The situation of the steemcurator accounts and an unfair situation | ABUSE REPORT #23
Hi, I'm Robin and I belong to the Steem Watchers team and today I'm here to talk to you about a situation found within one of the most famous support programs on steemitblog. The following may not necessarily be an abuse of the platform, but as I have been working, I want to ensure fairness and justice within the ecosystem, this situation deserves to be mentioned and reviewed by all of you.
Recently a great drama came to light due to human errors of those who use the steemitblog curation accounts (steemcurator04-08), apparently the post key was compromised and someone irresponsible struck down all the voting power temporarily disabling this service . It seems to me that it is a good time to reveal the results achieved through a casual investigation that I have carried out on this initiative and it has left me with a bittersweet taste by making me question. Are the curators of this system really ensuring that they reward fairly and equitably? to the authors? Well, there is no absolute truth, but I think that this investigation that I will share with you today will make you question this just like me.
Regarding the distribution of votes of the designated accounts, I did not find very obvious anomalies, but weekly each curator is responsible for selecting an author who will receive a guaranteed vote from the greatest exponent of steemitblog (steemcurator01) and I think that is where it is. the problem, because there are characters who do nothing more than select users from their social circle on the platform. Is it wrong to select people who are related to you? Well, theoretically no, but the problem comes when 50% or more of your capacity is used to benefit only your friends.
Let's be realistic, if two people publish something with a similar quality, and you have the opportunity to support only one, you will surely go for the one you know the most, or with whom you have shared more of your time, it is a natural human behavior. Through this publication it is not intended to question the quality of the selected authors, if not, to reveal a possible situation where only those closest to each individual are benefiting.
I took the time to review the activity of 5 curation teams for the month of November and evaluate who they were selecting as the best of the week each time, I have highlighted in red the accounts that are related to the curator as part of the same team of moderation in a community in order to highlight a possible relationship between the beneficiaries and those responsible. Likewise, mark in orange the authors who were selected 2 times in the same month by the person in question. These were the results:
After this investigation I highlighted the curators with 2 or more user selections related to themselves and I decided to go deeper for another month to see more clearly some kind of pattern in their actions, deciding to call them "suspicious" the investigation extended a little more to the past. These are the results:
This is how I managed to find the conclusion of this investigation, in the following table I show you the number of selections related to themselves in the last 2 months, highlighting in yellow a few that I could identify that are using 50% of their capacity or more to benefit only your friends through the weekly tops.
Highlight system
That's all from me, now I tag the leader of every team (or persons with not related cases):
cc @adeljose, @msharif, @josevas217, @stef1, @pelon53.
Forgive my confusion, would you mind clarifying something for me please...
You've highlighted ngoenyi as a "high suspicious curator". Is this on the basis that she's selected a user from Nigeria as her "post of the week" or by some other criteria?
This means users involved with the curator in same community teams, there’s no other criteria here
Forgive me again but I'm struggling to understand your English. What do you mean by "community teams"?
Continuing to use ngoenyi as the example, she's an admin to 2 communities and a moderator in 3 others. She's also the Nigerian country representative.
Are you saying that the people she has selected are all Nigerian?
Or the posts that she has selected are all from one of those 5 communities?
Or that she's voting for people that you believe to be her friends?
Or that's she's voting for people who are transferring funds to her wallet?
I think everything is explicitly explained in the post. Meaning that if curator is admin/mod of X and Y community and the selection is also there as admin/mod then used red to identify a possible relation.
Thanks for commenting
Ok, thank you for clarifying. I read the post but like I said, struggled to understand your English.
Again, using ngoenyi as the example, she is the admin or moderator of 5 communities - 3 of which are amongst the largest and most visited on the platform.
Presumably, she was selected for her involvement in 1 community in particular - steem4nigeria. As I mentioned before, the country that she's also a country representative for.
Whereas you have highlighted her activity as "highly suspicious" which will presumably tarnish her reputation - a little thought and the knowledge that I have stated with you above should make you realise that you highlighting people in this way is rash, uninformed and unfair.
As an anecdote of myself, I curated sports content. I am also the admin of the primary sports community on Steemit. I say primary, perhaps only would be a better choice of word. Were I still a curator, I'd be in your "highly suspicious" category because OBVIOUSLY, I'd be selecting posts within my sports community as my favourite. Is this dishonest? Is it "suspicious"?
Or the fact of the matter....
⚠️ There is a diverse selection of curators from a diverse selection of communities because this method of selecting posts is expected from them ⚠️
I really hope that those who have already visited your post, along with the Steemit team take this information for what it is rather than the implied wrongdoing that this post presents.
Thank you for sharing your opinion with us, I think you are not understanding. The curator is free to select whoever they want, in any community or tag, what stands out is the people who are involved in the moderation of the same community.
You are correct. I've stated twice already that I have struggled to understand your English so "think" is inappropriate because I am "clearly" not understanding.
Are you aware that people who become moderators of big communities are invited to do so because they're extremely good content creators themselves? Or as admins of a big community, their communities are big because of their ability to create content and attract users?
Therefore, why does it come as a surprise when people who are put in this position for being good content creators receive votes from good content curators?
My final thought...
This is without doubt the most honest team of curators that this platform has ever had. Appreciate that, embrace that and concentrate your efforts on finding new joiners who copy and past content.
Scrap that - here's my final thought...
@steemcurator01 doesn't blindly vote on the posts that are selected as you'll see from their historical comments. They read the posts and if a selection is made that they feel is underserving, you'll see a polite comment along the lines of "was there a shortage of quality content this week?"
And then by no coincidence, you'll notice that these people aren't selected as curators again.
I’ll avoid repeating my words.
I'll summarise mine...
The implied accusations that you are making are bollocks.
Greetings friend @rbh01
I find this report very interesting, I think it would not be superfluous for someone to carry out a summary for each quarter, semester or year, although the annual I think I will do it soon.
Normally when I see a case of repeated support, I place the observation as in this case.
https://steemit.com/hive-166405/@adeljose/curation-report-team-4-week-4-october
Regarding the incident with the SC07 account, it is sad what happened, unfortunately someone inexperienced or by a simple oversight left open the channel of the healing team where we shared the key "something normal" since only the curators of the team are the members of the channel, another detail presented was the fact that the new team did not create a new channel, This error despite not being a threat to the wallet, greatly impaired the ability to support good content on the platform, I was directly related because I belonged to the team, but I was also committed to the relevant investigations to find the person or persons responsible.
It is a fact that I do not wish it to anyone because unfortunately some users here prefer to generate destructive comments, instead of constructive, without taking into account that the members are selected by the Steemit team and that we are of different nationalities.
Hola @rbh01
Interesting report.
That's the good thing about the Blockchain, that everything is public, and it is very difficult to hide it.
I think everything here should be considered to improve.
Thank you very much for the mention.
Hello, @rbh01
You have put a lot of hard work into this report. However, there are some errors in your report that need to be corrected. You have entered the wrong username I suggested at the top in the fourth week. It should be @ sabarman not @ mdkamran99. You made this mistake that why same username show twice in a row.
Here are my 4 suggestions for November 1st week(lirvic) 2nd week(max-pro) 3rd week(mdkamran99) and 4th week(sabarman).
You can make the correction now.Thank You .
Thank you so much for clarify this I’ll correct as soon as I can, anyway you are doing great and I was able to check it by looking your previous month, keep the great work!
Thank you .Good report .keep up the good work .
updated
Wow..Thank You for the fast response.
Hello rbh01, thank you for this ardous labor. Unfortunately this kind of situations are more common day by day. People taking advance of the "power" that they can have. I hope Steemit Inc do somethig to stop this behavior and these people should be investigated and removed from their positions.
NOT MORE ABUSE IN STEEMIT!
Saludos.
Gracias por traer nuestro trabajo al frente y hacernos ver que podemos mejorar como trabajadores de este proyecto de curaduría.
Me parece lamentable lo que sucedió con la cuenta de Sc07 sobre todo porque están 2 compañeros Venezolanos que son trabajadores y sobre todo personas integras, espero se tomé conciencia del cuidado de las claves y del respeto que debemos tener ante nuestras responsabilidades.
Gracias por este informe.
Nice report😀
Hi @rbh01, as teams we have also noticed that some users had votes 2 a week and usually highliting htem in order to avoid more duplication. I believe such situation could happen because there are 7 people and every time it is necessary to check what other team members did. In internal discord we discussed such cases openly in order to prevent them.
I think you have done a great job and your team is rewarding amazing people without giving preference to a group! Congratulations for this, I like your work
Your post is manually rewarded by the
World of Xpilar Community Curation Trail
STEEM AUTO OPERATED AND MAINTAINED BY XPILAR TEAM
https://steemit.com/~witnesses vote xpilar.witness
Hey guys, thanks for your report. This is very interesting,
Basically every day while curating, I get up to 28 curated posts.
Selections run at different times and durations.
I made the selection with consideration of the quality of the content, including the uniqueness of the posts and the creativity of the posts.
For me, regarding the connection with the person I selected as the top post, it's just a coincidence.
You can see for yourself the quality of their posts, I don't think there's anything wrong with the choice, because during the curation schedule, I just found that post, and it's more striking in quality than the other posts,
On the other hand, even if we don't support them? Who else will provide motivation and enthusiasm for the quality of the posts they share?
Even the other teams when I reviewed, also did a lot of affiliation and even that is more striking, you may not find, because this review focuses on the engagement of relationships that you review as a team in the community.
But, the fact is the affiliate will continue to run.
Even so, the quality of posts must still be a priority to be nominated as a top post.
Thanks for the report that can teach us a lesson, I know your ID, Stay positive and remind each other..
nice day bro...
Good Luck !!!