Lately I have been writing a lot about changes that I feel would benefit the new users of steemit through personalization and achievements. This is part of a line of thinking I have had about humanizing steemit.  With reading a couple posts today I want to visit and express some thoughts on curation rewards. 

My thinking in this post is all from a single thought ***what can humans do that bots cannot?***
### The Problem
The problem isn't that there are bots, the problem is that to complete with them you incentivize bot-like behavior. 

***There's a 30 minute timer.
The closer you get to the 30 minute mark the more of your vote reward you get to keep. 
Voting gains you additional rewards based on votes that follow.***

Often I love simple, in this case there's a part of me objects... it's this little idealistic voice that whispers to me...
<center>***it's also so heartless***</center>
### Heart
<center>http://socialmediaimpact.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/4314365065_f64a614b9d.jpg</center>
I hesitate to say successful, but I have worked on getting the quality of my work up and have started to see the occasional post get a decent return. Having achieved a *little* (wee itty bit) of success and a drive to create something, I think I could safely say that it is a personal thing.

Nobody is giving us a topic and a deadline. For the majority of users, we need to have an idea, type it up, read it, change it, read it, change it, read it, think about it, change it. 

Even picking the right pictures to use are tricky! I've had high quality posts (*my opinion*) which I know (*feel?*) didn't do well because the headline and the photo, while separately were great, when combined gave a false impression of content.

I am saying it takes time and you invest yourself into a piece, it's personal to produce. So why make the process of curating anything less?
### Curating
<center>***The challenge is creating a system capable of identifying what contributions are needed and
their relative worth in a way that can scale to an unbounded number of people***</center>
Currently the model we have, by it's design, is geared to reward authors. As a result of this new users are expected to enter as authors, which gives us a choice. Do we reward low quality work in the hopes they improve and stick around, or do we let them just walk away? I am proposing an alternate earning opportunity that is important and achievable.

To say the authors are the ones providing value to the site is accurate,  but the system rewards say that you have to be a good author before you can effectively curate. It is true that writers will probably make great curators, but less true to say great curators have to be great authors.
### Humanizing Curation
We need and want new users to join, and who are we writing to if not existing and potential readers? So again, the question I ask is what can a human contribute that is not easily mimicked by a bot, and the best answer I have is *quality relevant comments*.

As a solution, it'e the most appealing. My first post to gain any traction, which also happens to currently be my best paying post to date, received 0 comments before payout. It quickly led to my next post Did I fail, or was it you? Maybe I am projecting what I want from a post onto others, but I think an ***equal*** measure of quality is the conversation it inspires.  

Let's move the curation rewards in that direction. Something I have heard as a criticism of steemit:
***<center>The posts are overpaid, there's no way that can last.</center>***
### It's True
I am not saying the total value of posts are less on other sites, I am saying the writers earn less because they  (*purchaser*) want a profit (of course) ***and*** they have a reader base to get a return on what they paid for the piece. 

The fact that we can get rid of (or perhaps *become*) the one part, doesn't mean the other isn't absolutely vital. Quality curating and as a result promoting your work, is vital to what we are doing here.
### Identifying What Contributions Are Needed
We keep looking to bring in new content providers the hope being their subscribers will follow. 

I have become less sure this will be the case. 

Content and material can be viewed by anyone with or without an account, additionally the content is often repeated on their other forums. They will come over to take a stab at blogging for bucks sure, but we see the results of these attempts with accounts going inactive.
### Let's Go After Readers
The site rewards participation, let's not limit the form that participation takes.  Using sites like www.swagbucks.com as an example, people are more than willing to do some of the work needed for small, yet reliable, rewards.  

I am intentionally hesitant to give specifics on what this looks like. Often when I have talked about changes to the mechanics of the site I have been missing pieces of information. So I want to suggest options and explore them with you.

***Comment Driven Participation/Curation***
Okay, in a nutshell. 50% of the total reward is ***guaranteed*** to the author, the rest is up for grabs.
***THIS IS NOT DONE IN A WAY TO COMPLETELY TAKE FROM THE AUTHOR!!!!***
Trying to keep the concept simple, any vote cast anywhere under this post goes to the post total. Comments no longer have their own independent value that's separate.

Simple. Any vote is a result of the authors post.... period.

When this change is made, we have a new way to vote. Any vote on the post anywhere ***IS*** a vote for the post.

Curation comes into play through where support is given. If I click the upvote simply as we have it today, nothing changes. I am supporting the author, and receiving my "*fee*" and my vote is strengthened by every vote behind it. 
If I were instead to upvote a comment instead, I am still tipping the author (now 50% of) ***but through the comment***.

If I vote for a comment from someone, the author is considered tipped. What I am doing now is supporting someone who also supported you, by adding my voting power to theirs. The same curation stackable effects, but with a multiple options. 

***Do you vote for and through the author thinking others will absolutely love it also?***
***Do you vote for an okay post through a great comment hoping others choose to do the same.***
***Do you try and make a great comment so people pile on granting power to your vote each time.***

Taking the guesswork out of it, could vote multiple times for the curation reward. It makes little sense to do so, really the only vote that adds to the total you are competing for is the first one under that thread. Essentially it would be like voting two times without double tip to the author, just want to place two bets on the results. Maybe it pays off if you happen to be early in.... 

<center>"***Oooh, I am super early in this article, I better hurry up and read it so I can make a great comment people will love, but I better cast my vote for the author first.... just in case.***"</center>

Hey, If you want to gamble with your own vote through your own comment only...... you get the same curation reward you would anyway without the after votes. Split my vote, it becomes the ***average*** between the two (or three or four???), could still be worth it.
### Human Operated Model
Severely outdated and in need of an upgrade. From the whitepapers:
<center>***Steem chooses to reward those who contribute the most to the total promotion of a piece of content and rewards the voters proportional to the ultimate reward paid to the content creator***</center>

If there is a discussion brewed in your post, it is ultimately going to benefit your post as a result of the activity. A distribution that reflects that promoting of your post is worth it with followers receiving support for supporting you!

Bots, they have their place... if every vote was to the post total though I would think they would start to point to human curators already doing well. The new reader has their comment and reward increased with every tip to the author ***given through them***.
### Micro Tasks for Micro Payment
It encourages activity and rewards ***meaningful quality participation***. I see what those people put up with on swagbucks to make an extra hundred for the week *or the month*.

If a problem of the site is users, we can keep them around by rewarding their efforts ***that support our efforts***.

P.S.: Incidentally, wouldn't this put the focus on the authors to continually improve their SP as a means to ***sweeten*** the starter pot the readers compete for? We don't need to try and convince new users to invest as much, we incentivize  the authors to do so. It follows a freemium model, new user are rewarded on the free level of play, and premium recognition has a price tag.

### This post was an alternate proposal to @caleber24p's post here (very worth a read if you haven't)
### [Revamping Curation Is The Way To Increase Steem Power Demand](https://steemit.com/steemit/@calaber24p/revamping-curation-is-the-way-to-increase-steem-power-demand)



***Heart:  http://socialmediaimpact.com/american-heart-month-goes-social/***