Suggestions For Selection of Curators- Part-2
Hello Steemit Team,
This is in Reference to my request and your permission on your blog. I would like to mention your last years' plan to replace existing Steem Representatives with "Steem Reps & Booming that you intended to extend when the ongoing Steem reps" program was ended last year. Now I suggest to select Steem Curators on that similar lines.
- You said in one of your blogs last year
"Because of various issues with the @booming support system, particularly community team members powering down, we have decided to make a major change".
I think what you felt, more or less the same situation exists today or worse so I suggest the Steem Team selects curators based on the following criteria since the @booming support is with selected communities or the selection of posts for support is done by projects so most users have shifted to those particular projects with highest amount of booming votes.
How about adding a Club2575 to stop frequent power downs?
Now do you feel that a decentralized platform like Steemit should centralized the powers and hand them over to same 3-5 members controlling all Booming accounts with no changes in their teams but remain the same?
I am sure your idea of selecting 33 curators based on their experience, who have demonstrated a long term commitment to Steem, have a thorough knowledge of how Steem will work, be cause they will have to actively engaged both within communities and beyond, and willing to help people across the whole platform and not merely vote 10-15 accounts at 50 t0 100% and leave for the the next curator.
I suggest Steemit Team invite applications from Steemians with the added responsibility of distributing support including the booming so the role of Steem curator will be even more important than before.
- As you said in your blog
We therefore want to select only the very best Steemians for the role,
I suggest go ahead with your plan for a change and select them for 3 months instead selecting them for short term like selecting every month with option to change mid term if a curator found lacking.
At that time your initial target was to recruit 20 Steem Representatives but I suggest select 33 Curators with following qualifications. Let me make it clear the words are yours but the suggestions are mine:
They should particularly be keen and willing to give advice and guidance to Steemians both new and old, both through commenting and through direct communication.
To ensure everyone has a fair chance the applicants should be best, keenest and most dedicated Steemians wherever they are from.
Here is what you proposed at that time which you can change as you deem fit
My suggestion is Curators should have combined powers of Vote/Booming Vote to make it fair for all:
| Curators | Amount of SP From Steemit | No of Curators |
|---|---|---|
| Curators with at least 15,000 SP | will receive a delegation of - SP. | - Sc06 -10 |
| Curators with at least 25,000 SP | will receive a delegation of -- SP. | - SC05 -10 |
| Curators with at least 50,000 SP | will receive a delegation of -- SP. | - SC04 -10 |
| Curators with at least 75,000 SP | will receive a delegation of -- SP. | - SC03 -03 |
- Subject to addition or deletion
###Rewards for Steem Curators (Your Offer)
Steem Curators will be rewarded in two ways - through delegations and through votes on weekly reports.
Steem Curators will make a weekly report which will be rewarded with votes from @steemcurator01 or @steemcurator02.
The Steem Team will review the general activities and their report should also contain a list of all the posts they have nominated for their support during the week.(Say link of Google Sheet attached}
The Steem Curators should not vote a post already voted by another Steem Curator.
Maximum vote limit 30-40% for a single user to cover maximum Steemians.
This goes without saying a Steem Curator should not vote or select another Steem Curator for weekly rewards. Steem Curators are getting enough rewards coming from SC01 and SC02.
This will very much attract new people to come forward to become Steem Curators. It does not matter how many other Curators are there from which country.
People applying to become Steem Curators therefore should meet the following criteria (Your words)
- Active on the platform for at least the past 6 months
- A reputation of at least 70
- Have a CSI and voting pattern that clearly demonstrates that they are already supporting other Steemians ac*ross the platform.
To make sure Steemit Team recruits the most dedicated Steemians your initial target for Steem Curators to have at least 15,000 SP of their own (not delegated).
But then to adjust worthy Steemians you can accept applications from people with lower amounts of Steem Power (down to 12,500 SP) but these will only be considered if you do not find enough suitable candidates amongst Steemians with over 15,000 SP.
Rules
Steem Curators must not have recently powered down (30-90 days.)
Regular users of bid bots or voting services will not be considered.
The actual content, the quality and clarity of how your post is presented will also be taken into consideration.
I am sure you will find the most talented and the most committed Steemians to serve as Steem Curators to help with the continued growth of the platform if you go with such a program.
Incidentally, I was selected a Curator in November 2023 and Steem Representatives in April 2024 when the minimum requirement was 19K SP. I was then running a program for newbies with direct SP benefit to them keeping two of them as beneficiaries in my posts every week, besides guiding them how to shine and show their presence on the Steemit platform. Some of them are doing very well.
Finally, are you noticing the difference in Steem price? It has almost doubled within last few weeks!
Thanks and regards,
@dove11
Please Note:
- You can remove and add any Steem Curator if they do not perform satisfactorily by inviting fresh applications or from the list of existing applications.
- You can make teams in different categories so all 33 curators don't get active at the same time and find enough posts to vote.
I invite @pandora2010 @dasudi @stef1 @sduttaskitchen and @josepha to correct me where I'm wrong!
CC The Steemit Team, @steemcurator01 @steemcurator02
Thank you for pointing this out.
From my early years on Steemit, many of the Steemians that I took as mentors are no longer active on this great platform. Back then, the booming was given to communities to handle, in support of quality posts posted in the community. However, it was changed after the Steemit team started noticing how community admins and moderators were misusing it.
Then I could say that it led to content farming, where issues with multiple accounts became an issue; before getting booming support in some communities, you had to know someone in authority in the community, which was too bad for the team to ignore because such behaviour tends to affect newbies who join the platform without knowing anyone.
Talking about Steem Rep, it would be better to have Steem reps who don't only write weekly reports on their activities, like supporting users. Instead, Steem Reps should go beyond that and focus on recruitment and offline activities of Steemians in their region and community to identify real and fake users.
Although the primary duty of a Steem Rep is to support regional and global community growth, curate high-quality content, and maintain platform integrity, this should go beyond the online activities of Steemit. For example, if a user is being accused of or observed in malicious activities, he or she should be investigated by the Steem Rep, who can call the person on a voice call or arrange for a meet-up, etc
In summary, if the Steemit team has a more proactive means or rule that can govern how Steem Representatives should carry out their work both online and offline, other than Steem Rep doing a weekly report, it would be a great idea that would help improve the platform.
I think club status shouldn't be a thing to talk about because, if it's enforced, a lot would choose to be in club75/100 so as to accumulate a good number of STEEM within a short period of time and power down. But if club status is a matter of choice, those who see the long-term growth of STEEM would definitely grow their account, and if you're doing power up willing you may not think about powering down, because when you need money, what you have been saving can be of help to you without you thinking about powering down.
Instead, what should be encouraged, which I believe would even make people start investing in Steem, is delegation. If you have a service that gives a good return on investment, you will desire to increase your investment to increase your earnings. Although the team is against voting buying, which is a good idea, I think delegation, so users can be supported and think about growing their account, should be reconsidered rather than focusing on club status. I may not have put this right in a way that can make the Steemit team have a thought about it because it is solely written as a suggestion regarding what @dove11 has said.
The problem, as you have observed, with giving the booming accounts to communities was the widespread abuse of the system.
The resources required to monitor and prevent are more than are currently available.
Steem Reps might one day return but not for the timebeing.
Using Club Status is difficult to monitor and does have the effect you describe.
Thank you, SC01, for your response; it is well understood. We all know that the abuse of the booming accounts system given to communities at some point became difficult to manage without enough resources for proper monitoring of the activities of booming accounts.
Hopefully, I believe that in the future, when Steem Reps return, there will be better resources available and a means to monitor the activities of Steem Reps to become more proactive.
Perhaps I believe that, for now, we can keep exploring simpler ways to support genuine communities that are active in organising contests while reducing abuse on this great platform, Steemit. Your explanation is well appreciated; thank you once more.
Thanks for your detailed thoughts on the entire idea. I think what you say about delegation is a point to ponder upon but it was never supported by the system in case it offers you liquid Steem or SP so growing accounts through delegation is not in the picture and that's the only reason even the developers have stopped daily/weekly return. Let's hear from the team what they feel about my proposal.
Yes, the Steemit team is against bot accounts that vote on posts without checking the content of the post.
Hi, I think your proposals are very good, but I notice a fundamental problem in the curation teams: I think the curators should be divided by languages.
This is because translating a comment into another language is not the same as reading it in our native language.For example, in Spanish, I'm detecting many bot accounts, which are almost entirely generated by AI and receive votes.
I notice it because, being a native Spanish speaker, I can perceive that mechanical style of bot response which a curator in another language wouldn't notice.
I understand your concern but now we have tools available to us which can detect AI generated text in any language. Maybe the translatiors do not understand the gender difference etc or change the meaning as they are not designed to understand slang and idioms but detecting AI generated text is not a problem. Thanks for your concern and input.
I think I disagree with you; no tool detects AI with a low margin of error. I use Claude AI, and that same tool tells me that it cannot determine AI-generated responses in short texts.
Even in long texts, you need to compare with texts from before 2023 to be certain.
But if you know of a good tool that can detect it, please share it.
If you check my posts, there are about 5 bot accounts that comment on them and receive positive votes.
Hi dear @ladyaryastark . I am a certified ethical hacker as I did a crash course from E&ICT Academy. Maybe it's difficult for short text on tools but I can find anything or everything just with a glance. Have a great day!
I understand what you mean but some people vote unknowingly or to increase CSI. By the way you have a great YouTube channel.
I understand, but I wish users wouldn't encourage these fraudulent practices. I'm very ashamed that these bots accounts Pretend to be from Paraguay.
Greetings and thank you, your suggestions for improving the healing system are very good.
Good point re languages.
Thanks, that's just my little hypothesis, but I'm sure you'll make the best decisions! Best regards!
Hi @dove11, the volume of support that is provided by Steemit Team is huge and from the very first day when there was a split between Hive and Steemit. I remember many users who previously were not able to grow they have grown their Steem Power very quickly because the understood that active engagement in the activities of the Steemit Team is rewarded.
Actually, I am very glad that this good will if Steemit Team is now something that we can not imaging Steemit without it.
When you mentioning Booming Support, actually I thought in the past it was better when the Booming was rewarded to the communities, we had many good communities and Booming was a support that was encouraged used to be active int hose communities. Since Booming support now withdrawn from Communities we see that some of communities struggled to exists and gone completely. That is a shame.
I would suggest to re-activate the old version for Booming support for communities and maybe to keep booming support for 3-4 months attached to one community, because sometimes the users are active but the moderators or community account do not have much Steem Power and the good will of community will fade away.
I do not think Steem Representatives initiative was something necessary that we could do without it.
As to the requirements for Steem Curators I completely agree with you and I like how you listed the necessary, thank you for your comprehensive post and explanation.
Wishing you ncie weekend :)
You are right Dear Doctor when you say
That's right up to some extent but the Booming is still with communities or projects but to limited few and the return solely depends on your beneficiary setting percentage.
In fact, my proposal is to make it available to all and not for few chosen ones with fixed teams. As one of the senior most members of this site you know a lot how it works now and how it worked n the past so compared to you I'm still a newbie.
However, being an active member in main stream, I feel the site management should change some of its working styles to bring the price back to track. You can see the changes ever since the management has stopped SLC and started doing on their own on a limited basis leaving no chance for favoritism. Thanks for your kind input and insightful thoughts.
Yes, but the old version how Booming did work was the fact that there were many communities who had an opportunity of Booming support, they were selecting their best posts and every day there was nomination. I remember hte moderators were able to grand Booming for winners of contests too. I also liked the idea of Tier 1 or 2 and 3 with the different number of nomination for Booming. It was much better system, I think if there will be regular new applications for Booming like every 3 months that probably will help to maintain communities.
I agree there should always be some changes so that people will get motivated and do their best and will try to contribute. Thank you for the chat :)
All I can say is the management thinks the communities were misusing the Booming powers which you can read in comment/s by SC01 in this post so that leaves not much for me to say further into this matter. Thank you once again.
I agree with what you said about Booming, my friend. We moderators currently go to great lengths to keep these communities going, and that is precisely why so many have had to close down. In fact, it is no secret that user participation dropped significantly after Booming withdrew its support for the communities. I fully support bringing that support back.
Hi @lirvic, I remember that in the past the motivation of possible support by Booming support kept the community active, even the contests were more busier than now.
I think the way how it is now, Steemit Team has less work to do and they rely on curators who are entitled for Booming account. But for users across the Steemit platform the old version of Booming support was better. I hope that the Steemit team will reconsider and start it again.
Buen día..
Realmente sus sugerencias son buenas, solo se trataría de cambiar unos pequeños detalles, ya que lo demás está muy bien establecido.
Gracias a Dios se está viendo un buen panorama con el Steem y deseo de corazón que siga subiendo.
Exitos con sus sugerencias.
Muchas Bendiciones..🙏🏻
Thanks for coming and supporting my proposal young lady! Sure it sounds like a small change in ongoing system but if you look at them in wider perceptive these changes will make a big impact and make the process more transparent. I hope the team will consider them.
https://x.com/Dev_11au/status/2103056072609276202?s=20
High-Yield Curation by @steem-seven
Your content has been supported!
Maximize your passive income!
Delegate your SP to us and earn high rewards
Click here to see our Tiered Reward System
We are the hope!
Thanks @miftahulrizky
Hello, friend. I read your suggestions carefully, and this time I agree with you 100%. However, a few questions come to mind: do you agree that only projects should continue to receive support from Booming? Also, I notice that your table lists the various steemcurator accounts, but two are missing: sc07 and sc08. Who do you think might be managing those accounts? Finally, is there a tool that would allow us users to vote on the proposed suggestions? That idea just occurred to me, though I’m not sure if it’s technically feasible.
Hi dear @lirvic, these are only suggestions and no one is obliged to implement them however, when I say the booming votes should be given to all good posts that means every curator will be free to cast their votes in all communities and not on projects only as being done for the time being. For sure the voting powers will be different according to the delegation by SteemTeam but this way every one will have equal support.
I have divided 33 curators in 11 teams of three each now it depends on Steemit Team to allot curation accounts as they deem fit. Thanks for your support and suggestions.
@dove11 - thanks for your ideas and feedback.
There is no current plan to reintroduce delegations.
It will be interesting to see in the current round of applications for October how many suitable candidates there will be.
Regarding power downs in the past X months is there any facility in Steemworld (or elsewhere) to easily track this?
As an exercise it would be interesting to see which 33 (or less) people from the current applications would meet your selection criteria.
Feel free to publish your selection after the application closure date tomorrow.
We will be happy to take a look at that before publishing the selected teams.
@steemcurator01, Thanks for inviting my humble opinion on the number of applications. I will definitely post my idea first thing after cut off time passes by with reasons for lower number of applicant and trust me you will have a smile reading my analysis. However, I would like to request that even if you have no plan delegate individual curators you should at least increase the amount of delegation to the teams because the amount of vote is too little especially keeping in mind the current Steem price. Thank you.
Look forward to seeing your list.
There is no scope for changing the delegation levels.
There is no need to. Plenty of votes can be given.
SC teams rarely give a 100% vote except for the selfvote which leaves the account with 900% voting power to divide...
If the average vote is 30% an account is good for 30 votes a day
30 * 14 (total of accounts) = 420 upvotes a day (the selfvote of the curators not included)! Let's make it 400 or 350 upvotes or even 300.
No way that many good posts are posted daily, can be found (not already upvoted by AI-bit bots).
Even with 200 votes a day we still talk about 1400 upvotes a week!
By the way: There are plenty of good comments that could be upvoted but this rarely happens because?
Written by AI is no excuse. Those accounts will never reply if you ask a question, next to the fact a summary of what the author wrote is not a comment.Comments are personal. There are entire threads, long talks worth reading and upvoting.
If votes of 0.30 are given to something good, it can also be 1.00 or 1.45 this besides of the fact Steemit doesn't have to provide in a salary.
@steemcurator01 here is my list for your kind consideration
https://steemit.com/curation/@dove11/my-proposed-curation-teams-for-october-2026-it-s-up-to-you-to-choose