RE: Thoughts for Curation Guilds
Thanks for your work Tim.
IMO, it's a mixed bag.
Some groups automatically upvote one another. Other guilds make an effort to really curate well and effectively.
Anyone paying attention to Curie knows that the articles get read, at least twice, plus they have to meet minimum criteria. They're submitted by someone who has ostensibly made sure it meets the criteria and read it for content. Then it's verified and finally it's voted on.
I like using SteemVoter, but Marc noted recently that some folks haven't really been using it well. Streemian is a nice service too, as long as it's used responsibly. I wouldn't have a clue how that's going, but it's a nice service for curation groups or even if someone's working on a project where it can help.
I didn't get what exactly Ned said that was so concerning.
Those are all really good points! You are right. If the curation guilds that formed were all of the caliber of Curie, I think they would be a huge success. They could be just as bad than bots though (if not worse) if users just started banding together to upvote each other's content regardless of quality.
It's not a huge deal, but I'm glad you asked. I kind of glossed over that and just buried my suggestion in the recommendation section. The part I thought was a bad idea was to only allow users to be in one guild at a time. I think it would be better for the ecosystem if users could split their voting power across multiple guilds.