This is a suggestion to the Proof of Brain community. I call it
"Proof (of) again"
(short: #proofagain)
and I hope this causes some joy for you, in the same way it did for me.
Under the Proof of Blind project, there is the idea that authors initially place their content under the Proof of Blind tag and posting-space so that they are not immediately visible at first with their account identity. I find the idea very interesting and, inspired by it, had further thoughts on the topic of "original content".
I would like to present these here and propose an initially experimental implementation. Without discussing the possible mistakes or pitfalls already in the beginning. But rather to postpone them to a later point in time, after it runs for a while.
Simply put, the idea is that I, as an author, republish content already published by me on the blockchain.
Here I copy a comment course into it, so that I do not need to repeat myself.
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?
An answer from @scholaris.pob was:
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:
Reposting an article you wrote in Steemit on to Hive isn't condoned or supported because Hive was built upon the past Steemit infrastructure.
Everyone's old account on Steemit was duplicated before transferring everything from Hive. In essence, you already received earnings on your earlier post. So Hive regulators like HDR/HW considers posting old articles from Steemit as duplicating content.
Cross-posting from a non-Steemit/Hive platform, however, is supported. If you wanted to re-post something you wrote on another platform on Hive, then it's fair game for you.
Regarding Proof of Blind:
Their rules require original content not published anywhere. It's a rule specific to their project and not the Hive community.
If you post an article to Hive you wrote on, let's say, PublishOx 5 years ago you shouldn't be penalized by Hive in any way. In Proof of Blind, your work just won't be accepted for their project.
My response:
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.
Basically, it would be comparable to a musician band that sends its demo data to a multiplier again and again because neither the first sending, nor the second or even further ones aroused interest.
Just like the novelist who tries several times, but unsuccessfully, to place his work with different publishers. Whether it is because the music or the novel is not good or because just no one sees its potential, one can not answer after only one attempt.
The blogger who is trying to make his own content attractive here on the hive chain will not do so with ones where he just tells you that he slept badly last night or what he ate or who he is on the warpath with. To put it in the words of @bobthebuilder2:
Trending content is different. It is information that is important or entertaining for the moment but doesn’t really matter in a short period of time. Trending content includes posts about me running 3 miles in the morning, Kim Kardashian eating a cricket, or Hive’s price hitting $1. These are all fleeting moments in time that are really only interesting for a moment and then gone. Five years from now, my 3 mile run will not be searched, KK eating a cricket will have been digested, and Hive hitting $1 will have run its course, up or down…the celebration confetti will have been swept up and decomposed in the landfill by the time five years passes.
I couldn't have said it better what I mean when I think about my content which I consider good quality.
A publication that starts the multiple attempt by re-posting could be understood as "work in progress". A not yet finished becoming active of both author and curator as well as readership. There are differences between these three. I am not yet sure, what I want to say by seeing the differences but maybe come up with it later on :)
It would be like a trick to cancel out the 7-day rhythm in such a way that these seven days would simply be extended.
In principle, I understand life itself as such a trying out and working in process. A thing is only really completed when you declare it to be completed.
As a guideline, one could introduce the following limitations, for example:
- The original content is older than six months
- The original content has generated less than 10 hive dollars at the time of its completed 7-day cycle
Even here, I wouldn't put in a complete restriction, because if I saw that an article, for example, that I as an individual reviewer found to be of high quality was only three months old and had raised $12 Hive, I would still upvote it. This margin is more intuitive and playful.
I'd find it exciting to find out if similar foolish results would be found as are currently being criticized, or if a difference could be seen.
I say "foolish" because it is of course also a great folly to keep producing new content for the sake of new content and voting processes and the whole thing quickly leads itself into absurdity because every piece of content is then just like a pointlessly running machine that produces a lot in a short time that is not really seriously read or further discussed by anyone because both time slots and voting activities are an overwhelming interval.
I would like to make the comparison that you always have new sunglasses coming off the production line that you wear for a few days, then either throw them away or put them in the back drawer where they are forgotten and because you have forgotten them, you buy new sunglasses again. Imagine a hundred lorry loads of sunglasses lying there and no one wearing them. But beneath those cheep ones you may have forgotten about the Ray Bans.
I don't want to criticise per se the speed of others or tell them to do it differently. I would just like to let my own form of slowness flow into what is happening here on the chain.
Call it creating a contrast.
Any comments and thoughts on this proposal? I would be delighted to have a conversation.
Picture source:
Bild von Victoria_Borodinova auf Pixabay