What is a good post on Hive?
I have thought about this a lot over the years and while a lot of people seem to think it is hard to answer, it actually is very simple. The talk normally centers around "the value" of a post, citing a whole range of potential metrics, from the quality of information given, or the formatting of the post, or one that has some credibility, the engagement a post gets. There are also other possible metrics like hit rates or relatedness, where content that will only be consumed in a narrow timeframe, will not have value down the line, whilst evergreen content might.
So, what is it?
Engagement is a good place to start, but engagement enough isn't enough - or at least, number of comments isn't enough, since some posts have many comments with bot calls and trash three words, trying to make it look like there is actual engagement. In my opinion, quality of engagement matters more than the quality of the post, but there is generally a correlation between quality of post and quality of engagement.
Quality engagement is a symptom of a good post.
And in general, that engagement is not going to be built within the vacuum of a single post, as to get consistent engagement, it takes a string of posts that are of the type that will attract attention, a followership and of a topic and type that will also encourage comments and discussion. And this is why engagement has some credibility, because it hints at what actually makes a good post -
Simple.
This doesn't mean they have to be about Hive itself, but they have to be the type that gets people engaging on Hive and being part of the community themselves. And in general, this requires more than a single post to accomplish, which means that a good post is part of a chain of good posts. In some way, good posts or an account that is consistently producing Hive-building activity, is analogous to the chain itself. There is an integrity in it that is verifiable and if that integrity is lost, it is very hard to build up again.
Building community as the core value of a post (or account) seems far too simplified, but it is very much like saying that driving a car is simple - it is, but in order to do it, it requires a cluster of skills that are developed to a stage where they are automatic, consistently applied and able to navigate a wide range of conditions. Some can't drive at all, some are terrible drivers, most are okay and a few are exceptional.
Yet, that is not the whole story either, because the "driver community" is enabled by the car industry, as well as the road network, the common rule frameworks, the sign makers, mechanic availability, tire manufacturers.... The driver community is not a community of drivers, it is a community of a whole range of skills that a single person cannot hold or apply in order to make it happen. Without the broader community, there is no driver community. But, without drivers, there can still be a need for transport of non-drivers. Some narrow communities are critical, some aren't.
But, this is unnecessary complication on Hive at this point, because the narrow communities are formed around the needs and wants of the consuming community, which decides what gets supported and what doesn't. And, this is where there is a misunderstanding on Hive, where people who "want support" generally consider it getting upvotes on their posts. However, upvote support is a narrow form of support only and probably poorly used on Hive.
Why is it poorly used?
Again, if we assume that my position that "community building" is the most valuable thing to do on Hive, in regards to rewarding posts, it should go to accounts that are building community. This doesn't necessarily mean building "a" community, it means generating the type of interaction, engagement and transactions that get people connected to the Hive ecosystem and using it daily. If the interaction is only built around getting rewarded, when those rewards are lessened or stop, the narrow community will fall apart.
And then based on the assumption that a good post builds the Hive community, it also means we have to consider what is a valuable community itself, otherwise we don't know what is building it. Is a valuable community measured by the size of the community? Probably not, because size doesn't matter on Hive - at least when it comes to the number of people. This is different for the likes of Facebook however, because their model relies on selling the data of users to sell for ad revenue. Hive doesn't need do that, but it does need money flowing in, at least on occasion, because that is what gives the HIVE token a value above zero. A large community doesn't automatically mean a high token value.
So, community building on vote values is never going to have longevity, because it is unsustainable, especially at the current prices of HIVE. Even if Hive was 10X from here, it still wouldn't be able to support millions of people financially, so there has to be more than financial reward. But, real communities aren't built around financial reward, are they? So what are they built upon?
Communities are a network of relationships, and a healthy community is one where those connections work together to build the community in various ways, whether it be the road network, the signage, the cars or a driving instructor. Or, the community might move away from cars completely and then they would work together to shift the direction of production toward some other endeavor.
These shifts in culture are built through behaviors and conversation, with the first often influenced by the second, which again speaks to how engagement on posts is valuable for building a community. Discussion helps us learn, voice opinion and concerns, access new information and build our understanding in ways that will hopefully, improve our behaviors and outcomes, making us more valuable for the community too, as we add our insight and skill into the mix to create more connections and strengthen the network.
We often talk about community through the perspective of topic groups, but this is actually not the case on Hive, because in order to have the second-layer topic communities, there is a whole lot of enablement made through the first layer, including the token distribution. The first layer is vital to the community, but at the same time, without a community, the first layer doesn't have much of a usecase.
It is an ecosystem with a symbiotic relationship between the layers, which then speaks to what brings value to the blockchain as a whole. First layer development that supports the second layer, second layer development that supports the first layer. If the content is supporting the growth of the ecosystem in valuable ways, it is likely not bring value to the blockchain. It doesn't matter how nicely decorated a restaurant is, without food, it has no purpose. Similarly, if the food sucks, people are unlikely to come back.
It would be interesting to see for example, a view of the blockchain from account perspectives looking at not only how many comments they have received or made, but also the quality of the comments made. It would also be interesting to see the distribution of those comments as well a which content creators get the highest quality of comments. I suspect that the majority of quality comments are likely going to a minority of accounts, even if the comment number might be lower.
When it comes to the value of content, people will often say that it is subjective, and this might be true at the individual level. But at the community level, it isn't really subjective, is it? If there is a nurse saving lives, or a pyromaniac burning down hospitals, you would likely say that one is a general good for the community, the other a general bad, right?
It is pretty simple.
Activities that increase the wellbeing of the community are seen as good, while those that decrease it are bad. The ones that are in the middle, don't add value. On average, a healthy community is one that has the majority of people acting in good ways, right? On Hive, it actually isn't about the majority of people, it is about the majority of stake. The more stake that is used to add value to the community, the better. The more stake that is used to extract value from the community, the worse.
It isn't hard.
What might be hard is discerning what is value-adding activity and what is not, but in general, it is pretty easy to see through the various behaviors surrounding accounts. When an account is adding content that is building relationships, engagement and influencing people to take ownership of their Hive experience by becoming a value-adding part of the community, they are likely adding value. Those that are not doing any of this, are likely costing the community.
Is that controversial?
It shouldn't be.
But many people think that content value is all subjective, even though they haven't likely thought much about it at all. There is a big difference looking at the value of content through the lens of an individual with specific preferences, and that of a community with a diverse array. Looking at one post is okay from the individual perspective, but in the bigger picture, it doesn't tell much about the value added to the community as a whole prior, now or in the future.
If you think about your real world communities - what behaviors are you willing to pay for, which ones do you want to encourage and, what percentage of the community would you actually support?
How subjective is it?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
