You are viewing a single comment's thread:
it's better to delegate your power to curators that manually curate posts, like Qurator, Curangel ...
thats a fresh idea, my friend, but you have to be sure they are sharp-shooters and do reward quality posts. For more than a year I was delegating 2000 of my HP (that still looks like a sufficient amount of power to me) to both you mentioned. And know what? Over time, I began to notice some curators are being biased; that instead worthy blogs, they give support to skin-deep posts not worth attention ... I was disappointed and silently revoked my delegation.
(No, my own curation isnt better, but at least I'll be to blame if some bullshit gets supported via my HP). And... in general, there is an opinion that the above listed 'contras' of the platform stem from the "whales" and their (money-biased, instead of content-evaluation) upvotes.
I also use automation. We live in an age when the mechanization of labor is inevitable :) and because of this, do-it-yourself and manual work becomes and is only appreciated more!
When I see that my HP has reached 100%, I look at the friend feed, and curate good friends posts, if I can't spend the available power on worthy posts - I look at posts and spend HP on posts in my favorite communities, or (more rarely) I choose posts for support from curators' reports. All this is already done by hand. But anyway, you are right about the "old horizontal links" - they are defining, and in general, I would formulate that my upvotes are predominantly received not by posts (which I usually do not have time to evaluate and read), but by old friends, whose I have already evaluated the content as a whole, with the amendment - that this is done manually, and I minimize my efforts and time spent ...
Good point you make there. You do have to keep track of the votes they cast as well. People controlling the account may change over time.
I'm not against automation. When you can automate things to make things easier, why not. But in my opinion Hive is about rewarding quality posts. This is objective and can't be judged by automation (at least not yet).
I afraid, a lot of folks do not share this opinion; we can assume that silent majority consider Hive to be basically "a remedy to make money out of thin air". 😳
objective? hmmm.... never will be. it stays highly subjective and even (lets face the truth) random. ok, I explicited my point of view on this. 🙄
View more
Not that you deserve any explanation, but you should at least try to learn how projects work. You keep complaining about some curators not voting your posts (conveniently forgetting that the very same curators have been curating and helping you after you have joined Steem).
In fact, if you knew how @Qurator works, you would know that our bot was set not to accept any posts that had more than $5 earned (not to mention that there are also limits of votes each user can get each week). It was to give votes to less rewarded posts and not the ones that already had larger votes on - like yours happened to be getting later on. But of course, the votes you were and are getting now are still not enough for you, so you have to go and complain right and left.
The same rule but with a different value is applied in @Curangel.
Your entitled and leeching behavior (plus complaining about curators, curation projects and tagging whales for attention) finally did earn you a VIP pass to a no-voting list in Qurator. Congrats!
As for your delegation - you were getting liquid Hive payouts, just like any other delegator.
CC: @friendlymoose
leeching behavior / whining about curators / tagging whales -- I found it a bit stretchy label for me, but ok, facts are out there.