recent Steemit post found the articles on Steemit which were the most visible in Google searches.
One of these has over 22,000 views but had just $0.15 in rewards. Perhaps it was flagged for suggesting illegal activity?
What do people think? Is the system fair as-is, or does it favour short term content as opposed to evergreen content that draws in new Steemians?
It's all about the number of followers and perceived votes an author normally gets. Have you noticed some authors get a ton of upvotes even when posting a picture of a wall? Or some users that are constantly on the trending page...but don't have any worthwhile content. One that comes to mind is a real estate website or something....I can't imagine people really give a shit about that kind of content here to the point where it's worth over $1k per post.
It's definitely skewed towards people with the highest followers. I mean it's a numbers game at the moment versus actual worthwhile content. That being said steemit is the first of it's kind and shouldn't be expected to be perfect as is. I think it's something that with time and adjustments will only grow to be more and more impressive and bring in different walks of life. This community as a whole the short time I've been a part of it, potential to make money aside has been very welcoming and all around respectful. Put together a community like that as the backbone and it's only bound to succeed and improve. Just my 2c. Happy Friday everyone!
It's an interesting topic. I covered in a bit of detail on what steemit ranks for in an old posts here https://steemit.com/steemit/@adamm/what-steem-can-do-to-fix-the-marketing-struggles-of-crypto-currencies-a-digital-marketers-view
There's a huge difference between what is popular on steemit and what gets shared externally.
I saw you on the STEEMSQL steemit chat the other day - I wonder how hard it would be to use the database to write a bot that queries for the posts with the most views and then encourages people to upvote those user's latest posts. Then again, perhaps people would abuse it by continually F5'ing!
That could work. You could set it to update at a set time to stop people constantly refreshing.
I've just tried on my own, and it appears not to update the view count - perhaps it is limited to one per IP address.
It does, I'm not going to comment on whether that's a good or bad thing, but I can say it definitely does. People always look for "hot stuff" , that is, whatever is trending at this period in time, suppose you wrote an elaborate article explaining relativity or something, it may not receive the same kind of payout (unless you have a 65+ rep and 1000+ followers) as a post that is about the "flash crash" eth had yesterday (just as an example) ..however, your article describing relativity will obviously have way more views from google, because it is 'evergreen' like you say.
.
Not many people are interested in the current news and updates several months later, so the total views of such posts will not continue to grow after some time
This post received a 4.7% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @digimad! For more information, click here!
We should have a filter for most read articles
It's an interesting topic. I don't know what the answer is but it does seem that there are some off-center incentives for posting and voting behavior.
I would like to see posts allow for historical payouts so legacy posts that are revived or gain a following after the 7 day mark would still get rewards credit.