Is There Any Room For Short Content On here?
EDIT: Seems that people have more of an issue with the frequency of the posts rather than the quality. Most do seem to think that there's a place of short content here, and that most of my jokes/memes are fairly good, but it looks quite ugly if they're getting a near full vote from @trafalgar that often. Will be cutting down from 5-8 posts a day to 3 or less, which is more in line with other active users. Vote weight will be lowered noticeably too. Thank you for everyone's input
I have well over 500,000 Steem Power.
A few weeks ago I made another account where I post 5-8 short posts a day and reward myself $30-$50 for each post.
My posts there were recently flagged.
But before you take out a restraining order on behalf of the rewards pool, I'd like to place you in my shoes and see things from my perspective. After hearing me out, I genuinely need advice on where to go from here from all of you.
Self Voting
I see myself as a comedy content creator. When I discovered Steemit, I was very enthusiastic about the idea of a platform that rewards content based on the attention it gains and believed that I could contribute to its body of content. After testing out the platform, I used the bulk of my savings to buy a large amount of Steem with every intention of investing in myself. I believe that having content creators potentially investing in Steem to promote their own works is behavior we ought to be encouraging, rather than deterring, as it greatly adds value to the ecosystem, not just through the purchase of Steem but the addition of content, provided it's of good quality.
Does Short Content Automatically Mean Shit Quality?
The issue must therefore be a question of content quality. The justification behind wanting good quality content rewarded on the platform is simple: higher rewards grants more exposure, and we want good quality content to be the most visible so as to attract more people onto the platform and ultimately more users means a higher Steem price.
I made the conscious switch to shorter content recently for a number of reasons.
- First and foremost, I believe short content has far more potential to be viral just going by today's trends. An overwhelming proportion of content with over 1 million views are very short if Facebook feeds or the front page of Reddit is any indication. I think these types of high quality potentially viral content is worth replicating on Steemit.
Actual footage of me saying goodbye to my Facebook 'like' button after I found Steemit
I feel original memes like this one have the potential to go viral. Gif from Giphy
Short content provides immediate gratification. Most of us would instantly recognize whether or not a one liner or a meme is any good. It's impact is strong and instantaneous, which is definitely something missing on here.
You don't feel like you're setting aside time and taking a risk when you're consuming shorter content. Even if it's garbage, it rarely feels like it's a waste of your attention , you just move on.
Because of the above, the bar for short content with respect to its potential reach, is lower. When a meme is a 6/10, it's enough to make the average person smirk or chuckle. A 7/10 caption on a generic gif is enough to potentially go viral if it's somewhat relate-able. But if your 1000 word article is a 6/10, the reader who's sunk time into reading it will at best feel neutral if not slightly annoyed.
On the flip side, the barrier to entry is seemingly lower . If a newcomer posts a 2000 word essay and gets $0.01, she's likely out of here. But if she posts a joke and only gets 5 views and 0.00, she'd probably give it a few more tries, which gives the rest of us a few more chances to catch someone who's truly talented and reward them fairly.
I myself have more experience creating shorter content as I came from Twitter, where, I'd like to think, I was pretty good at coming up with original one liners. I've adapted more to memes and gifs for this platform as that's the direction the wind is blowing on other social media sites. I created a new account to do this for the sole purpose of not wishing to exploit my existing curation trail here. To partially compensate for this, I vote on my new account (although usually not at 100%) in an effort to fast track a following there and make a push for shorter content overall.
What I want to emphasize is that just because content is short does not mean it's shit, or that it requires no effort or talent to produce. Every time you read a half decent tweet or run into a meme on Facebook, you may think that it's pretty simple and anyone could bash one out. This is certainly not the case. It may feel effortless, but I spend about an hour or two coming up and then reformatting, rewriting and refining every joke I post. Unlike stand up comedy, you only get one chance per joke, and once it's posted, it's posted. I'd like to think I'm quite decent at it and not everyone can do it, but don't take my word for it, I invite you to try. There are a lot of people who are very funny when it comes to banter between friends, or writing replies, but writing a joke from scratch feels different. Stare at a blank page and just write an original setup - punchline. Suppress all the jokes and quips that pop into your head which you've used before or you've heard from elsewhere and search into that empty void of originality for some comedy gold. Writing comedy is a blank, soul sucking process of which 99% of it is writer's block.
Secret to a long lasting relationship is to know what your partner is thinking before they say it
For example, I tell my girlfriend her ass looks fat in those jeans before she even has to ask
Original jokes like this one can take hours to think up and refine, while they're digested in 5 seconds
Now the question is what is content like this 'worth'? If I had to shamelessly appraise my own abilities as a comedy writer, I'd say maybe low professional level? I feel that perhaps the top 10% of my best content is about as good as the bottom 10% of stuff that goes viral. At least in my head, this does not feel like a lenient assessment of my performance. If that's the case, then to me, yes it's absolutely worth $30-$50 per attempt! Especially considering I invested the money to buy the Steem to give my content that exposure in the first place. Now the right to self vote does not mean the right to not get downvoted if the content quality is poor, but do you truly believe that the average post on here that gets ~$40 is better?
Because this is a rewards based platform, there's an incentive to make your post look like a lot of effort as gone into them to justify the rewards. And what better way is there to do that then to drag out an article. If it's a nicely formatted piece with some sharp pictures, that must be rewards worthy right? Except long form content is generally the antithesis of what makes a strong impression on the reader in the social media world, and this is particularly true. So please don't hesitate to support short content.
The Voting Market vs Content Creation
Maybe you still think I'm just bullshitting because I'm just annoyed that I can't help myself to the rewards pool. Let's run through the numbers.
With my current voting patterns and posting 5-8 times a day on @traf, I'll end up with only marginally more than if I just rented out my voting power. Considering that the difference between putting pretty much my entire free time into content creation and not doing anything at all is about $280 vs $350 (I've roughly tested it), it's probably quite irrational for me to bother doing anything unless I didn't believe I make a material improvement in one important niche here: short form comedy.
Therefore, purely in terms of rewards, it's not really worth my while at all. I understand that it may look a little unfair for a larger stakeholder like me to vote myself up, but remember this is just to claw back some of the amount that I would have obtained had I not forfeited the curation trail of 6500 followers on this account for the sole purpose of taking less rewards. It's just very visible as compared to other ways of passively earning Steem that are usually indiscriminate of the quality of the content they support. And if I voted myself less I wouldn't even be breaking even with renting everything out and doing absolutely nothing , which is what many have chosen to do, including much larger stakeholders than myself. (I don't blame them. A voting market is an inevitable consequence of the economic incentives here, but that's another discussion)
I'm not denying that I want to earn more with my investment and efforts: I absolutely do! I'm not some sort of wealthy crypto guru, Steem is basically my first crypto and represents the bulk of my net worth. I don't even own my own place - I'm basiaclly all in on wanting to do well here as a content creator. But it'd be outright masochistic for me to be sinking 8 hours into this daily for just the extra $70 alone and to be taking some heat for it at the same time.
My Initial Intentions
I wanted to make a push for shorter content because I thought that 1. They're more impractical and digestible and good for Steemit and 2. I'm fairly good at creating said content. I was also hoping that once this sub community gets more traction I would try to hire people from my own earnings to promote the best of our memes, oneliners, gif captions on other platforms to attract people to Steemit . Maybe even form teams where we can not only have original captions, but original or edited gifs and photos etc. Right now our trending page under the relevant tags (funny, meme etc.) are just not ready in terms of quality to really advertise to mainstream content consumers.
Am I Deluded?
Now, what I really need to know is am I deluded when it comes to the quality of my content? I'm not confrontational by nature, so please don't feel reluctant to voice criticism if you fear some sort of retaliation: there will be none. I just would like people to tell me if my shorter content is worth it or not. Please don't sugar coat it; perhaps the reality is my jokes and memes are indistinguishable from those 'Nice post! I've been to Bangkok as well and it's hectic over there!' comments and giving themselves $50. Let me know!
Also, let me know if you think I'm running a fool's errand and if I had any senses I'd just kick back on passive earnings and come back in 3 years and check to see if Steem is $300, although if we get all the potentially good content creators to do that, then it'll very likely never get there.
Bottom line is if the general consensus is that my posts are not worth anything to people on here, then they're certainly not worth the effort of me making them. Be as candid as possible please.
EDIT: Essentially I'm now competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 70-80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against potential passive income. If I lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the hit to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse (which is why I was away for so long) and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic for now. =(
One final note I'd like to make is that irrespective of what you think of my content, please support high quality original short form content in general. If something made you chuckle or grin, or you found a one liner to be really inspirational or deep or clever and you're pretty sure its original, then smack that Upvote button. Chances are others will find it impactful too. It likely did more for you than those long boring posts ever did.
Speaking of which, sorry for this long boring ass post, I very rarely do them.
The short answer is YES (insert plug for #freewrite short content here).
FWIW, I have no problem with your self-voting. But, I also have no problem with people downvoting your content. In both cases, the owner of SP is using their influence as they see fit. I have downvoted hate speech only to have the comment sections of my posts trolled by an asshat for the next month. So I think you have to take the bad with the good.
Short work has a place here. So does flagging, even for "bad" reasons.
Personally, I would be pissed if you ceased posting and rented out your SP. But that's an irrational selfish stance on my part.
Nobody promised that Steemit was easy.
Thank you for your very direct answer
I'm fairly persuaded that, while there are many who attest to the quality of my work, on balance the general consensus is that my short content is overvalued, as I have to assume that they'll be more silent dissenters than supporters.
I was assumed that perhaps memes/one liners etc have viral potential, and I'm ok at making them, but it's very likely I completely overestimated my own abilities.
As to the economics of it, yes it's difficult, because even with that amount of self voting, I probably was barely breaking even with passive income. I may be unique or at least fall in an extremely uncommon category here, being both a content creator and decent sized investor. Trying to 'beat passive investment rate' was probably not the right mentality, it burned me out creatively, and annoyed other Steemians. I couldn't mentally justify making less than doing nothing but maybe I'll find some middle ground.
I absolutely agree that downvoting is necessary on this platform, although it does ask a lot from the appraisal skills of a few, and I hope it's exercised competently. My case was an appeal on quality, and I think overall, the answer was 'your content is not quite good enough' and the downvotes were on balance legitimate. I accept that.
I do apologize to everyone in general, and hope that in light of the following: 1) I genuinely thought my content was worth that much, 2) I made a new account to not exploit an existing curation trail, and 3) I stood to gain at least as much from doing absolutely nothing, as many other investors have done, at equal cost to the rewards pool, that they'll not judge me too harshly.
Going forward I'll definitely be less active on my @traf account, and will only post something if I inadvertently think of a joke, and vote modestly. This account may still be a weekly long post sort of thing.
Thank you again for providing candid feedback
Probably one of the most mature and honest replies i have seen here.
With all the arguing we usually do on steemit you are about as rare as a two assed unicorn
its weird for me to see people use the word ass..... (is it not a donkey?) when maybe you mean arse? maybe that's an American thing? In Australia we say arsehol, not asshole..... 3 times today i have seen ass written, but not arse. A two donkied unicorn or a double butted unicorn?
Hahaha I should of used arse, me being Irish and all but ass is now presumed to mean your butt. Long gone are the days when ass=donkey and gay=happy ^^
But yeah, I was aiming at a double butted unicorn lol
Ha ha ha!! I have followed you! My brother lives in Galway, he’s a photographer for the Galway advertiser! I love Ireland!
I personally am not a fan of short posts, and I like your long articles more (I really like them). That doesn't necessarily need to say anything about the quality of your short posts ... maybe it just says anything about myself. :) Yes, there are a few memes which I really like, it happens ... but not very often. :)
I also really understand that you want your investment to create any significant reward ... especially as the Steem price went down. On the other side if we (bigger investors like you and smaller ones like me) are honest the success of our investments doesn't depend on a few Steems more or less but on an significant increase of the Steem price: that would be by far the best reward. So the question is how to reach that ...
Anyway I really hope you find a satisfying solution, stay here on Steemit and also keep writing. :)
Thank you for posting @trafalgar.
To answer your title's query......I hope so. As long as there is freedom at Steemit...there will be inequality and diversity.
There is enough room for everyone under the umbrella of Steemit and those who do not think so are missing the point.....cream always rises to the top....and free market principles applied will naturally eliminate the dross.
With regard to voting one's own content; below is a quote attributed to smooth...apologies for not having also copied the date and time as well.....
To quote @smooth:
"Someone who buys SP and then selfvotes is not 'draining' anything and at best can get back a portion of what was put in. It causes no harm at all."
Investors are the ones who underwrite all of the rewards on this platform. If you are not an investor, or are only a smaller investor, you need to focus your efforts on creating inspiring content that makes investors want to give their money to you. Whatever else they do or don't do with their money (including self-voting) is not your concern and does not harm you in any way. Nevertheless, you do have a downvote that you can use to disagree with what you think are underserved rewards. I suggest using it."
"The idea of creating 'lists of shame' and demonizing people is divisive, creates a hostile and toxic environment attractive to no one, and serves no useful purpose. There is no way to tell from these lists whether the content is deserving of the rewards or not. The only way to tell is by actually looking at the content, and if you think it is undeserving, downvote it."
"Your own statistics show that self-voting is awarding about 8.5% of the reward pool. I don't find that suggestive of any problem whatsoever. It is probably a very reasonable number given that the current parameters give people 10 full power votes to make per day. Thus one is being applied to the voters' own content and nine to others' (on average, of course). Seems fine."
Wishing you all the best. Cheers.
thank you, I'm also interested in what you think about the quality of my short content. can be as candid as you wish
I also added this to the origianl text which i think clears up a lot of the economics of it:
Essentially I'm now competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 70-80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against potential passive income. If I lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the hit to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse (which is why I was away for so long) and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic for now. =(
Thank you for your reply @trafalgar.
Regarding the quality of your posts.....there is no doubt of your technical ability to communicate a thought.....there is also completed thought....with an introduction, body and ending on a said topic. Your style is reflected in both the long and short posts. With regard to the shorter posts, as you stated above; to refine and condense thoughts to a joke is a process that requires ability and time. Last but not least, the fact that your work is original has merit as well. bleujay's personal taste may not agree with the baseness of the language at times, however in the interest of freedom, I would wish everyone the opportunity to succeed on Steemit.
I do understand the business aspect of your conundrum on a much smaller scale...yet the same query regarding one's investment in Steem exist. After the last HF.... it was difficult for bleujay to see the benefit of holding SP in a larger amounts and has since whittled it back to an amount that still brings value to Steemit and Steemians. Everyone has different circumstances and one tries to do to what is best.
Here's wishing the best for you. Cheers.
Hmm, I wanted to say this for a while and I guess this space is a good place for that. I personally think posting several times per day is plain unnecessary and really makes it difficult to find good content. Writers like you are an exception, but most people who post several times a day, post shit. Either those are some common pics, some article from internet or so; and it feels irritating that u have to see multiple posts of an author per day, making it very difficult to curate. I think Steemit is meant to be like medium, with good quality articles of adequate length, not tiny posts. It would have been better if Zappl posts remained on zappl and not be posted on Steemit.
Now these things being said in general, I also think that your case is a bit different. Your short posts are also of high quality and deserve the amount they get. Even though I would only like to see 2-3 daily posts from your @traf account, they are in no way of bad quality or even average. They are of high quality. Also no one should have right to downvote your content, when they are themselves raping the reward pool with their threat comments and daily flagging reports looting hundreds of $ daily. What kind of balancing is this. Those particular guys have never touched my posts, but I hate this kind of hypocrisy. This is the reason why I think that Steemit does not a have good future. Downvoting content of people like you is plain shame on steemit's part. This is not the free speech platform as being advertised.
You should know one thing that you are doing nothing wrong by posting multiple times per day and ur posts being downvoted is very very wrong. But ya, if you can limit your daily posts to 2-3, then it would be great.
Short answer : yes
Yes, I think I'm trying to find a middle ground
keep in mind that I'm competing against a completely inactive version of myself that earns about as much or more even with the 5-8 posts at $30-$50
but it may seem like if I really want to contribute, it'll be at a cost to me, in time, effort and money, as compared to just renting it out etc
maybe I can try 1-3 memes a day instead of 5-8 at 15-20 steem self vote instead of 30-50
this will make future investments, like trying to hire ppl to promote on reddit and artists etc out of pocket probably impossible, it's still going to be at a pretty hefty loss compared to doing nothing at all for me, but will hopefully add a bit of value to the platform without the appearance of unfairness.
I'm not sure atm, I'll take a small break and see where people sit and whether I'm up to the challenge of doing this going forward. Not the best time for me to be making content due to irl circumstances, and I was borderline unwilling to do it even at the old rates of pay. I think realistically this won't really be possible unless I get more votes from others on it.
The verdict here is cloudy overall. It's hard to discern whether it's the quality, frequency, it all coming from the same person, appearance of fairness that's at question here, politics or other feelings playing a part, probably some combination of everything.
Thanks for your input, quite a fair viewpoint
There is plenty of room for short content, as long as it comprises quality content.
In the overall scheme of things, whales and witnesses apparently prefer longer posts. Unfortunately, some of those longer posts are of dubious quality, and contain less readable content than some of the finer short posts.
Clearly, we should be judging posts on their actual merits, not on length. Granted, most short posts don't amount to anything significant, and can be seen as weak and poor attempts to gain rewards or improve one's reputation. At the same time, some short posts are sufficient in themselves. They may present a brief educational item or an interesting quote, and they are definitely worth clicking on and reading – and maybe even upvoting.
As for upvoting one's own posts, the default setting to upvote one's own posts clearly implies that it's okay to do so. And if anyone spends time composing quality comments and replies that add to the reputation of the Steemit platform, I believe it's fine for them to upvote their own comments.
That is particularly true for those who have Powered Up with their own funds. If a Steemian spends money to Power Up, and then uses that additional Steem Power to support the community and to mentor newbies and minnows, s/he has every right to upvote her/his comments.
Steemit is not a charity where we bring our funds in, and then distribute them with no returns. It's a blogging / publishing venture that creates currency through the work on its platform. And one who assists in that venture by providing quality content should be supported, not scorned or flagged or blacklisted.
Steem on...
thanks for your input
I think I've written my best reply to preparedwombat which is atm the top comment so I won't repeat too much
Taking into consideration that there's probably a large number of silent dissenters, I was likely overvaluing myself. That being said, I was probably still being out-competed by a passive version of myself just renting out the votes and doing absolutely nothing.
I'll try to find some sort of middle ground going into the future. For now, they'll definitely be less activity from me.
And yes, I find that even with perfectly well written long form content, they can still be excruciatingly dull. Good short content usually don't fall prey to this problem.
Another subject from your post.....regarding shorter content.
[email protected] trend is toward shorter content....for various reasons.
Have you read the book...The Shallows by Nicholas Carr.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=shallows+carr&tag=mh0a9-21&index=aps&hvadid=3170796595&hvqmt=b&hvbmt=bb&hvdev=t&ref=pd_sl_6xdn5u5wul_b
An interesting read, an ideal gift for graduates. ^_^
About that quality query.....any post which can induce dialogue is quality...is it not....it certainly brings value to Steemit.....for Steemit is not just a showcase of posts but of interaction amongst members. Looks like you bring quality and value to Steemit in spades.
Enjoyed reading the replies.....regarding the topic of your post.
Cheers.
That's a fine observation; i.e., this is "not just a showcase of posts, but of interaction," compelling us to maybe rethink Steemit, if even a little bit.
And thanks for the link to "The Shallows." It seems very interesting, and I've added it to my wishlist.
Here here @majes.tytyty!
I've always found your post hilarious whether they were long or short so well worth a 100% upvote and the odd resteem. I saw the post accusing you of being a shill and must admit felt disappointed that we are now seeing that kind of thing written about others here on Steemit.
I've never had an issue with self voting if people do it with their own or rented SP, it's when the SP is delegated it becomes dodgy.
As you state it's an investment in yourself and you should be able to vote for yourself, politicians do for fuck sake.
I've always struggled to write short posts however that doesn't mean I don't give a full vote to a short post should I feel entertained or informed/educated.
I don't like flagging either and have never flagged anyone ever even though I've had justification. I fear we may be on a slippery slope.
Keep Calm and Self Vote It's your money afterall.
haha havne't seen the post about me being a shill etc
thanks for the vote of confidence
The balance in return between self voting to leasing your Steem power is a really good example.
I think some of the Flaggards out there are quite socialist in the way they think and act. Don’t like seeing someone who has built up a significant amount of Steem power and the financial risk of leaving it bound up on the platform, actually getting rewarded for their investment.
Thanks for your understanding
Yes, basically with the seemingly ugly amount I was self voting, I was not really breaking even with just leasing out the sp and contributing nothing at all, which would have the same effect on the rewards pool. I bought 90% of my SP to invest in myself, and in this platform. I'm caught between a rock and a hard place because I'm losing to a version of myself that does nothing. Even though, at least some agree, that my content is probably fairly good for the platform.
The appearance of rewards being concentrated always attracts a lot of bad attention, but I don't know if it's always justified. I sometimes wonder if those short content came from a bunch of unknown alt accounts and the votes were similar spread out across several accounts if it would have attracted this level of negative attention. I'm not sure if it's the quality that people are worried about or just the appearance of rewards being concentrated due to my own honesty. The latter is very irrational, and as I'd explained, incorrect factually.
Thanks for your input Stephen, not too sure where I'll go from here, but your view's appreciated
This is the first of your posts that didn't make me laugh :)
I don't feel you have to explain yourself and you're also not deluded. Your content makes me laugh every single day, and these short bits are way more effective than long posts (which I also enjoy but since we're all busy, short posts don't keep us from doing whatever else we have to do when we're not on Steemit).
I think most people will agree that they are looking for quality content here. You provide that.
However I also think that most people very much relate income to hard work. If something seems effortless, then someone who lives by a hard work ethic will not put this in the income category but in the hobby and fun category, for which of course you don't deserve any money (according to their standards).
I don't believe that and I don't live by that. I value things according to what I get out of it, not by how much time or hard work it cost you to provide that. One laugh from a short post is way more valuable to me than one laugh from a long story. Because it saves me time.
I wish none of us would have to work hard and we could all earn an effortless income with something that we enjoy and that comes easy to us. So when I see people who already live that, I celebrate them.
And like you say, just because something appears effortless, doesn't mean it is.
Also, I think those hard work believers forget that Steem Power is agnostic. It doesn't matter if someone earned it by investing time, or if someone bought it, by investing their money. I think it's wonderful, that both options are available, so that Steemit is not exclusive for people with a lot of money, but also for people who start from zero. Steempower adds the same value to the community in either case.
You have every right to upvote yourself because your jokes after all are like a service you provide and we are your customers. We are "buying" a laugh. And if the system allows opening two accounts so you can upvote yourself, then you're not abusing the system and people shouldn't judge that. I do that too. I have a German and an English account.
The only thing that would be important to me, is that you're not using your Steempower and your 100% upvotes only for yourself, but also for others, by actively upvoting other people's posts and comments.
I'm sure you do that, though.
thank you for your thoughts connecteconomy
with the way that the economy of steemit is structured, voting markets allowing people to internalize the value of their voting power is inevitable.
I was manually curating from march until late oct when I returned. A lot of things happened to me and I don't quite have the luxury to not at least maximise my passive returns on here now. As I said I'm no early crypto investor, I just went all in to invest in my own talents here.
All the self voting looks bad but they were done by making a new account to lose the initial curation trail (which was worth more than my 100% vote) and kickstart a new thing here. Even with ugly self voting I'm barely breaking even with if I just rented all my voting power out and contributed nothing, which many whales do. It's basically a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's content really.
I would miss that @traf comedian even though I didn't "buy" the laughs.....Sorry @trafalgar :) I keep my little hard earned dolphin power for those struggling newbies and my own second minnow account if needed.
I do remember when you joined, loved every minute of your humour and first stories, even enjoyed your occasional votes. At some point I stopped my autovoters and started curating manually, getting tired of steemvoter and trending stuff.
I also got flagged from @smooth and @abit for their experiment, did I complain? Hell yeah but nobody cared. I shook it off and continued my path with less and less whales voting but more and more comments because I reward them.
So ....What I mean .....Just be fair and do what you like! You take the up votes , take also those down votes in style!
I appreciate investors as much as I value my sweet followers and I also respect you as a part of this hmmm ....."decentralised" community. I really need to look up the meaning for that word again......
I might be on the wrong platform but I like it here.
I only invested my time so far and don't have the chase to break even. Lucky me....
Let me start by answering your question "Is There Any Room For Short Content On Steemit?". My answer is that there better be... unless we want to stay a very small niche site.
Those are the top 10 reddit categories. If "steemit" is going to be "monitized reddit" it is essential that we encourage engaging short form content.
Here's a question I have. Is our goal to create content that appeals to the community members already here (30,000 daily... I think) or are we trying to appeal to much wider audience (18,372,259 potential community members)?
As far as the quality of your posts, I think they are very funny. But that is the same problem as above. I should not be your intended audience. The 18 million should be. I haven't talked to all of those 18 million, but I have shared many of your one-liners with my family and friends and they think they are hilarious. I have not shared many long posts with them because they are too busy. I think your short material has a much better chance of getting thousands of views from the outside world than a long blog post. It is much easier to find someone who has 30 seconds to spare on a one-liner than someone with 15 minutes to spare on a long post.
Perhaps this community doesn't want to attract people with short attention spans who are insanely busy working and when they aren't working or personally interacting have too much content to choose from (TV, Movies, Netflix, internet, twitter, youtube, instagram...) but then we are saying we don't want to attract the vast majority of the human population.
Your material is very important to the site. Sometimes you need to take a "shotgun" approach with comedy. Not every single joke is going to be pure comedic gold. However, every time one of your one-liners pops up, there is a chance it will go viral. This would be good for all of us.
It is also very difficult to do what you are doing. Writing a quality, funny one-liner seems incredibly easy. So does golfing when you watch the pros do it on tv. All they are doing is swinging a club. Any cave man can do that. They barely put any effort into a putt. But it looks so easy because they have natural talent and work their asses off to make it look so easy.
By the way, I hate golf.
And one letter can make all the difference. I just noticed that I had written "I have not shared many long posts with them because they are too busty."
Super Agree...Well Exampled @HanShotFirst!
Someone who runs @curie, please know we need @FunnyCurie .....and while you're at it add @ReplyCurie, @MemeCurie,....and also @DownVoteCurie.... :D (We need to reward the cleaners too neh?)
Thanks a lot han, as a fellow comedy writer I know you appreciate my jokes more than most
The way this incentives are structure though might just mean I'm asking for more than the stake weighted opinion is willing to pay, which is perfectly fair enough.
You know that I was sort of borderline wanting to create content as it is at the best of times, and I can't really afford to do it for less. Perhaps if I were more talented, but at least for the time being, I might be really be able to continue producing regular content here.
Thank you for this long explanation of your self-upvoting.
A few days ago I was talking about your second account @traf with some fellow steemians and we also didn't like the image it presented.
Of course it is your right to self-upvote all of this if you think it is worth it (and you are right, in case it goes viral around the net it absolutely would be!)- but the image just doesn't look good when you look at it without deeper thinking.
I think you would have been better of by just sticking to your popular main account - Maybe this would have made it easier for something to go viral?
Or, if you didn't want to "spam" your main account - What about posting with @traf and resteeming with @trafalgar? Therefore you could use @trafalgar for important posts only but still use your huge follower basis. Thought about that option?
In your defense I have to say that I have seen you manually upvote posts from rather unknown authors - this is definitely a thing not all of the whales are doing.
Btw., have you checked out my recent posts about the different forms of mobile steemit usage? Would love your opinion there, especially since you seem to use them on a regular basis ;)
very good points, but I think the image of short content being spammed is a stigma I wish to change here
there are meaningless short posts and there are ones that take more effort than the average long post but potentially hold a lot more impact. The test is this, if the creator was anonymous, what is the post worth? As I've explained the rampant self voting is more or less barely breaking even from vote renting, which does not discriminate on the quality of the post being bought (for the post part). Any less and there's just zero economic incentive for me to post at all.
what do you think of that? But also can you comment on the quality of my short posts please
if i'm honest, in terms of the impact that a post would have, a top 3 post from @trafalgar would not compare to even the average post from @traf if we were to let them out on conventional social media
90%+ of people just won't read long posts, almost irrespective of the content unless it's in the niche they're interested. Whereas a meme or a joke is mostly welcomed by all.
I was just in the middle of reading that post actually, it's interesting.
This is definitely the case!
I am not saying that I can not understand why you do it. And of course it is your well earned tight to use your power however you like.
Difficult. I can understand your point of view and your motivation. But I also understand people who don't like the image of it. But, as stated above, I have even seen you upvote posts from unknown minnows which is great and kinda prooves you are not only holding the power for selfupvoting.
What do you think?
Not people for the most part - it's the bots that do this. People would look at the post and not upvote. The bot upvotes because it got paid.
This project is increasingly looking like a fantasy ship in the middle of the ocean looking for direction... the reality with this Stake base system, its not about content creators but Stake holders, your thought process was correct in making an investment in yourself but with the hostile environment in a Stake base system you could find yourself scratching your head and re-evaluating your investment....
I believe we need some level heads, people who appreciate that two sentences and picture is as valuable as a book of many chapters....
Your are not alone though, people are being flag on their first post, probably they smell the coffee when they start flagging each other...
I take it that this is a strong endorsement for short content in general, and perhaps mine in particular, thank you.
You are among a select few, quality content and a large stakeholder...strongest of endorsement
Your content is fine. But if you're giving yourself kickbacks of $30 per tweet, we get to say 'no, this money is better spent elsewhere'.
sorry for copying and pasting my reply to someone else, but I think it applies perfectly here:
If you have a look at the part about the voting market vs content creation, the reality is that every account that's solely lending voting power (many of whom are whales a lot larger than me) is self voting at 80% efficiency on things that are guaranteed to be mediocre (votes that are bought). Also, I don't think I use up 80% of all my voting value on myself.
My self voting is just visible. My steem was bought to invest predominantly in myself, as well as help the community. But lets assume that deserves no sympathy. The question then is this: is it better for a content creator of my caliber to continue doing what I'm doing, or to be a passive vote lender described above?
Basically if I don't vote myself, I'm effectively moving to vote for guaranteed mediocre content and internalizing 80% of that value. Without the criticism. It's just how the economic incentives here are structured. As you can see from my situation, I can't quite afford to take the risk of the currency tanking while not signing up to passive returns.
I just want to know if the content is worth $30? or is that $30 better off randomly cast to buyers. Also, the kickback of $30-$50 is likely less than if I had just posted all the short posts on my main account, without self voting. It's to kickstart something at a cost to me that may be better for myself in the future, as well as the platform
I don't think either of those approaches are preferred. I think everyone who passively sells their vote is undermining their investment, but self voting is as well if it's done crudely.
Steem is an active investment. You can support all sorts of things, including your own work, and you get more out of it by using it in ways that make the network more valuable.
How much have you made on Steem by self voting? How much wealth did you make when the price rose? The latter was vastly more, as a matter of public record. You can put Steem Power to work and make that whole investment more valuable, and the returns are vastly more than what you can get by self voting.
I realize that you're saying that you vote for yourself because you think your content, attention etc. is worth that much. To you presumably it is. But we all get to have our say, if you really think it's worth that much to the network then go ahead and self vote, but don't be shocked when someone else disagrees and says 'no'. Consent is the root of consensus, and a downvote is how we express non-consent.
yes it's a game theoretical problem, but I don't see a win here. If everybody sold their votes, steem is worth very little due to the system being undermined. Unfortunately, selling your vote from the individual perspective is the best case scenario for themselves, either others do it too and you all lose, or a few suckers try to carry it and you free ride. Classic prisoner's dilemma
the voting market is an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of the rewards system which isn't really flawed. Granting this, I don't think it's a false dichotomy. It's not so much as if people don't agree that my content is worth $30. It's is that $30 better off going into traf's content, or vote buyer's content really.
I can't afford to make less than doing nothing, which is pretty much where I'm at already.
If everybody sold their votes, Steem would be worth very little. Short term thinking from the individual perspective is what's bringing Steem down, it's not the best scenario, not even for vote sellers or buyers themselves.
If everybody would spend a great amount of time finding the greatest content and upvote it accordingly, Steem would be worth a LOT soon. If you don't have the time, then sponsor (trail following or SP delegating) a curation group that reflects your perspective on quality.
Here's the win.
Prisoner's Dilemma is one scenario in isolation, with nothing following. Steem is a system where your outcomes can be affected by other voters on an ongoing basis. That's true for both selfish voting and vote selling (sold votes can be countered the same way self votes can).
The system depends on those with the largest stake countering those who act selfishly with lower stakes. Those people have the least to gain from self voting (they are only taking from themselves) and the most to lose. Under such a paradigm selfishness is no longer the most profitable approach. People like @berniesanders and @transisto downvoting smaller players are rationally protecting their investment and changing the 'game theory' math for smaller stakeholders like you and me.
Well, a lot very much depends on a handful of individual's ability to discern the market value of things, for they dictate it, I hope for my sake too that they get it right and don't ever undervalue something
It won't take anywhere near that much for me to stop producing content of course, the economic incentive isn't there, at least not for someone with my limited ability.
Thank you for your input demotruk, appreciate it
Hey,
If you truly believe that your content has value to others, maybe you could not upvote your own content for a while and see if the rewards you receive from the people you are sharing too is in line with what you expect to get for it. That's what 99% of the members of Steemit have to do. I can understand both why you are doing it, and also why you got flagged for doing it, but i'm not sure exactly where I stand on it as I am not 100% versed in what else you give to the platform - if you are a brilliant curator for instance and get rewards to people who deserve them other than yourself.
Personally I don't like short content as often it just seems to come off as spam, especially when it appears that you are earning quite a lot of money for it (comparitive to other quality posts). Others on here really struggle to make anything having put a lot of time and effort in which is where the angst lies.
This would be entirely fair if I could do it with my main account, but I think that's messier for everyone (i did this twice, my first 2 posts after a 4 month break and got $70 without self voting)
I see that not everyone likes short content, but do you broadly agree that that's the direction mainstream social media has taken and it might not be a bad idea to push for it here?
The hard truth is not everyone is suited to being a content creator. I'm just trying to figure out whether I'm not suited to it either, and if so, just on this platform or in general.
Do you find my short content to be worse than other short content on here? How about compared to viral content elsewhere?
To be honest, i'm not a fan of short content. Guess that might be due to me being an old man :). Im on twitter but never really got to grips with it, same with things like instagram. It's all a bit too "quick" (for lack of a better word) for me. I think that the social media of tomorrow (and maybe it already does) will fulfill the need to get a quick hit of information/amusement as people don't have time to read a few thousand word description on "how I am creating a timelapse rail using electronic components" (excuse the blatant self-promotion). So, in answer to your question, I find your stuff neither worse, nor better than anything else on the internet.. apart from it being better than the stuff that people on here try to pass off as their own while blatantly stealing it from somewhere else. At least you put some time into it. Is it worth the amount you get for it by self upvoting? If you hadn't invested the money yourself to do this and had just lucked out by being on here as an initial investor and gave nothing back to the community then yes, I'd think it was taking the piss a bit. However, as you have put in a lot of your own money and are hopefully using this to curate other content and build the platform, i cant really argue against it but it's still a grey area that is going to cause different people to have different opinions.
A few things.
4.Self voting is allowed.
5.Flagging is allowed.
I think you have every right to upvote your own posts. I think whales have every right to downvote if they don't think it brings enough value. My suggestion for right now is upvote yourself less.
Find the point where it's the most you can make and still under the radar. While doing that grow an audince on Traf and as it grows increase the amount you self vote. If you're bringing people here with your one liners and funny comments they aren't going to give a shit. If you're basically making jokes to yourself and upvoting them for 30 each 8 times a day you're gonna get flagged as long as the view count is low.
You're not the only investor. They want to see a return too. They fear that your self voting behavior on low view posts are going to hurt the reward pool and ecosystem. If they were getting 1k views it wouldn't be an issue.
It would seem you're not quite producing enough value on your smurf account to satisfy the whales. Bring in a load of people with your constant stream of funny and this will vanish. In the meantime I'll stick around and start sharing sharing some of the best ones to help get you an audience on your smurf.
Chin up, make some jokes, grow an audience on traf, and you'll be in the clear I think. Capitalize on the flags while the issue is hot and enjoy some easy press. Just don't full implosion over it.
Thanks aggroed
Yes, I think while most people here are quite supportive, there must be a large number of less vocal dissenters to the quality of my content. I accept that.
I also believe that downvote is necessary here and it's not really a complaint against the downvotes rather than an appeal to the quality of my content. Overall, I accept that others don't think they're that good.
My best answer is to the top voted reply here, preparedwombat. So I won't repeat too much. I am in an unfortunate position of being out competed by my passive self. That is, even with those self votes, I probably don't quite break even with doing absolutely nothing and just renting out the votes, like many have done including much larger stakeholders.
I don't want to do this for the long term, and hopefully will find some middle ground, provided my content is better than no content at all, which isn't as clear cut as I hoped it'd be.
Great show you ran the other day, glad I could listen in. Sorry I coudlnt stay the entire time, it was 5am
Well, the other side of this is that when you upvote other people you grow your audience. Every time you leave a $30 upvote on someone's post you're gonna buy a fan. That fan might return the favor with autovotes etc on your posts. So, you're looking at today's return instead of delayed investment over time.
In a short time frame self voting will win. In a long time frame upvoting others will.
I don't know
While I think it's not ideal to self upvote if you don't believe your own work is worth that much, I don't think voting others to buy fans is the right approach either.
Ideally the only factor to be taken into consideration is content quality and absolutely nothing else. But we're all human and we can never be that rational.
Well, content quality is highly subjective. In my experience when 2 people say there's not enough high quality content on the platform they are looking for drastically different things.
The term I think you actually want is value. How much value does it bring? This is also subjective, but can include something like external views. I think Transisto has a point that bringing new people here should be a priority and we should assess how much a post is worth also in part by how many views it gets.
I think my main point is that this place rewards you more when you help others than when you help yourself. If you dedicate your work to not only being funny, but being funny and pulling new users to this platform I think you'll find more support for your content. At that point it wouldn't just be funny stuff, but funny stuff that helps Steem grow. The latter has much more value to the platform and can tolerate higher rewards.
Trafalagar, you're funny. You're good for this platform. I like your content. You're sitting on a boatload of money. I think you may enjoy life a bit more if you worry slightly less on exacting perfect returns, cut yourself some slack that you're already doing better than 90% of the people in the world, and focus on the parts of this that you love. The universe will reward that!
$0.02.
I think there is nothing wrong with short content whatsoever. As you say there is often a misconception. A joke can take a long time to come up with.
Why does no one flag someone who post a photograph with the Exif (Exchangeable image file format) ? Taking a photo and adding this information can be done within minutes and probably much faster than coming up with a good joke.
I think we should be open to different content.
Also to be honest, when it comes to longer posts there might be a lot of upvotes but almost no views and the comments don't make sense. Which means many don't have the time to read it all as they have many more posts to check as well.
When you have hundreds of people you follow how is it possible to read through everything fully, atleast if you have a full time job ?
I love short content because i can respond to it right away and comment quickly. Also when it comes to funny content it's more likely I will have a laugh with something short that has an instant punchline. So if I read something that takes 20 minutes or something that takes 20 seconds I might still get more satisfaction from the shorter content.
Anyways I say keep it up because I think this kind of content is inevitable to keep the sight running. I also have seen a lot of people creating an extra account to be able to do shorter content (me included)
I think that's all good because we can't always have time to write A4 posts as there are many other things to get around to in a stressful schedule.
Thanks a lot dan, I'm glad to see you trying out short content
You're a really funny guy in the comments section, and if it wasn't for the reasons I've outlined above, I'd reward those comments a bit more
I hope you can relate to my claim that it's one thing being very funny socially and a different beast translating that over to content creation when you've got a blank canvas. It takes a bit of time and experience to get the feel right, and it never becomes effortless
It's definitely not effortless! I can vouche for that, not when u come up with it from scratch and try to make it original and current. If people don't believe it they should try it.
I see now that I might have upset some people about posting photos. If you post very nice photos I know it can take a lot of time and you have to consider the time spent on getting to the place which u want to photograph. Also the time on editing and choosing the photographs that are successful.
I am just saying that as long as u post a photo it usually wouldn't be considered as short content that someone didn't spend a lot of time on. I guess that's because a photo can say more than a thousand words ?
I am not sure. But when it comes to comedy it's sometimes about taking a thousand words and making it into a few sentences and that's not easy either so I don't think one should consider the quantity of the words but instead the quality.
Taking a photo can take me hours, just like making up a joke can take hours. I don't think the issue that the flagger had is with the fact that it's short-form content but more with the self upvoting across accounts.
Yes, but other people don't know if the photo is a snapshot or a well-thought composition. That's why people prefer to upvote larger posts.
The self voting seems to be a continuous issue... I honestly don't know what amount is right or wrong . What I do know though is that people that put hundreds of thousand into Steemit probably will treat their investment very differently than a lot of people that earned most of their Steem on the platform.
We have to think about the opportunity cost as well. Also it seems that people that have more SP get more scrutinized.
By now you would have to put millions into the platform to 'rig' it for self-voting. Otherwise it won't be profitable for the 'self-voters' because they have to put their assets into steem for a long time. Which is quit risky.
Totally agree with that. I guess there is a conflict of interests to a certain degree between the people who have invested in the platform financially and the people who invest a lot more time in creating content and curating content. The balance of power here is always going to be an issue.
I have to agree with @markangeltrueman here. Photos can take hours to do.
Here are the reason why. First, you have to go out to actually take a photo. Yes, go out in the world and actually think of what to take photo of. People think photography is as easy as clicking the button then 'astalavista' it is all good.
You have to think about how your going to set up the camera, the settings of the camera, what subjects you want in the frame/photo and spend time walking around looking for interesting subjects to take photos of. I have been doing street photography for the past 1 and a half week now and oh boy, was it tough at first. You have to get over that anxiety of people judging you if you take a photo of them. That awkward feeling that you get everytime you take a picture. I spent hours just walking around our city just to get decent photos. Also, street photography isn't easy because you can't just tell your subject to do what he/she did again. Once the subject is gone, so is your chance to take a photo of that subject.
Also, photographers usually takes lessons on how to do these things. I, myself, watch hours and hours and read many articles just to know about photography.
After taking a photo, you have to do some post editing if you want your photo to pop out. You need programs for that such as adobe or lightroom which cost money.
That is why I support short content also in photography because I know the work and the time it took to take that photo.
Agree with this, but I normally won't upvote a photo on it's own in a post where there is not even an attempt at a description, or if the photo, to me, is actually not very good. If you took hours to create a photo, take 5 minutes to describe it in the post.
There are also some quite powerful members on here who post short format photography work which is, to be frank, crap snapshots that they took on their way home and they get tens, if not hundreds of dollars per post. That isn't the sort of short format posts that should be rewarded to that extent.
see, i love photos. for many diff reasons. but i find it extremely annoying that each and every of photos have some kinds of description, which somehow kills the value of pic.
photos talks on their own. if they need description, then something is not good.
people here are forcing themselves into descrptions after whole process already done. forced descriptions, same as any forced an unnatural efforts are just degrading the original work. just my opinion.
also there is way around this / i actually never read descriptions.
Maybe I didn't make myself 100% clear there, that's my fault... Of course, if a photo stands on its own and needs no description to inspire me then I'm going to vote on it. Guys like @axeman who I think is one of the most underrated members on here is a prime example of someone I'll vote for when I see just a solitary picture in my feed, cos i'm confident that he took the picture and he put time and effort into producing it. When I see a picture on its own that looks like the poster made no real effort to compose or think about, and then didn't make any effort to describe what they are trying to do with the photo then i dont feel that they are deserving of a vote. Im also concerned about the level of spam. If i see a photo, a description of the picture helps to verify that the person posting is the original photographer and it hasnt just been taken from a stock image site.
Agree. Speciallly if you are talking about street photography. You cant really describe what is really happening. Speculations you can do but it is always on the viewers side of what he/she may interpret the photo as.
I could understand if the photo is travel or scenaries which the original content creator can describe where the photo was taken.
It was this kind of photography I was talking about which is more like snapshots.
But just like with photography it's a huge difference in the quality.
The same goes for comedy as well except for the difference that sometimes even quality comedy such as @traf can be considered just short content - which is not fair
If you have a look at the part about the voting market vs content creation, the reality is that every account that's solely lending voting power is self voting at 80% efficiency on things that are guaranteed to be mediocre (votes that are bought). I do not vote at 80% efficiency (that is, internalize 80% of the value of total my voting power)
My self voting is just visible. My steem was bought to invest predominantly in myself, as well as help the community. But lets assume that deserves no sympathy. The question then is this: is it better for a content creator of my caliber to continue doing what I'm doing, or to be a passive vote lender described above?
I'd rather you curated the good stuff than let crappy bots do it. All they do is curate spam and rubbish.
Lend your SP and don't waste your precious time on blind people who will never understand how this platform is designed to work.
This is going to be a big topic and personally I think long or short content does not really matter, the issue at hand is the upvoting.
@berniesanders has created his account @yougotflagged and has taken it upon himself to rid steemit of what are in his eyes people that do not deserve the rewards they get.
now sitting back and reaping the passive rewards might be the same for you but I would say Steemit would be poorer for it.
What on the other hand you might do is take down the self voting a bit and see how that goes. I mean, if you upvote each zappl from @traf with 10 instead of 30-40 it might be percieved as reasonable and would still give you a decent income added to your main posts on the @trafalgar account.
I have read some of your oneliners and some are funny, some less so but I guess you know that and your sense of humour is not for everyone.
A lot of the reward pool is going to people that really do not deserve it but I do not actually think the whales are completely at fault... a lot of these circle-jerk spam copy paste account are taking a big part of the pot as well. They should just all stop and upvote my posts instead.
I see, thanks for your input, the quality assessment matters to me the most.
In terms of the economics however, I tried to explain, it just looks bad because people don't really notice the alternative which is renting out voting power. This is done by a lot of whales, some way bigger than me, and didn't spend a cent getting their steem, nor do they produce content.
Even current circumstances I can't afford to be too altruistic, I'll have to use a lot of my voting power on my own content, or rent it out. Basically the rewards pool is going down no matter what, so the choice really is traf's content or the avg vote buyer's content. Because even with my aggressive self voting that looks ugly, the reality is i'm barely keeping up with just passive income enjoyed by many others without lifting a finger. Is it better for the platform if I become one of them? It's an inevitable consequence of the economic system here.
Sorry if that sounded aggressive, I'm trying to draw out the facts. I don't really lose anything if I get flagged and stop posting. Financially that is. I mean it's probably a little less fun, but way less work.
why not just do half half,
I think you enjoy your posting so the completely passive thing might not be for you anyway
and you do not seem to be taking out any cash from your account to sell so I assume you have other streams of income and are building your steem as a nest egg (decent sized egg by now)
So put some up for the passive income streams and use the rest in active voting this would give you the best of both worlds without the worry.
I do get your point that the whales in their loungers are not the target of attacks while they maybe should be but changing the topic does not change perception
And if you are really worried about having to much voting power, just give me a 100% upvote on one of my posts and I will put you as a 100% recipient of my steemvoter account (that does not make it so obvious but comes down to about the same thing, self upvoting by proxy)
I think your one liners are pretty funny, and I appreciate that you set up a different account for those who are less interested in that kind of thing. I don't see this as shit content, it's just different content. Similar to those who just post high quality photos with little text. Should they be punished because they aren't long posts? No, if it's still quality content. And the market will decide this, which is what we want.
I also see where you're coming from with respect to upvoting your own posts. I am not one of these people that has a problem with self upvoting. We all want to get paid for our efforts. Plus obviously a 10% (for example) vote from you is going to be worth more than a 10% from a minnow. You've invested your own money in the platform so this is totally fair wanting the benefits that come with that.
That being said, my main issue with me personally upvoting your @traf stuff is that you upvote yourself straight away and this makes up the bulk of your post rewards, leaving less opportunity for others to earn curation rewards. People have far more opportunity to gain curtion rewards off your main account, since your self vote does not make up the majority of your post payouts. I like your content, but I'm also playing the curation game. Since we have a limited number of upvotes per day, I am more likely to choose something else I enjoy where I could earn better curation rewards than your one liners. This isn't just restricted to you--it also goes for people who use bots on their posts straight away to get on trending pages. I'm much less likely to vote on them as well. If you self upvoted after giving others with less SP a chance to upvote your content, I, personally, would be much more inclinded to upvote your @traf content.
Fuck! Now I'm late for the gym.
I very much appreciate the input on how you assess the quality of my work. Thank you
I see what you mean by the upvote timing. My idea was that as it's just starting out I need immediate exposure on the hot list, but as it gains more popularity, i'll wait longer and slowly tone down the voting power too perhaps
Essentially I'm now competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against potential passive income. If i lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the loss to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. I'm not an early cyrpto investor as you know and steem is the bulk of my net worth. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse (which is why I was away for so long) and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic :(
Ok, I'm back from the gym. And slightly dead. That class hurt!
I get where you're coming from as well. You've got a decent stake in steemit and it makes sense to play the game to get the highest rewards. You've weighed up the benefits of steemit compared to other investments. I get this, I have ploughed a decent chunk of money into steemit too, which obviously I could have put into other cryptos. So I don't begrudge you for upvoting your content straight away to maximise your own curation. That makes perfect sense from your perspective and I do it with my stuff. But it is a game, and all the choices we make regarding voting come with tradeoffs, regardless of who you are. I also understand why you would look at selling your vote. Financially it is attractive and I don't begrudge you for that either. In fact, I bought one of your votes on a previous post!
I think the real problem is this is all new. These things don't exist anywhere else which we can look at for guidance so of course, the unintended consequences are playing out in real time, which we all have to deal with. Unfortunately, the last few days has shown that some people with a lot of power have taken it upon themselves to decide what is good content and what isn't. This is my main problem at the moment. The thing I like about steemit is it should let the market decide what is good or shit content. In reality, this is not happening. However, I hope that over time, most of these problems will get resolved so we can just get back to doing fun stuff, and that steem will moon and make us rich.
I'm almost certain that if this place survives, over time it'll slowly balance out and improve
I'm just not sure what to do in the meantime. I either vote myself up aggressively to justify working really hard on the content, and even then it's hard to make more than just renting it out, or I just rent it out and sit back like a lot of others have done, many of whom far larger stakeholders than me. Either way the rewards are leaving the pool, a lot of it is either going back to myself, or to the average vote buyer whose quality of work is questionable, not implying yourself.
You can see how content creators who invested in Steem face this dilemma. They basically stand to make about as much doing absolutely nothing while avoiding all the controversy of self voting etc.
I can't afford to pass up on the level of rewards I can get from doing absolutely nothing and renting it out. So is that what I should do?
The rewards will be leaving the pool either way, to traf or to the buyers is basically what everyone gets to decide
Yeah it's tough. I don't know what you should do. Either way you are a target at the moment cos your vote is worth a lot so you are being watched. Certain people will come at you for renting out your vote but they will also come at your self voting. It's a sucky situation.
Very good point about the timing of the self upvote @choogirl. I didn't consider that.
Can confirm short content can take a long time, at least from my experience as well. Sometimes I wonder if curation is more about knowing about an account, or just solely focused on the content. Because as the content becomes shorter, it becomes more difficult for content curators to determine whether or not they should vote, or not.
In my case, I think know what you're about from our interactions back when you came onboard, hence I don't have any problems since I trust you're being genuine. Comparatively, I think your long-form stuff is way better. Plus, Steemit's interface is pretty lousy for shortform because I have to click-through to view the short post in its entirety, so the pay off for doing that better be out of this world!
But point being made, we can certainly write a million words of the best essay ever, but will others get the point or even get any value out of it? I think 100-200 words might be a good middle ground for something like Steemit as short content, until a twitter like interface comes along. At the moment I'm trying low VP on the microblog, resteem on my main, and see how well it's received.
Edit: replying to another one of your comments: i think your shortform is better than most on here, although i tend not to come across many at all.
thanks a lot kevin
basically I have to choose along with fellow steemians whether I'm able to continue providing content the way I have been, as well as voting the way I have been because I can't really justify making significantly less than vote lending, which is another topic, but is basically an inevitable consequence of the steemit economic system and won't go away due to playing with the numbers or the curve.
If it's not financially competitive for me to produce content (i'm barely keeping up with a passive income even without getting flagged) then they'll just be 1 more full time whale leech here.
Maximisation / Optimisation of posting and curating is a whole other can of worms. I just choose to stay away from my numbers and just use the platform as usual without maxing out my returns, which kinda sucks lol. The economy relies on differentials of power, and some will inevitably need to take the hit and just do what's best for the platform, hoping for a better Steem valuation.
I very much respect what you and curie are doing, but tried to do that for the first 7-8 months of my being here
Basically I'm now competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against potential passive income. If i lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the loss to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. I'm not an early cyrpto investor as you know and steem is the bulk of my net worth. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse (which is why I was away for so long) and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic :(
Oh now I understand. I didn't know lending voting power to a bot is that yummy. I'd personally do it as well lol, if there are more innovative solutions for actual curation with decent returns. Maybe an offshoot of Curie for vote buying lol. But it'd likely still be not as much as 80c to the dollar. As of now, I think you wouldn't get the flags anymore, if you so choose to continue busting ass trying to come up with viral short content. It's your own vote and you've already explained why you're doing it and opened up the floor for discussion. I didn't check, but whoever flagged traf's content might reconsider after seeing this. It's about communication after all if there are any conflicts.
Hello @trafalgar. Good to see you post this. I must say i was very surprise to see your name on @yougotflagged list. In my early days of steemit, you were one upvote that i see randomly and i have always wonder how kind this person is to give random votes. The randon votes were very frequent and i always say to my sef, if we have 5-8 whales doing this randon votes to us, blogging will feel good. So thank you for those random votes that were coming. Though they stopped for a while.
As for short content, i think i started following you when i saw you were into short content. I have always felt, everyone is not in for long content and short contest could server better purpose of making an impact than long content. I personally find it had to read long content. Truth be told, how many long post can we really read in a day and digest its content in full. For me as long as a content is creative, educative, informative and makes an impact; short or long, it deserves egual reward. For this reason i did contest to reward short content for minnow.
Steemit should be all about long content. Then it means is not for everyone. Your contents were ok for me. Then again, who am i? A small minnow.
As for self voting, what i think is if you invested steem to get the sp that you have, is only logical you self vote to gain your investment. And as long as you self vote and vote others as well, i do feel is okay. But then, am just a small minnow, who am i that my opinion should count.
Have a great day.
thanks for sharing your views ceepee
Thank you @trafagar
This is really long...we are so used to the short funny ones mate!
Btw it's your money, it's your investment...so you can do whatever you wish i believe.
And you also upvote so many people who comments on your posts, which is great! I have even got a vote from you some days back on my post...not so many whales act like this.
I would say just forget about everyone and keep entertaining your readers man!
Thank you, but more important, do you actually like the short content and/or think it's good for the platform?
I find quick puns/memes a good laugh as you're browsing Steemit, it's good for short and sweet but average and longer posts are still necessary, so long as they are rewarded more than a few cents.
Problem here - you made those type of content every day. You knew that they could flag you and you have made new account. But also - 500 000 it's 500 000. Have you spent around 480 000$? (my rough estimation)
I think Dmania is for short content
I actually like short contents for sure, little to read and so much meaning. I do think we should accept both long and short content here, there must not be any restrictions. It's a free world and it should remain free to express in any way you want!
I laugh out loud at most of your short work, and multiple times during the longer pieces.
As suggested by others, vote weight and vote timing may appease some, but as you have stated, this reduces direct ROI.
As @demotruk has stated, indirect rewards that come through keeping newer users happy and spreading the word, could easily surpass this $$ strategy.
Delegate 10k SP to 10 keen curators who will prove to you they are supporting promising new content (categories/type advised by you), who will comment on these blogs plugging @traf and or @trafalgar), and watch your viewers rise followed by the price of Steem?
I think a person who has invested a large amount of money from the system has every right to maintain his posts. So it is necessary to do! Especially if this person helps other users too. I saw many accounts that you paid. This is the platform that holds! Investing in yourself is the foundation of any business, is not it? This is a financial platform, you are making the right investment! I know many people who shout "You do not have the right to pay yourself!" Why? They do not have the answer to this question. Just a human factor.
I noticed that short content is more valuable than big serious articles in most cases today. This means that short messages should be given the right to life. Thanks to short messages, many social platforms live and thrive, and you know their name well. So, why should we be worse than others? :)
Thanks a lot tanata. I wonder what you think about the actual content though, I wouldn't bother supporting it if others don't like it.
basically I'm competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against passive income. If i lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the loss to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. I'm not an early cyrpto investor and steem is the bulk of my net worth. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic :(
I understand you. You do not have to be too altruistic. You have done a lot for this platform. This fact gives you the right to be an altruist to yourself :) Your calculations seem to me quite logical;)
About short content. It should be interesting for the average user. It should be unique and attract the attention of new users. The content does not matter, it can be everything, except propaganda of violence or any kind of aggression.
I am also an advocator of short contents but the short contents I have seen doing well on here were accompanied by videos. I made use of twitter where a less than 140 characters sentence gets thousands of retweets and likes. Short contents creators will struggle to earn on here to be very honest
were you someone on twitter who got 1000s of rts on twitter, please let me know I'd like to support your content
post on punchline tag and let me see
I only managed a few hundred RTs on some of my tweets, but they were hashtag games so had a much shorter shelf life than empty tweets
Tldr....
Joking!! No man, your comedy is spot on. There are hardly any original short form content creators on here. I know for a fact as I have been browsing about the funny/jokes tags and very little of it isn't plagiarised from elsewhere.
Your stuff is intelligently written and funny and you got it exactly right. It's hard as fuck to write a short joke or one liner that raises a laugh. Anyone who has tried will know. It is definitely not easy.
You have a talent and I hope that it is recognised as such. Who else on this platform (apart from me cos I rawk ;0)) can raise a laugh with almost everything they post.
Your posts are worth it. We have to make steem desirable to outsiders beyond the Reddit I regurgitate essays crowd
haha you're definitely one of the funniest guys on here
thanks for the high appraisal
I wanted to add a bit that I don't think I made clear enough in the original piece
Essentially I'm now competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against potential passive income. If i lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the loss to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. I'm not an early cyrpto investor as you know and steem is the bulk of my net worth. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse (which is why I was away for so long) and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic for now :(
I for one hope that the general consensus is for you to carry on. You support lots of authors through your voting. Yet more power to the vote buyers means more shit on the platform. Although I fully support that you have to absolutely consider your own return.
Although I love steemit, sometimes I wish the place wasn't so fucking pish
Your content is a 10 on a scale of 1-10. The PURPOSE of content is to engage the audience. If whatever content you post is VALUED by people, then it should be considered good content. It should be more than obvious to anyone that the "short" or "long" should not really be top criteria for content.
Your content is among the best on here. Actually, it's probably THE best, in my opinion. Keep doing what you're doing.
You are far too kind
My self appraisal is maybe a 6, sometimes 6.5 and maybe a 10% or less chance of a 7
Thank you for your input
I think it's great you addressed the elephant in the room and opened it to public discussion. This is one of the great things about Steemit, the ability to have open dialogue with others who share different viewpoints, exchange opinions, and learn where the other person is coming from, and walk away a more informed human being.
I personally enjoy the short joke genre, and think back to many of the great stand up comedians who would hit you with one right after another until you were gasping for breath.
To me, your second account is a great experiment to test your hypothesis and attempt to broaden the scope of Steemit. My opinion may not count for as much, since I am only a minnow, but out of the vast pool of minnows is where the future dolphins and whales will rise, if they are given the opportunity to thrive and grow. I know personally your #punchline tag has helped me gain the confidence and motivation to make the effort to really try to develop my comedy writing skills and pursue my dream of being able to become a full-time content creator, as well as other pursuits I want to do, rather than a job I have to do.
Not trying to blow smoke up your ass, just keepin' it real.
thanks a lot, this was very much the intention
i remember you as one of the first winners of my be a smartass competition a long time back
I was hoping things will slowly evolve, i'd hire ppl to most the best short content on other sites like reddit, maybe one day get a team to edit our own gifs etc
as to the aggressive self voting, I think I expalined it better in some of the comment replies than the post. I'll copy and paste a reply so you get a more of an idea there, I think it's important
In terms of the economics however, I tried to explain, it just looks bad because people don't really notice the alternative which is renting out voting power. This is done by a lot of whales, some way bigger than me, and didn't spend a cent getting their steem, nor do they produce content.
Even current circumstances I can't afford to be too altruistic, I'll have to use a lot of my voting power on my own content, or rent it out. Basically the rewards pool is going down no matter what, so the choice really is traf's content or the avg vote buyer's content. Because even with my aggressive self voting that looks ugly, the reality is i'm barely keeping up with just passive income enjoyed by many others without lifting a finger. Is it better for the platform if I become one of them? It's an inevitable consequence of the economic system here.
Sorry if that sounded aggressive, I'm trying to draw out the facts. I don't really lose anything if I get flagged and stop posting. Financially that is. I mean it's probably a little less fun, but way less work.
You are correct, I was a winner on the smartass competition. I'm humbled that you remember. That experience showed me that there can be money made on Steemit, and helped me realize that sometimes I'm not the only one that thinks my off the wall humor has some merit.
This whole Steemit project is a journey through uncharted territory. I think your actions have at least started many discussions that need to take place; cultivating new genres, self-voting to support polishing many comedic turds in hopes of also discovering a few comedic diamonds versus passively selling votes, and recognizing value of multiple profitable genres to keep Steemit from become a one trick pony.
Your sp is what we all dream of down here. Don't give up and learn how to make your content a valuable part of steemit.
Enter your short content into challenges. Your big payouts will draw attention to the challenges you choose and you can help us little minnows. Pick the ones that suit your themes. Short daily challenges I know of to enter are:
@kalemandra #colorchallenge changes daily
@mariannewest #freewrite
@ace108 #beautifulsunday
@howtostartablog #dailyfoodphtography
@juliank 14 weekly themes
Etc etc - there are many lists people keep and many challenges to enter. you just have to find the ones you can drop your content into.
Make your content fit the theme - be flexible! And yes all of those above are short and this is why I picked them to enter myself with my own content. I do a few long posts in the week, but the short ones keep me active.
Go into each challenge you enter and upvote one other steemer at 50% and we will be crying with joy down here in minnowland. It's bad down here and you can potentially make a good difference - even as one person.
Join the curation league of @abh12345 and see what your voting is doing for you and how to improve your curation results. Most people can do better by continuing to self-vote AND by voting better with their remaining votes. Let us teach you how so you can help us!
You need to succeed to give us hope down here, so I hope you do. Good luck!
You are also the third person being hit by down-votes I've heard of this week. I find this a horrific turn of events. Add the tag of "flagging" to your post - that's what the other people are posting to. You can still change all but your first tag now until the payout on the 7th day.
I see
I only write comedy so I'm not sure about the competitions.
Essentially I'm now competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against potential passive income. If i lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the loss to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. I'm not an early cyrpto investor as you know and steem is the bulk of my net worth. Recent personal circumstances took a turn for the worse (which is why I was away for so long) and I don't have the luxury to be too altruistic :(
There are good curators begging for delegation and they are far, far superior to bots. Minnowbooster is a way to find some of them if you are looking for money out of it. You can make much more income that way if you gave $$$ to 10 good curators. Some are offering to pay you for it so they can spread the rewards. Give it a try maybe.
And your comedy would be a hit - again try it! Few can do comedy so you might find a niche in some of the challenges. If you have good content, it will be seen there anyway. I write about money tips in ThursdayGreen for example. Yes, there is a green photo but the content is mine about money.
I hope things turn around and the best advice is to diversify with what you have - which is still substantial to most of us. I did not know you were new to crypto so big congrats on your success.
There are quite a few people here who might be able to help you increase the value of some of it. I've been watching a few who give tips and post their results and it's pretty jaw-dropping how much of this crypto is flying around. I'm an accountant and the rest of the world is dead compared to this. I'm so glad to be seeing it now in my old age :)
We've talked about it before and I fully agree with all your points, especially with the easier barrier for entry. The scenario you pointed out with the newbie being disillusioned after making a long post and earning next to nothing is so accurate. I can attest to that because that was me before I went on a hiatus last year. Honestly, that's still me some times.
Posts should be judged on the quality, not on length or perceived effort. Even if it's a one-liner or a "simple" meme, one shouldn't assume the effort it took to make it. Some high quality one-liners beat shitposts and copypasta any day. The sooner people realize that, the better. This self-policing nature of the platform gives a lot of freedom, but it has drawbacks. Everything is subjective, so people need to fucking calm down and be more compassionate. Some victims aren't what they are portrayed and some perceived bullies are vilified for all the wrong reasons. If people want to treat this platform as the decentralized hub that it's set out to be, then they need to stop acting like sheep, step out for a second and look at the bigger picture.
I actually saw @traf mentioned in a comment earlier, and I'm glad to see you posting something about it. I'm fully behind you whether you're a whale or a plankton. You do great work and you consistently put out high quality stuff. If people just took the time to read, they'll know what I'm talking about. Your views and the interaction you get should be enough to back that up. Are the flags still in play? I don't think I saw any flags still there.
haha, thanks buddy
yeah it's all good
Yes, you are delusional. That's normal for a human though.
The joke you posted was not worth a singular $30 vote. Maybe $10-15. It was alright. You should try to objectively determine how much any one post is worth, then try to determine how much your ego is chiming in, and let the community determine if it's worth more than that.
There is nothing wrong with you making money back through contributions, when compared to loaning out your steem power. That's not how others will see it though. They will see it as you having an unfair advantage. Others may disagree on the rewards for certain posts, and downvote. There will always be worse crap that earns more as well. Unlike minnows though, you actually have the power to downvote the stuff you think really isn't worth the rewards.
I say you resteem the content you think is the best to this account, and upvote conservatively. You have to build this short form account like everyone else.
sounds very reasonable
unfortunately for me, the asking amount at $30-$50 was below what's sustainable for me as an investor, compared to passive income on here even voting that way probably doesn't match doing nothing. so it's get more, do nothing, no negativity vs the opposite.
I do think though that the market has spoken and your view is not a minority view considering they'll be many silent dissenters. I'll definitely respect the views of the people
I actually checked out the account and upvoted a few, after making this comment.
I saw the name in other comments.
A lot of your content is funny. Which makes me wonder why you picked out one of the least funny jokes.
People will see the upvoting for your own content as unfair though. Me personally, I will only judge it on a case by case basis. I personally don't see anything wrong with whales or dolphins upvoting their own posts, if they can be objective about the value, or their upvote isn't worth more than $5 or $10. Others do have a problem with it though. Minnows all started out upvoting their own posts, but at some point it starts to look egotistical. Like your post is so much better than all the others you passed up votes on.
People that upvote their own comments though, are just egomaniacs. I totally have done this before, but my comment was simply amazing. I only regret the poster didn't agree, and immediately turn over all of his assets to pay for my cleverness.
haha i think content is very subjective
obviously to me i thought i'd picked out some of the best ones
I perfectly understand the sentiment
I do hope that at least some people get that I can't work for less because it's less than doing nothing at all
But I can do next to nothing at all if that's the general consensus
I have to assume that ppl are more likely to voice praise than criticism so there's a very high number of silence dissenters
I do think overall most people prefer me to stop if I can't work for less, which is perfectly fair and I'll respect it. Its like asking for a certain amount for a job and having the market tell you you're not worth that much.
thank you for your candor, very appreciated
I don't think they want you to do nothing at all. They're just objecting due to the way it looks. It's a conflict of viewpoints.
It's like if you looked out of a window on the second story, heard a loud bang, and then saw someone fall. You would think that person was shot. Maybe the loud bang was a car backfiring, and they just slipped on the ice, because of the shock of the loud noise.
If you want to earn from that content, you just have to keep working, so a larger percentage is other people's votes. If the only motivating factor is money though, you might be better off choosing another avenue.
yes I'm definitely getting that impression, I want to contribute, I think my material is at least worth more than the average vote buyer's, but if I do vote myself up, it's too visible and direct. It'll take time and I'm not as patient building up the second account because I made it for the sole purpose of not exploiting the curation trail here, and my self vote doesn't cover that cost.
But impression is everything. I think you're one of the few who understands that economically, I'm competing against a vote renting version of myself that takes just as much from the rewards pool, does nothing, makes more and receives no backlash. I don't want to do the latter, but am struggling to find a workable middle ground.
Also, I suppose to make the point in my original post, if that itself wasn't ironic enough, I didn't get to the end of your last message before replying, nice gag lol
The fact that youve received downvotes for this is concerning. There is a disconnect between content creators and investors. We obviously need both to survive, but it seems the content creators who rely on steem to make an income are at war with investors who have a self interest to make money. If all steem had was content creators the price would continually go down to nothing, investors are just as important if not more important than content creators. We need to embrace investors and not try to run them out of here just because they're aren't here to be full time content creators. They are the ones giving your steem value.
Based on everything you said I'd just rent that shit out and collect the payments.
Nice wall of text brah !
Seriously now, well done. You explained things in a matter that I think will make a lot of people open their eyes.
I 100% agree with what you're saying and where you're coming from .
I think most people don't get that it's your money and you have the right to do whatever you want with them. The same people that praise voting bots.
haha thanks a lot
basically I'm competing vs how much I would make if I completely lent out my voting power to a bot, which pays maybe 80c to the dollar. So while the self voting may look ugly, it's actually barely breaking even against passive income. If i lent it out full time, everyone still loses the same amount in terms of the loss to the rewards pool, just means the average vote buyer will get the money.
So basically it's a choice between traf's content or the average vote buyer's. I don't have the luxury to be more altruistic than that.
Either way , I'm glad to see you back posting.
I shall follow the "1 liner"account !
It's like the similar idea whereby sometimes one picture can tell a whole story much better than words can. Photojournalists around the world aspire to capture the most they possibly can about a story in a single photograph. I agree with your sentiment here, I believe in some cases it is a much greater skill to say something with the fewest words possible.
thanks you very much for your input
Let me check out your short content and get back to you later.
Or actually, having read your full (long) post, I don't feel I even need to do that before writing this.
I totally feel you. I myself am someone who tends to use a lot of words (besides my quiet time), but Steemit has definitely made me think of compressing my output. Mainly due to lack of views on my posts. At the same time, I am as a visual person too and I am looking for ways to incorporate that in my work on here.
The question is, how much do you adapt to a platform/ conform to the audience, without losing your voice// style? A question I asked myself as a filmmaker too.
You yourself seem to have talent (for lack of a better word) for both articulate long posts and shorter (more visual) content. That said, I wouldn't feel too bad for 'rewarding' yourself for the latter. Especially after investing so much time and money in Steem(it).
I totally understand that it might sometimes feel wrong/ askew though. Don't feel bad about that either.
Keep doing what you do - as long as it feels good enough/ in line with you - and please keep sharing these ('boring') longer posts every now and then to talk about important questions/ issues that many of us wrestle with but few actually share, let alone in such an articulate way.
Have a great day!
I've just been browsing some posts.....reading daily flag report, and see your username :) https://steemit.com/steemit/@yougotflagged/daily-flag-report-11-20-17 I mean, does that affect you anyhow?
Sometimes short just means on point.
making money with one account is a good idea rather then upvoting another account of same owner.
Steemit should be more diverse in content creation. I wonder if this set of unspoken rules takes place to a higher degree, what is the purpose of #zappl and #steepshoot and who knows what else is coming.? To immitate twitter and instagram success is going to be hard— no dont bash me about not wanting to be to the magnitute of twitter and instagram— all marketing has been using both platform as a benchmark.
The direction of steemit currently has been set by some whales out to hurt people . There were once 80k active users at high, now if im not mistaken , only 40k.
A great inspiration @trafalgar.
I think some steemers are too narrow with their expectations what they want steemit to be. I myself see it as a replacement for every other platform and that is why I post anything I also would on instagram, twitter, facebook. this place is much more than just a blogging site
I agree, many whale content creators need to open there minds and give support to a wider variety of posters. In a way they have there own self interests at play steering people to vote for them directly or indirectly through rental votes.
Exactly! Those whales are totally ignoring the fact of dtube, zappl, steepshot and dmania coming to life. There even is a poker site https://www.lucksacks.com/
good steemit post i like it trafalgar
I have just started using steemit. It would be great if a single account can create multiple blogs, or different sections of a single blog. I want to write about many different things, but putting them in a single stream makes the UI messy & unfocused. And creating separate accounts for each blog divides the steem power.
For short content check decentralized analog of Twitter on Ethereum leeroy.io
checked, at a glance the top tipped page seem to be filled with just mundane comments
like twitter when it first started, 'having lunch soon, wonder what i'll get?' level of tweets but about eth
I'd like to think that @traf stuff is better, am I wrong?
It looks nice but I hardly will go there purportedly. Normally mems and short quotes come from FB or twitter feeds - they are already sifted and filtered. leeroy is a bold try, it is scarcely populated now but I like idea.
thanks for sharing, just follow you to check your all next post.
It depend on the type of post most times i enjoy short and well crafted posts. Short post does not mean it does not have good content, it depend on the writer though
I've been following your account @traf ..I love your jokes remember "stress reliever"?lol.and its easy to read and understand short story with meaningful content than to those long one.
thank you, feel free to criticize too, on anything about me
some memes posted in dmania provides immediate gratification (as you said) its their own way of sharing good vibes for the community who are likely very stress every mondays..🤣🤣 thanks for sharing your thoughts.😉
I'm acutally not familiar with dmania
think I've only heard of it once before
Is it short content focused?
Its steem base site where most of the post are memes.
yey someone made an article about short contents! :) I do prefer reading short original contents rather long ones, unless it's an awesome fiction story that hyped my interest.
😁
Honestly, I was intrigued by your post but as read it I did skip some parts. Sorry about that 🙏 but hey, it's really a must article right now. :)
I had to show this to my friend since he's been torn between doing a short content or a long one.. and also because he's always asking me to check his article first. Haha
"Actual footage of me saying goodbye to my Facebook 'like' button after I found Steemit" - Really you are telling the truth.