The Most Unique Things About How I Curate/Vote On The Hive Blockchain

about 1 year ago

A workable method I've discovered so far for curation is to automate my manual curation. Some of the content creators I follow are some of the best creators out there, this is because I find their content to be well-read and approachable.

When a creator offers a unique way of creating, engaging, and relating with other fellow creators, I find this to be an added qualification to curate them, this further emphasizes the idea that if the intent of a user is good for the chain, there's a chance that they'll find workable ways to thrive and establish that win-win situation.

Secondly, I check their involvement with the DAPPS

........then their overall networking ability which involves creating a win-win situation for themselves and ultimately for the chain. So far, many people focus on content alone, "AI this or AI that" they're mostly blinded to the extra logistics provided by an individual hive user. I think sometimes the metrics we use in adjudicating value to a person are often streamlined to their content which is often wrong,

This shouldn't be so

because, it makes difficult to truly measure their input. When curators create some prerequisites, it becomes easier to affiliate value to a user.

Creators Users

Now, rather than calling them a creators, we can call them users, because originally, they offer more than just creating. Now the reason why I say I follow some of the best users in the space is that I don't do "follow for follow", the few times I've done so, it's either I've talked to the person in a different thread and the conversation becomes so exciting that I deem it necessary to follow them because I want to see more of them.

Now there are people who necessarily do not fit into my content tribe or interest, but I follow them because of their dogged and altruistic goals for themselves and the chain and because of the close relationship we've formed away from blockchain activities.

The Scope To Getting It Done

So it's quite easy to set auto votes because I vet users before I even follow them. So I Manually curate almost 60% of the people I follow, and it gets to a point in time, I move them to auto votes. One of the reasons why I take time before moving manual curation to auto is because I've deemed these users to offer a lot of solidity content-wise.

But, I tend to check them always and if there's a change in their overall usage, contribution, or intent towards the chain, then I remove them from auto votes and continue curating them manually, judging their input with their day-to-day activities. It gets to a point that if their activities continuously dwindle and the intent becomes unwelcoming, what I do is stop my curating for them altogether without even telling them.

Silent Feedback Is Also Feedback

They'll get the info eventually when they notice a change in curation and decided if they want to do better or not. One of the most selfish reasons why I curate people is because they're powering up.

I know this feels surreal, but it correlates with my ideology that a user's overall value is beyond their content skills or abilities, but then it takes a lot of effort and time, and some people just prefer to hit the downvote button without enough scrutiny. There are indeed curators who want to just hit trending and vote for whatever they find there

Their general belief is that anything that trends should be good enough for voting

Good Or Bad?

this I why I often feel that sometimes we might consider the option to democratize stake ownership, especially for whales/curators who do not have time for curation. A lot of people demonize auto votes, but the truth is that the people behind them are what define what it should be.

This is the same with downvotes, downvotes are neither good nor bad they're just tools. The fact that a place like blurt doesn't have it is quite dangerous, even if it's perceived that removing it altogether is solidarity for free speech and blah blah blah. It's an essential tool to keep the chain functional, but under the care of a vindictive person, it becomes a weapon, rather than a tool, so is also auto voting.

A Tool: Misuse & Abuse?

I can categorically tell you that people misuse it often, but sometimes they do so subconsciously. A person who sets up autos and completely leaves them unchecked creates the possibilities for abuse, because it's automatic doesn't mean it does not need that necessary human touch to keep it sophisticatedly functional. This is how I define my manual curation.

I automate them because I take extra care to make them functional, this week again, I've taken the time to scrutinize, my autos, removed 3 to four users and added an extra two. At the end of the day, I still maintain my stance that I'm following the best users in the space.

Keeping My Opinion Sheathed

Although I hit the "unfollow" button once in a while, what I mostly do is to majorly ignore an account I follow if I think they're doing the wrong things. But then, I don't enforce my ideas of what's right and wrong, I just let it slide because I don't think my knowledge is sacrosanct and my knack for learning is continuous which means I'm liable to be wrong on some things I think.

Now my auto list is not permanent, the addition or removal of any persons depends on their whole member as a user of the chain. The list is flexible and always open for scrutiny, irrespective of my allegiance to the users there. At the end of the day, the stake is small while the contents are becoming ginormous and plenteous on a daily, so I'll have to continuously make the decisions to curate or ignore.