You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Manual Curation vs Automatic Curation
Personally, I like to rely on manual curation. Because valuing people’s work and actually read them makes the other person feel happy and valued. It also makes friends and you can both grow together which is better for the long term. I think this platform is here to stay, so why not make friends who make good content and grow together for the long term 😁.
Agree with you. What is social platform if majority are just sleeping. Interaction is needed in a social community.
STEEMIT SHOULD exclude automated curation. This thing easy to abuse for those who get apropriate level of trust. Because of those automated curation you sometimes exclaimed "Why this garbage gets so high payouts?".
Read, and only then upvote.
Steemit SHOULD but it CANNOT because of its core nature. How can software in a node verify a human when it doesn't already have the answer? If it does have an answer, a rogue node can say some user has passed the humanity test for voting but also lie about it.
Could it only allow a vote if you actually view the post? Or can a bot open a post as well?
Could it only allow a vote if you actually view the post? Or can a bot open a post as well?
I like manual curations too. I did not avoid auto upvoting though, but I do more of manual curations when I am in the platform because I like finding new stuffs and there are lots of interesting writers in SteemIt. The only problem is that I run out of VP very quickly and I might not be able to give a decent upvote on the good article that I find at the latter time of day. Ah, curator’s dilemma!
Agreed, though I would like to add that if you take the stance that you know you will support a given author regardless, auto voting and reading and commenting later has the same effect while maintaining engagement and maintaining the reward.
i am also agree with you
i am also agree with you