Since I discovered Hive, Leofinance and Proof of Brain I have been planning to grow step by step together with this social network, as long as I not only contribute some idea or publication but also dedicate part of my life, that is, my time, to curate the works that other authors also share. Each community is a world and each publication raises the desires, dreams, passions, anecdotes and experiences of the person who decided to share his idea with the purpose of monetizing it, something that requires the support of the community.
I confess that it is increasingly difficult for me to perform this task, but I still dedicate at least three hours of my life to carefully read those articles or publications that I consider interesting or of certain value, so they deserve to be voted positively, even expressing my liking through a comment. I usually do the curation manually, I take my time, especially in the evenings after my son goes to bed to sleep, to read or observe those publications that deserve to be rated by my own standards of what quality should be.
Indeed, since what we call quality has no set measure that says it should be this way or that way, I created my own parameters myself to establish a pattern of healing. First of all, for me the most important thing is to feel the passion in the published work, if I do not see this aspect that is so important, at least for me, I am not tempted to generate a positive vote, because friends, what does life mean without passion, in what you do, in what you want, in my opinion this must remain in what you publish.
Of course, scientific or investigative rigor must also be included in the parameters for a publication to be considered with my vote. In communities like Leofinance dedicated to the publication of economic and financial articles in order to make the cryptocurrency world known, it is important that the person who shares the information has full knowledge of what he is saying, either by experience or because he really studied thoroughly the topic he wanted to expose to the community.
In my opinion the worst thing an author can do apart from plagiarism is to write an article that sounds automatic, monochromatic, just for wanting to post something, meet a quota and expect to be rewarded with votes, if you are one of those who think that sharing something mediocre is not going to be noticed, I think this social network is not for you.
On the other hand, the criterion of length of the article, as well as the parameter of syntax or grammar I do not usually consider it as a determinant as this social network is a melting pot of nations and languages, it would be really unfair to criticize or deny you the possibility of getting a vote if we do not make the effort to interpret what an author wants to tell us. Likewise, the length of his work should not drastically determine whether it should be voted positively or left in oblivion.
Finally, everyone has their own literary or informative tastes, I like economic, sports, personal life and technological topics very much and therefore they have my priority when generating my vote, of course, the latter is not a criterion that I meet in depth so sometimes a different topic that is to my liking sneaks in. The quarration, especially the one that is done manually, or better said, not automatic involves hard work, committed and of the same quality as the article that is voted, however it generates a nice reward beyond the economic, because helping others is worth more than bitcoin.
