RE: Participation in the SLC is Declining: Data, Questions, and Suggestions [EN – ID] Partisipasi Dalam SLC Menurun: Data, Pertanyaan, dan Saran
Chronicles of a death foretold
We continue to swim in circles, sometimes irregular and ordinary. The main problem is that motivation is needed. Either artists are motivated by their affinities or they are motivated by votes. The key is to comment, which amounts to interacting, reading and caring about life and people, who have the same interests. Why would anyone bother to read my work, if I don't read or interact with others? The personal development of every artist. It is not in solitude. No one has a compass to know that all the art they create is perfect or at least digestible. We are not asocial beings. To a large extent we need others. Criticism should be a norm. There should be spaces on these platforms only for literary criticism, or any manifestation of art, with foundations. With a team with voting power. We are not talking about destructive criticism. Something that should be kept in mind, to speak loudly about a work, is not bad. I prefer criticism, than to go unnoticed. In all times there have been newspapers or magazines of specialized criticism. That takes effort, of course, like everything that really matters. But we are talking about revitalizing a platform that concerns everyone. This is a space where artists can have a cup of coffee and talk about what they have written or created.
The bubble must be broken. Everything cannot remain in words. The best way I can see and do is to write and comment on what I think is good.
Only the one who writes or defends art knows how important words of encouragement are.
If this were the case, nothing in this world would be useful. It's best to show options: for every problem, three solutions. That means that for every criticism, there should be three alternatives to address.
The main reason for the drop in participation is the push against AI-generated content. This may be linked to the massive participation network that has emerged recently. On the other hand, there has been a lot of discontent in the reviews; this is no secret.
Criticism keeps sharp. Without criticism, everyone dozes off and the result is the world we live in (I don't mean Steemit but the real world where people only complain if it's the too late and they are drowning).
Criticism is useful, ignoring it, pretending it doesn't exist or keeping up appearances everything is fine as it is, means there's no flexibility, no room for change, inventions, creativity and if that's the case, why Talkchannel, Seven-Seven, puss, gaming on Steemit, removing bugs the platform has, and, and, and????
Are you seriously stating that the main drop in participation in SLC is because everyone who joined was using AI? Sorry, but I find that insulting!
Ever thought about the fact people can be tired of always the same type of courses and that perhaps the teachers are not able to teach people at different levels?
Ever thought about simple courses, some fun things, easy to learn, some little skills one can use while on Steemit or to make posting more fun? During all those months, I might have seen at most 1 course I could have liked in a former life.
cc @almaguer
Of course, criticism is necessary, but several options must be addressed. It's not just about saying "I'm bored," but about sharing a vision of what needs to be done so you like it. We live in a diverse world where everyone has different tastes and points of view.
I never generalize, which is why I don't use the word "everyone." I can say that there's a network of accounts that have been using content generation and review tools to participate in these courses. I'm clear about what you're saying. In addition, there's a lack of criteria when selecting winners. I think you've seen and criticized some cases. Everything influences collective participation, even the price of Steem. Remember, this is my point of view.