The HumanBot Curator Incubator & Link Drop v2.0.1
This is not a place for self promotion. Drop links to posts by other authors in the comments.
Aspiring @curie curators please read the entire post and let me know you would like to become a @curie curator when you first drop a link!
Aspiring @curie curators should also read through this entire post and my responses to previous submissions in the comments before you start dropping off links - you may pick up some valuable pointers that will save us all some time instead of rehashing the same mistakes every beginning curator makes. For extra-credit reading please review my responses to comments at the Curator Incubator v1.
Are you looking for a place to promote your own awesome post?
Newer authors (REP < 46) can promote their own post in the comments of my step-brother @thehumanbot's Charity Upvote posts! Here is a link to the Charity Upvote Week 1 post.
What is new with Version Two?
There have been some major changes to the way the @humanbot Curator Incubator & Link Drop is going to work going forward, hence a new major version number and new name for the service. The biggest change is that @humanbot / @carlgnash is not necessarily going to review every submission and check for original work. The first post was a great success but going through every submission with the care necessary to award a Badge of Originality took more time than I actually had to give. See the CHANGELOG at the bottom of this post for a complete list of all changes.
Who or what is @humanbot?
@humanbot is an extension of @carlgnash; in a nutshell, the content review services that @carlgnash has previously offered on his blog are moving here. In addition, there are several new initiatives in the works to support great content on Steemit that will be gracing the @humanbot blog soon - stay tuned!
What is the Curator Incubator & Link Drop?
This is a place for aspiring curators and anyone who wants to help an undervalued post be seen by more eyes. Drop links in the comments to good posts (original content only please, no copy pasta) by undervalued authors.
If you are dropping off multiple links, please drop them all off in the same comment to make this thread more manageable as it grows.
How do you define "good posts by undervalued authors"?
"Good posts by undervalued authors" is purposefully not defined here. This is open to interpretation to a certain extent and any submission of original content by another author is welcome.
How will the Curator Incubator & Link Drop help undervalued authors and posts?
- @humanbot / @carlgnash will go through as many submissions as possible, awarding a Badge of Originality to posts that are both the original work of the post author and show some true originality and creativity (as subjectively determined by moi). When a badge is awarded the author will be followed by both @carlgnash and @humanbot and the post will be upvoted from both accounts as well. Read more about the Badge of Originality here.
- Good original content by undervalued authors (totally subjective determination here) will also receive an @r-bot upvote and associated trailing votes.
- I encourage everyone who drops a link here to take a minute to look at some of the other posts submitted in the comments. I would love to see comments from users of this link drop when I do go check on posts that have been submitted here! If you like a post, please tell the post author what you like about the post, or why you like it.
- Consider helping me curate the links in the comments here by upvoting submissions that you think are particularly good, to bring them up higher in the list.
Please do not drop links to your own posts here
This is not a space for self promotion. Dropping a link to your own post in the comments is a violation of the totally non-binding terms of service and may result in an alien spacecraft visiting your domicile and testing out the new transmogrification ray... but at the very least your post will be ignored.
To the aspiring @curie curators
@carlgnash is a curator for @curie. Let me speak in the first person here for a second as @carlgnash. I have achieved top curator status for @curie the past three weeks running and have every intention of doing so to the best of my ability in future weeks as well. Yes, this does mean that I can recommend curators to @curie any week that I was top curator the previous week. No, this does not mean you should DM me or otherwise harass me about nominating you. This post is the official channel for you to impress me with your curation ability. You can do this in several ways: - First, do not drop me links to your own posts or DM me about a curator nomination unless I specifically tell you to DM me. If you fail to follow these instructions, you will be instantly and forevermore blacklisted from future @curie nomination by me.
- Read this entire post and my responses to previous submissions in the comments before you start dropping off links - you may pick up some valuable pointers that will save us all some time instead of rehashing the same mistakes every beginning curator makes. For extra-credit reading please review my responses to comments at the Curator Incubator v1.
- Notify me that you are interested in becoming a @curie curator when you first drop a link off here in the comments.
- Drop me links to posts that you think are truly exceptional here in the comments so I can get a feel for your curation style, what you are looking for and what your idea of exceptional is.
- Please tell me why you feel the post is exceptional. Clearly articulating why you feel a post is exceptional and worthy of @curie adds bonus points to your submission.
- You do not have to stick to the @curie guidelines - I am more interested in getting a feel for what kind of content you think is exceptional.
- Bonus points if you submit good original posts outside of the fields of art/music/photography/travel blogging. It is harder to find good original content in areas like gaming, science, health, etc. There is a lot of copy pasta and it is often much more difficult to tell with those kinds of posts if it is plagiarism. Prove to me you can identify quality original content in tags like this!
- Read through the posts that are left here in the comments by other users and tell me in the comments here if you think any are exceptional, and if so, why you feel that way. Please do not go through the comments here and trash submissions, telling me why you think they suck. Only reply to a post submitted by someone else in the comments here if you think it is an awesome post, and in that case, please say why you feel this way. If you can clearly articulate what you like about a post dropped here by another user, that will be points in your favor when I consider recommending you to @curie.
- I encourage you to leave good thoughtful comments in response to posts that you find through the incubator. If you like a post, please tell the post author what you like about the post, or why you like it. As I work my way through submissions you will earn bonus points if I see you have been actively engaged in commenting.
- Check posts that are submitted here for plagiarism. If you can prove that a post submitted here for review is plagiarized, please leave any proof you have (link to the original content, suspicious posting patterns by the author, garbled language that seems to have been translated by software, etc.) here in the comments. A big part of being a @curie curator is being able to detect plagiarized content. Prove to me that you have a talent for this and you are ahead of the game.
Cheers - @humanbot / @carlgnash
Let the link dropping commence!
original @humanbot art by @carlgnash
CHANGELOG:
v2.0.1: 11.20.17 9:06pm UTC
- Instruction added for aspiring @curie curators to read the entire post and responses to comments before dropping links; extra credit-reading link to v1 comments
- Instruction added "If you are dropping off multiple links, please drop them all off in the same comment to make this thread more manageable as it grows"
v2.0: 11.13.17 10:02pm UTC
- Name change to "The HumanBot Curator Incubator & Link Drop" from "The HumanBot Curator Incubator | Link Drop | Original Works Verifier"
- @carlgnash / @humanbot no longer promises to review every submission, but will review as many as time allows
- Link added to step-brother @thehumanbot for a place that authors can self promote their own posts
- Instructions to aspiring @curie curators updated and expanded
v1.0.1: 11.8.17 1:52am UTC
- Added Badge of Originality art and post link
- Added original works authors will receive a @humanbot follow
- Clarified original works will receive either a @humanbot upvote or a @carlgnash upvote (whichever is greater)
- Edited "To the aspiring Curie curator" section to encourage commenting on posts, and to encourage non art/music/photography/travel posts
THIS POST IS NOW CLOSED FOR SUBMISSIONS
Please visit the current Curator Incubator & Link Drop v2.1 post. Cheers - Carl (@carlgnash / @humanbot)
Just looked at #1 first - this is copy/pasted. It isn't the worst sort of plagiarism because the author did link to the Indonesian wikipedia source at the bottom, but even providing a source when all you have done is use Google Translate to translate the Indonesian language version of a Wikipedia article and pasted it in here is still not cool. Adding an intro paragraph doesn't make it original.
There are a few clues here that this was copy/pasted - I was nearly 100% certain it had been before I even got to the bottom of the post and saw the link the author left. Check out all the strange line breaks that would never have occurred if someone was typing this on Steemit or typing in a word processor (marked with pink "x"). No one hits a hard return in the middle of typing a sentence. This sort of thing only occurs when copy/pasting from websites.
https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antropologi_budaya
Okay I checked out #2. Would definitely not agree it is exceptionally well-written. This appears to be a badly garbled auto-translated article. As far as Curie goes, some degree of leeway can be made for a poster who speaks English as a second language, but this is beyond that sort of misuse of language. I want you to take a look at this passage from the post you linked:
First - what the heck? Extra marmalade fish? Too much "parrot" in fish? TI would bet a large sum that this is an auto-translate software choosing the wrong words.
Second - compare that to this passage from the poster's #introduceyourself post:
It is extremely obvious that the author of that introduce yourself did not author the article you linked.
Gaming
author @tioluwanih
this is his original post
I really like this post because he gave the right information and details here
https://steemit.com/games/@tioluwanih/dream-league-compact-review-1
I really want to be curator @curie because I want to find a good post here to be enjoyed by many people, I really want to help all the talented in the field of writing for his work can be enjoyed by all
This is a nice review. I think as far as Curie goes, the review name itself gives us a clue - "compact", as in short. I do believe this is original work, and what is there is nice, but the review is pretty short and is lacking the detail that would be required for this to be truly exceptional and worthy of Curie. Just as an example (and you could pick out many sections and make the same point) - here is the entire portion of the review that deals with the controls of the game:
So the control is cool, flexible and easy to use... but what is it? How do you control the players? How do you select who you are passing to? What are the controls? I know absolutely nothing about the way this works after reading the game. And that is fine, the author said this was a compact review and it was. But in my opinion, that means it isn't really Curie material.
Cheers - Carl
Another one of my favorite authors got curied today - @gardenbsquared - Mr. Gnash you are all over the great authors!
Ok heres a total travel photography one - just something fun I found tonight.
https://steemit.com/travel/@joanderit/bucas-grande-islands-escapade-part1
This is a nice post. If the photography was of better quality I think it would be Curie worthy, as they do visit some interesting and beautiful places. The cave was pretty cool. Cell phone photography can fly, but it has to be good cell phone photography: in focus; not washed out; not hazy; etc. Also, general rule of thumb - the more selfies in a post, the less likely it will be Curied :) More quality pictures of the landscape and scenery and less group selfies would have made this a stronger candidate for Curie. Failing that, much more detail was needed in the post body, more meat on the bones, history of the island with sources, more on the cave with sources, etc. BTW I happen to know this post was submitted by another curator, and was not approved.
Listen - all this stuff you are doing here - is priceless. I almost can't believe you are letting me in on all the secrets!
I shan't give up! Your advice is motivating! One question - do you only want curieable stuff here? I thought that article was nice - though not mind blowing...but I can find mind blowing stuff!
I shall!
Love and light!
Nice Information and Original Content
https://steemit.com/health/@mustayani/the-greatest-benefit-of-honey
Wannabe @curie curator : )
This is a nice post if it is the work of the post author - I haven't done the deep dive into previous postings, done any Google searching yet or any other measures to detect plagiarism. But even before I do that, I want to note that in the case of a factual article like this, there has to be sources cited. Where did the author get all this info about honey? Read it in a book? An article? Found it on a website? Learned it in college? When it comes to submitting a post to Curie, if it is a factual article there needs to be sources listed or it will never be approved.
As I suspected this is plagiarized. Again you don't seem to have that 6th sense that should be telling you something isn't right about these pieces. I have told you this before, but you really need to start looking at the blog of an author and taking into account their whole output when you are trying to decide if an article is the work of the author. Of the last 3 articles this author has written , including this one, one was flagged down below $0 payout, and another was noted to be plagiarism by a reader in the comments who left a link to the article that mustayani had "rewritten" (read, changed a few words around to make it less likely the plagiarism would be detected). But even without looking at the past history I was pretty sure this was plagiarized - you just don't see an article with this many facts and this well written that doesn't cite ANY sources... unless it is plagiarized.
Professionally Written Article
https://steemit.com/science/@ongoingwow/alice-in-wonderland-syndrome-curiouser-and-curiouser
Wannabe @curie curator
This is indeed a great article, and even though it was posted elsewhere by the author (Medium) it was posted at the same time and the author included a link back to Steemit in the post on Medium. This is a great example of what a factual article would need to look like for it to be Curie worthy. The author cites the source for all the facts in the article, and then goes beyond simply summarizing previously published articles/research and relates this back to his own experience with AIWS and gives us examples of what this feels like from his own perspective.
I would have submitted this for Curie if it were not for the fact that the author has two posts with > $25 pending payout already in the past week (a single post with > $25 payout in past week disqualifies from Curie, and just FYI even if no single post is over $25 but the sum total of pending payout is >$25 it is still risky because author might not be considered to be "persistent with little success".
Nice find here.
And it was approved for Curie even THOUGH author had prior posts with high pending payout - sometimes the Curie reviewers will approve a post that doesn't meet all guidelines if it was exceptional. This was still a risky submission on someone's part though, I wouldn't have personally taken this risk - I tend to be cautious, which is why I have been top curator for three weeks running
https://steemit.com/writing/@goldenarms/diary-of-an-assassin-pt-9-the-final-chapter
This is has been an intense series from the first chapter. Every part of the story has been very well told and full of suspense. I think he did a good job of wrapping it up in this final instalment.
Cool that was a fun read, action packed / fast paced. Posts that are part of a series like this are less likely to be awarded a Curie just in general, just as something to keep in mind - and if one part of a series receives a Curie, it would be exceedingly rare for another part of the same series to also get one.
Good to know. I think one of them did get curied (or blocktraded).
Let me see what I can find today!
Nice Drawing And Undervalued Post
https://steemit.com/art/@yogesssh/ford-mustang-art-drawing-cars-20171113t214118231z
Wanna be @curie curator
This is a nice post, definitely a nice drawing and I appreciated the process pics. This was borderline - I considered submitting it for a while. It may have been approved. Only things holding me back were two things - #1, the drawing itself, while very nice, in my opinion fell short of exceptional. That is okay if the text and process pictures really were exceptional, but that leads me to #2. In this case, much of the text was very nearly identical to previous posts when it came to describing the pencils used and the process. And there really wasn't any explanation of the various stages of the process, just pictures. If the text had been more unique to the post and there had been a little explanation of what he was doing at the various stages of the process pics, I would have submitted it. This was a nice find. It got the r-bot upvote and original works badge.
https://steemit.com/solar/@ligayagardener/low-tech-ligaya-how-to-make-a-box-style-solar-oven
This is a really informative post on how to make a simple solar oven. Well written and covers off all the main questions you'd probably have.
If it really covers all the questions then why did you asked question in comments.
I said 'all the main questions you'd probably have', which I think it does if you want to build one. My question on their page was around why'd you use it over a regular cooker/oven.
Another person was also asking the question. Out of 3 human comments 2 were questions.
The post is titled "How to make a Box Style Solar Oven" not "Why would you make a box style solar oven". I stand by my initial comment, that I think the post does this.
Ok... You win. I don't want to start a war :p
Dude pretty disappointed to see you multiple times here in th is thread ignoring my instructions and criticizing submissions by other posters here. Again, knock it off. Reread my post instructions if you need to. This is not impressing me AT ALL.
Agreed that this is an exceptional post, very well written, well illustrated, informative and original. Really nice submission. This same post by an author with REP between 27 - 52 would be a sure Curie approval. Nice job here!
https://steemit.com/gardening/@projectdiaries/how-to-grow-orange-trees-from-seed-a-complete-step-by-step-guide
I'm not a gardener but I love watching/reading gardening stuff. This one is no exception. This guy provides a really useful tutorial on growing oranges in the UK of all places.
It is a cool post! but If you go to their video on Youtube you can see it was originally published on December 5th 2016 and now it has been reuploaded to Steemit almost hour ago. Just to let you know reuploading old content will never get curated by curie.
That is good to know.
I still like the post.
Sorry, I had been too harsh
Comment edited
Hi @umais, again I appreciate your enthusiasm here but I want to note that my instructions above are pretty clear that what I don't want people doing is going through the comments here and saying what they don't like about posts people drop here. I am looking for positive engagement and interaction. If you like a post someone else drops here, tell me why you like it, what you like about it. If you think there is something wrong with a submission here, this is not the place to say it unless you think the piece is plagiarized (in which case, bonus points if you can point to why you think something is plagiarized). Please keep it positive. Thanks - Carl
@umais is correct in this case as far as Curie goes - of course, for this Curator Incubator I specifically said you didn't have to follow Curie guidelines, as I am really trying to get a feel for what you think is exceptional, not if you can follow some rules that are relatively simple. But again, as far as Curie submissions go, the general rule of thumb is if the content was posted elsewhere more than a week ago, it would rarely be approved.
Okay I have actually read the post / watched the video now - great video, really high production values. The same video, if cross-posted here on Steemit the same week it was released on youtube, would be worthy of submission to Curie.
On the other hand, posting a video here that was posted back in December on Y outube, particularly when there is no link back to Steemit on their Youtube page, actually hurts Steemit. This is not what we want to reward with upvotes. This decreases Steemit's visibility in search engines - there is a link back to Youtube here, but there is not a link back to Steemit on the Youtube page, and the content was posted first there - this all adds up to hurting Steemit's search engine visibility. I left a comment to the author asking them to consider cross posting when their content is fresher, and also leaving a link back to Steemit.
The quality of the post is great though.
Cheers - Carl