I made a post previously regarding quality content. I have since been trying to do more research on this and get an understanding of just what this means.
See, now that raises a point that I have been trying to get some type of an idea on; what constitutes quality content?
Is quality based on the amount of people who read, resteem and upvote the post?
Is it about the actual content of the post?
I can have a post about birds for example, how Zygodactyl, Syndactyl, etc foot structures look and behave, how they relate to the birds and their environments. I could point out that Ostriches are the only bird species which has a didactyl foot structure.
It could be content rich, full of facts and well written. If no one likes birds and it doesn't get up-voted, commented on and resteemed, does that mean its not a quality post?
If I take a screen recording of me running around on some type of online game shooting people and napalming buildings and it gets hundreds of up-votes, is that then of higher quality?
I'm trying to understand this entire concept. I cannot comprehend what "quality" actually implies. Is it what the masses vote as popular, or is it actual content and fact rich posts? Steemians and Steem are constantly on the lookout for quality content, urging others to create such. If you are to make anything of the platform, for whatever the purpose may be, followers, money, community, you need followers. Followers will only really follow you if you give them something worthwhile to want to read, look at or watch.
Unfortunately, I cannot find the knack of getting through to people as yet.
Images courtesy of https://www.pexels.com
