RE: Kommentar, der etwas länger geworden ist...
I very much agree with you. The very idea of having great curators is not bad. The Steemit team does not encourage voting for the same people anywhere, nor does it encourage voting for beggars. Nowhere in the curation rules will you find that you have to vote for shit. On the contrary, the Steemit team encourages voting for quality content.
Vote for quality content. The author who made more effort and creativity and managed to interest the readers receives more rewards. Isn't that at the core of Steemit's philosophy?
The problems begin at the stage of executing these instructions. We are all human. I was a curator for a whole year. Can I competently distinguish quality content from low-quality content? No. I have my own subjective opinion, which may not coincide with, for example, yours. I have a certain circle of authors whose content I like and I'm more likely to vote for them than for an author I don't know. These are the shortcomings of manual curation, which will always be there, because we are human.
One thing you pointed out quite rightly - there is no old Steemit anymore, and there won't be, whether someone likes it or not. Moreover, in two years, Steemit will not be the same as it is now. A constant process of development continues, something changes for the better, and something, unfortunately, for the worse.
That's exactly how it is!
The two criteria you mentioned are actually not that difficult to recognize - whether you like the content or not.
But we've long agreed that “He's my best friend” or “This user is good because he's always good, so he'll be good now too and will get his vote because he always gets one” are not quality criteria.
Haha, we've discussed this so often, I really don't want to open that can of worms right now. I think it misses the point anyway.
Yes, that is human. And I don't think there's anything wrong with acting as a private user (I haven't cared about the “jerk circle accusations” for a long time). However, if you're dealing with a bunch of other people's SP, this approach to voting can have a very delicate flavor. You and I know enough examples, the gorilla probably knows even more... In this respect, I also think it's very right that the curators change more frequently. Of course I know that this means more effort (not only technically, but also in terms of building trust), but in my opinion three months should be the maximum. Perfect: rolling, so that one member always remains to briefly train the new ones, who then take over this part the next month.
Phew, another topic with a long beard...
Richtig! Fun fact: In the meanwhile the "New Steem" exists longer than the "Old Steem" actually did. It's time for all the stubborn people to understand that... ;-)