I find this very helpful. I would say that Steemit is not just a bit confusing, it is extremely confusing and that confusion is largely by design through the complexity and lack of transparency of the algorithms. The FAQ is really not all that useful for truly understanding Steemit. Yes, it helps, but it could be much better. Second, the marketing material on Steemit.com and by some large Steemit users is misleading and encourages unrealistic expections. The main splash page says: "Your voice is worth something
Get paid for good content. Post and upvote articles on Steemit to get your share of the daily rewards pool." That makes Steemit sound very simple, but in fact the complexity of the algorithms, the fact that a new user gets almost nothing from upvotes, and the fact that most of those really high payout articles that a new user first sees on Trending are both (1) low to average quality; and (2) have rewards that were actually bought, meaning that the actual reward is perhaps even negative, ends up quickly souring a new user's impression of Steemit. Yes, there are many community groups and powerful users trying to combat this. But as @kevinwong has written, if we really want Steemit to reward quality content and quality curation, we need to change the economic rules built into Steem.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Once you spend some time on here and read the FAQ (and white/blue paper if you are extra keen!) its not so bad. And spending some time on DIscord helps - asking questions someone is usually able to help aswer for you.
I agree about the 'marketing' but Steem kind of sells itself - and thats the problem in a way that some people sell it as 'get rich quick' or 'easy money' which are both bogus and not helping anyone.
Yeah the bots have ruined the perception of trending because as you said new users will think thats what people are earning when infact the majority was paid for and some even get negative ROI
I'm learning my way around slowly and have largely given up trying to determine all the details. It is clear that building up SP is the key to success and that engagement through quality content, but also with individuals and communities trying to help others is the way to more SP. I read the FAQ and the linked article and the white paper when I first came on. The white paper seems to contain some odd claims, such as that upvotes are not micropayments, when I believe that for all intents and purposes they are. At this point I have largely turned to just doing what I feel is right: engaging with quality folks and upvoting quality.
Yep - power up as much SP as possible - wish I had of learnt this earlier. And yea engagement is key here - creating quality content is only half of the puzzle - you have to have people that want to read it!
Seems like a solid strategy to me!Any advice on whether it is better to use minnowbooster to ramp up Steem and SP from SBD, or just trade SBD for Steem on the internal market? When I started I immediately sold SBD on the market then powered up, but recently I've been using Minnowbooster. However, minnowbooster looks like an immediate win, but after a few days the vote value drops, so it may end up being a negative ROI.
Im not a huge fan of using bots in general so my answer might be a bit bias. I just tarde on the internal market but there can be an argument for using minnowbooster to increase your posts visibility while also 'powering up'.
I also think @kevinwong has the best solution I have heard. Increase curation awards to incentivize upvoting good content.
Yeah thats sounds like a great idea to me!
I think at the moment people dont take enough care when curating aswell - higher curation rewards would mean people might taking curating a bit more seriously