RE: The horrendous failure of curating Quality Content

avatar

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

There are no popular social media sites with so many hidden rules, so many wannabe moderators telling you what, when and how often you can post, and name calling and intimidating it's users.

Let's also remember that people who don't talk a lot are also part of the community, and have watched the rules, evolve, change, be denied, be enforced selectively, etc.

In order for any kind of mass adoption you need fun, or even a gimmick, the reward pool, and paid posts was perfect for gaining adoption, but many large accounts decided inflation was too high, not enough users, etc, so instead of letting it al balance out and correct the whales decided that the reward pool wasn't meant to promote, but rather is eroding their stake and liquidating their value.

I've been here since 8/2016 - I watched thousands come and go, too many rules, downvoted to death, said something mean to a whale, bored.. etc.

I guess with a busy job, and the 7 year itch, I kind of think well if we haven't grown by now.. will we? Especially when the whales hate the blogging side of the platform.

There is no such thing in social media as quality, it's about engagement and networking, so the idea that each post should be judged according to a subjective benchmark, is not a winning strategy.



0
0
0.000
23 comments
avatar

There is no such thing in social media as quality, it's about engagement and networking

Good point, I agree. The big player role model platforms have never specified what a post should look like, so they have neither a Prussian understanding of work (effort, sweat and diligence) nor an artistic high-quality one (good design etc.) communicated. YouTube & Co never did, they didn't tell video content producers that their ten minutes were lousy because filmed with shaky camera or create the billionth cat video.
Every successful media platform that has grown up has in no way dictated or limited the "how" or "what" of content, but merely set the space. This only started when the channels became state-supporting media. Hive is, of course, parsecs away from that.

0
0
0.000
avatar

While you're free to publish whatever you want on YouTube and other platforms, their algorithms filter out low quality.
There are no rules what to publish here either. We don't have algorithms that decide what others get to see, it's all done by humans here. But I don't see that much of a difference as you're trying to imply.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I spoke of those channels in their beginner times.

0
0
0.000
avatar

And you think they didn't curate/have algorithms then? Do you think they filled the homepage and the feeds with completely random content? You don't get users by showing them loads of spam.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Do you think they filled the homepage and the feeds with completely random content?

Of course. You have to start somewhere. In order to attract you create the lowest barriers. Like a wild west atmosphere. In the beginning, everything is welcomed. If you restrict it/complicate it too much people won't come.

You don't get users by showing them loads of spam.

I did not talk about spam. I talk about "junk" or "shit posts", random stuff. People like cats, tits, cutsies, you name it.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Of course.

Well, you're wrong. YouTube started with manual curation by their team.

https://lsvp.com/for-social-software-user-culture-is-as-important-as-product-features/

By watching what behavior they see, users learn how to use the product.

When this works well, you get fantastic, coherent experiences and terrific content. Pinterest, Instagram, Whisper are all examples. With Pinterest, early users saw aspirational clothing, furniture, accessories pinned, and so that is what they pinned too. With Instragram they saw beautiful photos and so that is what they posted. With Whisper they saw raw, honest confessionals and that is what they shared also.

When this works badly, you get ChatRoulette, Youtube comments, and Secret. Seeing others exposing themselves drives mean-time-to-penis to zero. Reading racist, hateful, semi-literate commentary makes it OK to respond with more flames and trolling. Scrolling through anonymous character assassination or bullying give users leave to do the same.

[...]

In each case, curation and moderation from the beginning was crucial to setting user culture from the beginning.

0
0
0.000
avatar

No, I am not "wrong". I just described what is to be seen everywhere. Cheap contents. The "either it goes right or it goes wrong" perspective is just that: either, or. While it's both. As cheap content is produced way faster than excellent one (because it takes more time, knowledge and effort), a just starting platform is being tried out with what works. Since both methods work, both methods are being tried. If you formulate what ought to be "excellent" (better, more valuable, more virtuous) then you get inflamed minds.

0
0
0.000
avatar

a just starting platform is being tried out with what works

Tell me you didn't read the article, without telling me you didn't read the article.

Every new platform starts out with an idea what type of content they want. People have been, and are, complaining about the algorithms all the time.

The big difference here is that we're decentralized and transparent, and everybody feels like they have a say. Of course they do, just not as much as they would like.

And yes, you see cheap content everywhere. Here too. It's just harder to monetize. Everywhere.

0
0
0.000
avatar

People get bothered about being lectured.

you see cheap content everywhere. Here too. It's just harder to monetize. Everywhere.

I beg to differ. It only depends on how you and I define cheap content.
Neither is it a given that cheap content from the retort is less monetisable (this has not only been the case since the internet, take Dieter Bohlen as a long-running success story of mediocre music, for example), just as posting pretty women with a bit of text is very successful, just like recipes, travel reports, etc., which are not very elaborate content. - All of this is not very lavish content. This is mediocre posting, widespread. Plenty of examples on Hive confirm this. With today's technology, mobile devices with cameras, a quick hand on the keyboard, it's done in a jiffy. Nor is the reverse conclusion correct, that a high level of effort necessarily facilitates monetisation.

Whether you are successful, depends not on your content alone, but on how well you can market yourself and with whom you maintain useful contacts. The most successful people are those who know how to be on many platforms at the same time and present themselves effectively, maintain relations with those who push them, etc. I'm certainly not telling you anything new here.

I am so far done with this comment exchange.

0
0
0.000
avatar

In each case, curation and moderation from the beginning was crucial to setting user culture from the beginning.

There was no officially seen moderation and curation from the founders of yt, fb whatsoever. It started years after the beginner times.
The user culture was creating itself organically.

0
0
0.000
avatar

It was intransparent, yes. That doesn't mean it didn't exist.

0
0
0.000
avatar

!PGM

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sent 0.1 PGM - 0.1 LVL- 1 STARBITS - 0.05 DEC - 1 SBT - 0.1 THG - 0.000001 SQM - 0.1 BUDS - 0.01 WOO - 0.005 SCRAP tokens

remaining commands 8

BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!

The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]

5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!

image.png
Discord image.png

Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP

Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide

I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444


0
0
0.000
avatar

There are no popular social media sites with so many hidden rules, so many wannabe moderators telling you what, when and how often you can post, and name calling and intimidating it's users.

I don't mean to contradict or undermine your point, but you must not have spent much time on Reddit

0
0
0.000
avatar

Who knows reddit outside the U.S?

I've been to reddit and I've hated everything about it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The early days of reddit were not like that, they kicked in once they had a platform.

And also, you are right, I don't spend time on Reddit

0
0
0.000
avatar

Let's also remember that people who don't talk a lot are also part of the community,

Those who keep doing chit-chat on discord are the one who benefitted more on Hive.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Agree

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's where me and many others like me loses their identity. We remain stranded and remain mere a spectator some leave and some keep fighting for their existence.

0
0
0.000
avatar

!PGM

0
0
0.000
avatar

Sent 0.1 PGM - 0.1 LVL- 1 STARBITS - 0.05 DEC - 1 SBT - 0.1 THG - 0.000001 SQM - 0.1 BUDS - 0.01 WOO - 0.005 SCRAP tokens

remaining commands 9

BUY AND STAKE THE PGM TO SEND A LOT OF TOKENS!

The tokens that the command sends are: 0.1 PGM-0.1 LVL-0.1 THGAMING-0.05 DEC-15 SBT-1 STARBITS-[0.00000001 BTC (SWAP.BTC) only if you have 2500 PGM in stake or more ]

5000 PGM IN STAKE = 2x rewards!

image.png
Discord image.png

Support the curation account @ pgm-curator with a delegation 10 HP - 50 HP - 100 HP - 500 HP - 1000 HP

Get potential votes from @ pgm-curator by paying in PGM, here is a guide

I'm a bot, if you want a hand ask @ zottone444


0
0
0.000
avatar

Well put, I couldn't have said it better myself, except; If the stake were more evenly distributed, the whales won't stay whales and they can't have that. Growth isn't really what's on their minds.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Most sites encourage engagement, we have one of our few active large stakeholders telling people to stop posting or to post less often on posts making maybe $1. I just roll my eyes.

0
0
0.000