You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Is There Any Room For Short Content On Steemit?

in #steemit3 years ago (edited)

I think there is nothing wrong with short content whatsoever. As you say there is often a misconception. A joke can take a long time to come up with.

Why does no one flag someone who post a photograph with the Exif (Exchangeable image file format) ? Taking a photo and adding this information can be done within minutes and probably much faster than coming up with a good joke.

I think we should be open to different content.

Also to be honest, when it comes to longer posts there might be a lot of upvotes but almost no views and the comments don't make sense. Which means many don't have the time to read it all as they have many more posts to check as well.

When you have hundreds of people you follow how is it possible to read through everything fully, atleast if you have a full time job ?

I love short content because i can respond to it right away and comment quickly. Also when it comes to funny content it's more likely I will have a laugh with something short that has an instant punchline. So if I read something that takes 20 minutes or something that takes 20 seconds I might still get more satisfaction from the shorter content.

Anyways I say keep it up because I think this kind of content is inevitable to keep the sight running. I also have seen a lot of people creating an extra account to be able to do shorter content (me included)
I think that's all good because we can't always have time to write A4 posts as there are many other things to get around to in a stressful schedule.

Sort:  

Thanks a lot dan, I'm glad to see you trying out short content

You're a really funny guy in the comments section, and if it wasn't for the reasons I've outlined above, I'd reward those comments a bit more

I hope you can relate to my claim that it's one thing being very funny socially and a different beast translating that over to content creation when you've got a blank canvas. It takes a bit of time and experience to get the feel right, and it never becomes effortless

It's definitely not effortless! I can vouche for that, not when u come up with it from scratch and try to make it original and current. If people don't believe it they should try it.

I see now that I might have upset some people about posting photos. If you post very nice photos I know it can take a lot of time and you have to consider the time spent on getting to the place which u want to photograph. Also the time on editing and choosing the photographs that are successful.

I am just saying that as long as u post a photo it usually wouldn't be considered as short content that someone didn't spend a lot of time on. I guess that's because a photo can say more than a thousand words ?

I am not sure. But when it comes to comedy it's sometimes about taking a thousand words and making it into a few sentences and that's not easy either so I don't think one should consider the quantity of the words but instead the quality.

Taking a photo can take me hours, just like making up a joke can take hours. I don't think the issue that the flagger had is with the fact that it's short-form content but more with the self upvoting across accounts.

Yes, but other people don't know if the photo is a snapshot or a well-thought composition. That's why people prefer to upvote larger posts.

The self voting seems to be a continuous issue... I honestly don't know what amount is right or wrong . What I do know though is that people that put hundreds of thousand into Steemit probably will treat their investment very differently than a lot of people that earned most of their Steem on the platform.

We have to think about the opportunity cost as well. Also it seems that people that have more SP get more scrutinized.

By now you would have to put millions into the platform to 'rig' it for self-voting. Otherwise it won't be profitable for the 'self-voters' because they have to put their assets into steem for a long time. Which is quit risky.

Totally agree with that. I guess there is a conflict of interests to a certain degree between the people who have invested in the platform financially and the people who invest a lot more time in creating content and curating content. The balance of power here is always going to be an issue.

I have to agree with @markangeltrueman here. Photos can take hours to do.

Here are the reason why. First, you have to go out to actually take a photo. Yes, go out in the world and actually think of what to take photo of. People think photography is as easy as clicking the button then 'astalavista' it is all good.

You have to think about how your going to set up the camera, the settings of the camera, what subjects you want in the frame/photo and spend time walking around looking for interesting subjects to take photos of. I have been doing street photography for the past 1 and a half week now and oh boy, was it tough at first. You have to get over that anxiety of people judging you if you take a photo of them. That awkward feeling that you get everytime you take a picture. I spent hours just walking around our city just to get decent photos. Also, street photography isn't easy because you can't just tell your subject to do what he/she did again. Once the subject is gone, so is your chance to take a photo of that subject.

Also, photographers usually takes lessons on how to do these things. I, myself, watch hours and hours and read many articles just to know about photography.

After taking a photo, you have to do some post editing if you want your photo to pop out. You need programs for that such as adobe or lightroom which cost money.

That is why I support short content also in photography because I know the work and the time it took to take that photo.

Agree with this, but I normally won't upvote a photo on it's own in a post where there is not even an attempt at a description, or if the photo, to me, is actually not very good. If you took hours to create a photo, take 5 minutes to describe it in the post.

There are also some quite powerful members on here who post short format photography work which is, to be frank, crap snapshots that they took on their way home and they get tens, if not hundreds of dollars per post. That isn't the sort of short format posts that should be rewarded to that extent.

see, i love photos. for many diff reasons. but i find it extremely annoying that each and every of photos have some kinds of description, which somehow kills the value of pic.

photos talks on their own. if they need description, then something is not good.

people here are forcing themselves into descrptions after whole process already done. forced descriptions, same as any forced an unnatural efforts are just degrading the original work. just my opinion.

also there is way around this / i actually never read descriptions.

Maybe I didn't make myself 100% clear there, that's my fault... Of course, if a photo stands on its own and needs no description to inspire me then I'm going to vote on it. Guys like @axeman who I think is one of the most underrated members on here is a prime example of someone I'll vote for when I see just a solitary picture in my feed, cos i'm confident that he took the picture and he put time and effort into producing it. When I see a picture on its own that looks like the poster made no real effort to compose or think about, and then didn't make any effort to describe what they are trying to do with the photo then i dont feel that they are deserving of a vote. Im also concerned about the level of spam. If i see a photo, a description of the picture helps to verify that the person posting is the original photographer and it hasnt just been taken from a stock image site.

Agree. Speciallly if you are talking about street photography. You cant really describe what is really happening. Speculations you can do but it is always on the viewers side of what he/she may interpret the photo as.

I could understand if the photo is travel or scenaries which the original content creator can describe where the photo was taken.

It was this kind of photography I was talking about which is more like snapshots.

But just like with photography it's a huge difference in the quality.

The same goes for comedy as well except for the difference that sometimes even quality comedy such as @traf can be considered just short content - which is not fair

If you have a look at the part about the voting market vs content creation, the reality is that every account that's solely lending voting power is self voting at 80% efficiency on things that are guaranteed to be mediocre (votes that are bought). I do not vote at 80% efficiency (that is, internalize 80% of the value of total my voting power)

My self voting is just visible. My steem was bought to invest predominantly in myself, as well as help the community. But lets assume that deserves no sympathy. The question then is this: is it better for a content creator of my caliber to continue doing what I'm doing, or to be a passive vote lender described above?

I'd rather you curated the good stuff than let crappy bots do it. All they do is curate spam and rubbish.

Lend your SP and don't waste your precious time on blind people who will never understand how this platform is designed to work.