I’ve come to accept that I’ll never really understand curation rewards. And I think it’s because I’m just not as smart as I used to be; aging has taken a toll. It’s not for lack of *trying* to grok the process. I’ve read several posts explaining how it works. One by @miniature-tiger a while back gave all kinds of details and a lot of commenters thanked him for making everything so clear, but it went right over my head. 

Back in the day, I was a smart cookie. Very much a left-brain logical thinker. Got a 740 on the math SAT. Took classes in calculus, statistics and the like and got A’s.

Lately, not so much. Curation rewards in particular mystify me. I do understand that the timing of an upvote has some influence on the efficiency of the voting and that how popular the post becomes after you’ve voted on it plays into it, but beyond that, it might as well be Greek (to a non-Greek).

I occasionally use SteemWorld to look at my pending curation rewards. My voting efficiency percentage is usually in the high thirties to low forties. (Is that good or bad?) Ranging down to the high teens and up to the low sixties. Every once in a while, a weird outlier:

<center>
![0258770C-2D13-457C-B7EF-92DEBADBE6DB.jpeg](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmUAoK1odQL8oNGjW1W5w9tDLZTBCAFHKi1LL23DVn5X7Y/0258770C-2D13-457C-B7EF-92DEBADBE6DB.jpeg)
</center>

How is 114.32% efficiency even possible? Isn’t that like an athlete saying they’re going to give a 110% effort, beyond perfection?

But if you try to explain it in the comments, I probably won’t get it. The 64-year-old me just isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer anymore.

Oh well, I’ll continue with manual curating. At less than peak performance.

<center><img src="https://s14.postimg.org/7k9hhyv1t/IMG_0530.png"></center>

**Post beneficiaries:**
10% - @deirdyweirdy
10% - @sbdpotato
10% - @steemchiller