#0001 proofofblind || DELETED: Flawed & Revolved Doors
DO NOT VOTE for this post; the potential for rewards being earned by this post are being pre-emptively downvoted to zero.
If you vote for this post, you will not receive any curation rewards in return for your upvote.
This post passed our plagiarism check, but shortly after posting it, we discovered that the author merely submitted content that had already been posted to Hive.
As such, that content has been deleted (but we've left instructions below about how to submit your own original content to the Proof of Blind project).
This is a violation of the Proof of Blind rule stating that all submitted content must be "your own original work and has not been published or posted elsewhere."
I don't fault the author who submitted this content -- my guess is they simply didn't read the instructions closely enough before submitting it. We've made the submission instructions more explicit, so that this type of mistake can no longer happen by chance.
How can I submit original content to the Proof of Blind project?
First and foremost, go to the latest "Request for Submissions" post and follow the instructions.
Second, follow @blind.submit so you will receive all future "Request for Submissions" posts.
Third, follow @blind.stats so you can follow the leaderboard and see how your content compares to all the other content being submitted via the Proof of Blind project (and see whether you have been granted permission to post to the project more than once a week).
How can I curate for the Proof of Blind project?
Simply follow @proofofblind and vote for the best content you find there.
Also, if you are interested in photography-only and art-only posts, follow @proofofblind.pix and @proofofblind.art.
*What does certified plagiarism-free mean?
As a result of our plagiarism review, we are confident that this post represents original unpublished creative work.
We are backing that confidence with a 150% curation-reward guarantee.
If you vote for this post and it is found to have been plagiarized (prior to the close of the voting period), we will coordinate efforts to zero out all presumed author rewards. However, that also zeros out all curator rewards. To protect our curators, we will fully reimburse any would-be curation rewards that were zeroed as a result of the plagiarism enforcement, and we will add 50% to it.
This guarantee applies to any curation rewards that would have been worth at least $1 at the time the payout would have occurred. For example, if your upvote was worth $2 in HIVE and $2 in POB, but was zeroed out due to plagiarism-enforcement, then we would reimburse you $1.50 worth of HIVE and $1.50 worth of POB.
What is Proof of Blind and how does it work?
Here is a quick overview:
Content creators submit their original content (following the procedure detailed at the end of the "Request for Submissions" post).
Submitted content is checked for plagiarism.
Plagiarism-free content is posted via the @proofofblind account* (typically within 24 hours after submission), with
the original author as 85% beneficiary,
the person who coordinated the plagiarism review and finalized the @proofofblind post as 10% beneficiary,
@proofofblind retaining 5%.
How about content from one, two or three years ago, posted, for example, on Steemit? Some of my works I would like to give fresh live to. They sunk into the depth of the chain or were not read by many people, were not catching many votes, but still have potential to catch interest this time than they did in the past? I wouldn't be able to write it better than I did in the past.
Why not including my own work, where I put many hours and efforts into and make them visible again? None of those publications appeared anywhere else but on the blockchain, and as we all know, almost no one surfs single blogs for contents older than 7 days (or, say a months or two). This would be a good opportunity to profit more than once, since the readership and members of the blockchain changed quite a lot.
I don't think it's necessary to be so slavish about declaring one's own content "ad acta" and thus "done for all time". All that would be needed is the additional passage that this is a publication that has already taken place, no?
Good evening. I can respond to this question from what I've learned so far communicating from Hive/HDR over the last couple of months. My response is with regards to the Hive community first:
Regarding Proof of Blind:
Good morning,
thanks for your comment. I appreciate it.
I would answer you in the way that the nature of hive does not correspond fully to common medial methods and habits. Copyright as it applies to tangible paper-page publications or to publications that are copy-protected on the virtual web are dissimilar to Hive's functions.
A blog post, for example, that has only been voted in cents, but is nevertheless of more than average quality from the author's point of view, is no longer found and read in the course of time, for the reason that not only the author profits from a post, but also the readers by means of upvotes, does not stand up to comparison with the above practices, if only because the readers seem to have an interest in always reading and voting for only the most recent and highly rated posts.
However, this component, which does not exist in non-reward and currency-based platforms, seems to be the very one that rejects the republication of content already written by the author himself.
This makes me wonder: what's the problem? I don't really see any problem with it, neither from a profit point of view nor from a moral point of view, as long as the original content is only cents. Certainly, one would see a problem if the amounts were higher and the time between the original post and the new publication was only a few days or weeks. You can set a limit.
If one were to say that the author can republish the content he has already published on the blockchain and set the yield to zero per function, this should actually be enough for him to satisfy his need to attract attention again, shouldn't it? But we know that posts with a crossed-out amount neither make it into the trend nor are curated en large, single or "community"-based (exceptions may confirm this rule).
In fact, I think it might be a good way of avoiding what I perceive as a negative circumstance, that I would really like to put my content, which is judged by me to be of good quality, on the line again, not only because I like it myself, but also because my readership has changed in the meantime or might change, because of it.
To the extent that my own assessment of quality does not match that of my (accidental or intentional) readership, two things happen: either it stays at the cent amount (or under 10 hive dollars, for example) or it does not. In the latter case, from my point of view, everyone would have won. In the former, it was worth a try.
I can't speak for the Hive admins so I can't speak on the amount of profit someone would make and their response. However, setting the value of the recycled article as null would render the argument mute. It makes sense as the argument was solely on the grounds of profiting from an older HIVE/Steem post. I just haven't seen that approach yet. In the scenarios I've seen, when a veteran writer republished an old article from steemit, regulators dropped the hammer on them. If it was cross-posted from another platform, they didn't touch it and they've taught me not to touch it either.
You're absolutely correct here. Hive has put this topic on the table in the past. For example, leaving a video up on youtube can continue to make money for years. On Hive, it's 7 days no matter what. I'm not exactly sure about that reason, but it's something programming related. I'm not an expert on this matter. They couldn't find a way around the possibilities of fraud that could occur.
One of the older guys on the platform would tell you better than I about it. My knowledge is limited here.
You probably won't achieve the attention with an article set to zero, since it is the very voting function and the presence of a post that are linked and determine visibility (at least, how I understand it).
Just that would be the concern of an author, the second time to see the possibility to reach more and other readers and comments. For my part, I see this as more important, I do not care about the monetary matter first, if I only have enough fruitful exchange in the comment section.
I may also be wrong and my observation that highly voted posts usually offer the chance of a lively comment section may be a deception. What really matters to me is not the number of comments themselves, but their quality and how I can engage in dialogue myself. Nevertheless, the advance visibility of highly voted posts and also the immediate sighting of the number of comments is often a reason for me to go to that post and even comment there or vote for the article on my part. It's a psychological component that plays into this, versus if you're not really conscious of your own resources, it influences you as well.
So, posts set to zero are, how I see it, much lower in their ability to compete.
That's fine for me. I need not to know the technical details. It then serves as my starting point :)
Have you received any for you valid reason?
Teaching by downvoting I find not very convincing though it seems to be effective.
P.S.
I (you, we, they) could formulate an official proposal out of it and call it
"proof (of) again".
LOL
I still see this platform as a playground of unimagined possibilities, why wouldn't I? Why should I follow a majority that is happy to abide by rules that have already been set and not open a new door that initially ignores the majority idea, or else challenges it in an inspiring and joyful way?
Sorry about the upvote. It's been a long day. I removed it. Also, the system was a bit glitchy. I went to DV the article and it showed up under @erh.germany. @erh.germany, please let me know if you're comment is still DV'd. It was definitely NOT my intent.