If I've understood correctly, steemit encourages us to vote if we like someone else's post - by rewarding us for voting for good content. I think this is reeeaaally important!
I don't understand the full mechanisms of it and I might be misunderstanding - so this piece is more for prompting discussion and sharing than making a statement - I definitely welcome comments. :0)
Let's look at Facebook/ YouTube:
This is what I and many people I know, often do on Facebook/ YouTube:
- Oh look, a great video/ post/ picture etc
- I really enjoyed it
- Next...
Did I click 'like'? Sometimes I do.
Did I 'comment'? Rarely.
Did I 'share'? Every now and then.
Did I love the post? Often YES!
So what?
I loved it, but I didn't tell any body. Let alone the curator.
If good content is going to spread on Facebook so that many consumers can enjoy it, it requires likes, comments and shares.
If a curator is going to know he/ she is doing a good job and providing value with what they post on Facebook, they need to see likes, comments and shares.
Of course that system does work, good content does spread this way, but my question is how much good content struggles to spread, or spreads very slowly because of people like me who just 'watch and go'?
The only incentive for me to like, comment or share in the current system on Facebook/ YouTube, is that I am really emotionally affected by the content and get some great value out of it. BUT clearly, that is not enough! I get lots of value out of stuff but still, I just 'watch and go'.
By putting the consumer in more of an active role, do we make this online content world better for consumers and curators alike?
Does it matter? Is this the whole point and I'm last to catch on? Am I overthinking it? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?!