When it comes to what is good or valuable content, we all have our opinions and preferences, but it is interesting to think about it in terms of what is "worth it" on Hive, as this is a place where content is consistently rewarded at a far greater percentage than other platforms and, it is individuals with the community for the most part doing the rewarding.
As said, I have my own opinions and preferences based on what I like to consume, but I also think there are some basic guidelines that we can consider. For example, I don't think anyone believes that plagiarism for reward is okay, yet nothing stops people posting other's work if they choose. This means it is up to the community to do something about it, which when found, is normally met with downvotes. However, it is good to remember that while some think there are downvote rules, they are generally best practice at best and it is good to understand that people can use them as they choose.
However, while plagiarism is a pretty clear line, I think "spinning" content is far, far more common. Spinning is where people take the work of others and reword it into something similar, but different. It is the act of the non-creative in a deliberate attempt to deceive the audience into believing the work is an original piece. This is pretty underhanded in my opinion and takes essentially, zero skill.
I see this kind of thing a fair bit and suspect it happens more, because often the topics that are spoken about are clearly not in the author's wheelhouse or, they are written in ways that the author is unable to replicate in other areas, for example in comments. It is generally a pretty clear sign of spinning (or plagiarism) when the language grammar and vocabulary used in the post, is clearly different from that used in the comments section, where it isn't generally possible to spin a response.
But, this aside, there are other aspects to consider as to what is valuable or not and I know that there can be many arguments over this. For example, most people believe that "Hive content" isn't valuable because it is inward facing, but I consider it (not only because I write some of it), some of the most valuable content on the platform and indeed, on the internet. A big call?
Not at all. It isn't easy to be in crypto at the best of times, nor on Hive for many, because people have real value in play here - skin in the game. What this means is that people are highly interested in their investment now and to come, making Hive content incredibly interesting to them for various reasons. Yeah, much of it is not great content as content itself, but there are a few people here who write in ways and on topics that heavily influence people's understanding of the Hive ecosystem, the potentials in the future and build the connection and attention required to make informed decisions. Things like, "will I buy more HIVE and power up?"
But, there is more to this also, because while Hive content is indeed mostly inward facing, it is also exclusive to Hive itself and pretty much can't be found anywhere else on the internet. Just remember, we are all in crypto and that should mean, all of us have a pretty bloody good understanding of the value of scarcity and market differentiation - yet, it doesn't seem to be that way.
Going back to that spun content paragraph earlier, one of the problems with spinning is that the content can be found pretty much anywhere on the internet and not only that, it is often found with higher quality. The reason is that because the people that spin are non-creative and also non-professionals, they actually have very little they can add to the originals that enhance or differentiate it. This is also affected by the skill on hand too, where people aren't necessarily skilled at even spinning the article, as they might not understand what they were even reading, meaning that their own version can be heavily flawed and sentences can actually be quite nonsensical.
Today for example, I took the title of a piece that I suspect was spun and plugged it into Google to see what results I got. While there was nothing precisely the same, there were dozens of articles that were similar in content and form, yet were obviously written by people who had more experience in either the topic, or spinning topics from originals. They aren't on Hive, so why is this an issue in regards to Hive value?
Well, let's say that someone did happen to search for the topic and read a couple of them, one being on Hive. What impression do you think they will have? But, as unlikely as it is for this to happen, where is the value of the content for people already on Hive, considering they can already get it in better quality form and resolution from literally hundreds of other sites.
Now, I love writing and think everyone should do far more of it than they do, but for Hive value, this isn't Instagram or Twitter, Medium or the New York Times - it is Hive. What makes it unique is...
Us.
However, because some people are taking what they find on the internet and spinning it into some kind of pseudo-content, it contains nothing unique about who we are, nothing to separate us, no market differentiation. It is ubiquitous, common.
A lot of people seem to think that the best way to "beat the competition" is to do exactly what they are doing, only at a lower standard, but I don't think that is the way for Hive to thrive. This platform and ecosystem is about empowering the person to become an owner and investor and that goes beyond just the tokens - it is the content itself and all the activity we perform here as a collective of individuals. It really is up to us.
However, people seem hellbent on not only spinning content they find, but creating shared templates so all the content takes on the same look and feel, no matter who writes it and then, going to "Hive School" using random guides on how to be successful on Hive, from random people who may not have much of an idea about what they are talking. In fact, a lot of the guides that people write, are spun content too and a lot of the others, have been written a thousand times in the past over the years. It is not that it is all valueless, but if you are a content creator, you should have a think and ask some questions of yourself.
If I copy the work of others, will my content be valued? If I use the same look and feel as others, will my content be unique? If I do not add original into my content, will I stand out from the rest? If I am a replicator of ideas, content and process, am I a content creator at all?
As I see it and in my opinion, where most people fail in their content creation isn't in the delivery, but in the content itself, as most of it has been seen a thousands times before and dates back for years. No new ideas, no personal flavor, no additional experience added - it is just bland, common - *Generic.
I would far rather read about someone's day at work or talking to their cat, than get self-help advice with the same titles, bullet points and spun paragraphs as all the other content at the bottom of webpages and used as filler on news sites, from people who have never lived it. Getting management advice from the never-employed, SEO advice from people who are spinning their Google searches, writing guides on formatting posts using guides from other sites as their guides. Then writing posts that all look the same, feel the same and are outright soulless.
It is generocide.
The road to low-value content, is paved with genericization.
But that is my opinion.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]