RE: What is "good" content?

I think about this often Bernie... I wrote extensively about this the other day. This is the best explanation I've come up with.

All of us, almost without exception, had this idea that the profits we would make on the steem platform would be directly correlated with the amount of contributions we could make. This meant in our minds, that a hard working Steemian could and probably should have good results granted he or she practiced consistency and subjective quality. I say subjective because beauty and it's cousin quality are biased by nature.

Our inability to fully grasp what effective contributions actually mean, at least in the stage that Steem currently resides in, leaves the newcomers confused and disappointed. In truth, the effectiveness of contributions could be best measured for their ability to bring social value to others and not the subjective quality itself. This means, that my pet peeve of poorly written english is somewhat irrelevant to a post, if said post had a positive social effect in the way of interaction, resteems and what have you

So, I could say to make this a little simpler to digest that content, should not be looked as just content, but more like contribution. And they in turn would be measured (if that is even necessary) for the network effect they can generate.

So for example... if you make a post about.

Bergs or Dogs?

And you get 200 comments, people chatting in the comments, laughs, memes, resteems, etc.

That contribution has more social value, than the new shakespeare showing off his skills to an absent audience.

This might anger some people, but that is what the word "social" is meant to symbolize when we are talking about social media.