Curation strategy depends on the size of your account.

Jerry's findings suit his account, at 93,000 SP.  This will not suit an account at 1-2000 SP.  A smaller account will be swamped by larger votes and get little/0 % of the pie.

After Steemfest I will get stuck into proving this :)

Cute Cat Cubs...
Vote Please....
https://steemit.com/cat/@akhterhossain/animals-photograph
https://i.imgur.com/DuKyq34.jpg

<p>This wonderful post has received a bellyrub 15.37 % upvote from @bellyrub.</p>

<p>This post has received a 9.85 % upvote from @buildawhale thanks to: @lexiconical.
Send at least 1 SBD to @buildawhale with a post link in the memo field for a portion of the next vote.</p>

<center>https://steemitimages.com/DQmc5t6D8mQqFtQDK4yfhuLhQs7zTVJnnktcJEn4Mm2ArBu/baw_I-smallsize.gif</center>


<p>To support our daily curation initiative, please vote on my owner, @themarkymark, as a <a href="https://steemit.com/witness-category/@themarkymark/witness-themarkymark">Steem Witness</a></p>

I agree completely. Curation right now is complete BS.  Using an autovoter to upvote whale content is currently the best "strategy"...

Curation should be about finding great unique content and not just be an award for upvoting whales.  Steemit is enough of a pyramid as is.

Amazing idea, I hope to see this positive evolution for the whole community

Your Post is awesome, Thnx for sharing :)

Wow. Thanks for the insight! I'm relatively new here and still learning but thought I'd leave you a god ol' fashioned *manual* upvote and comment :) Thanks for the good read!

Thank you for the contribution. It has been approved.

[utopian-moderator]

This is a very interesting train of thought! However, I would bring a different argument into this discussion: if we would want to keep Steemit accessible for new or noob users, things must be as simple as possible. Too many options might be confusing, certainly at the start.

However, unlocking these tools (as one unlocks the vote slider) would be awesome I think.

" Authors who wish to share more of their rewards to encourage curators and followers would be better able to complete with the popular top authors routinely in trending by sharing more of their own rewards."

I am not so sure about this. If top authors also have the option to give 100% curation rewards to curators, they will only gain more advantage. Even if those top authors are kind hearted and want to "give back to their followers", they will unknowingly gain more advantage over smaller authors. Unless after a certain amount of SP authors dont have to option to choose the curation/author rewards.

However as @fitzgibbon says, this adds more to the complexity.

"This would also go a long way in giving authors options for dealing with auto-voting readers and lack of engagement."

I don't see why the engagement would go up as curation rewards go up for auto voters, wouldn't it mean that they are gonna follow you more just to auto vote?

That is an elegant solution to this problem. 

<hr>

But, no matter what, curation is always going to be played using game theory.   But I think that is a good thing.  It gets many people engaged ... trying to "beat the system" which, at the same time, strengthens the system.

I am not sure that this is the final answer - as you say, a stopgap - but I think it is definitely worth exploring.

People that may object - some big well established posters who rake in large author rewards with limited to no interaction beyond hitting the post button - these people might, perhaps rightly, argue that they have spent the time building up their following and they will be penalized by this, in terms of being made to look selfish for merely maintaining the status quo.

But for the long- term future of the site it, or something similar to it, would seem to make sense

Cheers

It will be a nice idea. Of course, always from outside there will always be good ideas all the time. It depends on how they will be seen by stuff.

I read @snowflake 's post too. Yes it could be a start for the smaller people to have more motivation.

**However for me**, if i see a post i will write on it anyway if i have something to say, even if is not that way. But, some balance is needed again. And for sure will be more steps do be done in the future too. That's how things works from the beginning. With great ideas comes also great service and content. Let's hope here will be the same.

**For what you propose**, it could also be a box to let the viewers know that thing. For the good minnows auth / curators will be also a good thing.

I tried to simulate here:

![ilvstranger-suggestion-2017-11-03_234850_cr.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmbWaFFRegTBrwmNeoWyNaiBxMBX7RH3YGphrJCGPdyenV/ilvstranger-suggestion-2017-11-03_234850_cr.jpg)

Also, it is a big problem with new good content that is not viewed. Eh, is another topic...

I think the curation reward should be visiable, so that people would know what they'll be getting if they'll vote on said post. This lack of transparency is really problematic for those who can't read code.
Also allowing the author to adjust the curation reward is a great idea, a lot of people vote in the beginning 30 minutes of my posts, thus giving me most their vote weight, I'd like to change that only the first 5 minutes actually contribute to my reward, and after that 25% goes to the curation reward reguraly. 
I don't want people to be disincentivized from voting on my posts.

I like it, but, man, would it create a shake-up in the Steem universe.

When competing content creators are handing out 75% of their rewards and putting out comparable quality to those top-earners, what do you think is going to happen?  No matter how they choose to respond, the top-earners are very likely to take a pay cut.

I agree with you, lets make the change  already :   ) 
This place has provided me with a much needed reality check regarding human behavior. 
So much of it seems short sighted and self defeating.

Great post..

This is a great idea. I love the fact that people are thinking of the current system and what can be done to improve it. It is definitely flawed as is. If this was implemented it is something that would really make a difference I think

The dog piling to me is a disappointing side effect of the current curation system... of course we all want to make some income here, but i would like to believe people want to actually listen to the songs I  wanna share or the thoughts I have to express than just... lets click on this dude, this is the way i get some money...

Its like i would like both, but not in the order they are happening... I started to not upvote content unless I read and engage, because I'm like this person who I appreciate in one way or another put his work into this post. I owe him the respect to read him, its not about my curation money... if i get curation money cuz some whale comes in here for example and blesses Lexi with a super vote... Fantastic! thats great for Lexi, cuz his posts deserve to be succesful and great for me because I was "lucky" key operational word there to have found the post early.

I may be a little to idealistic and half way rambling here, but hey...  its just my two .02 steems

<center>Qurator</center> | <center>Your Quality Content Curator</center>
-|-|
![](https://steemitimages.com/DQmNzJZFNXnViq9Ebmccf3rLi7kiYrcHFnFqeKK7QnWYtRs/COMMENT.png) | This post has been upvoted and given the stamp of authenticity by @qurator. To join the quality content creators and receive daily upvotes click [here](https://steemit.com/qurator/@qurator/qurator-update-cheaper-tier-access-and-increased-registration-fee) for more info. <center><sup>Qurator is proudly  supported by @reggaemuffin, vote for him as a witness [here](https://steemit.com/witness-category/@reggaemuffin/witness-reggaemuffin).</sup></center>

I like your post

https://image.ibb.co/irRVsb/30_Day.png
@originalworks

I just authored a post about this a few days earlier. My thoughts are similar in that the "Author" should be able to select the "algorithm" of their choosing. This prevents the proliferation of 'Auto-voting" and levels the field for a true consensus towards voting on "Good Content."  Voting at post+1 minute or post+6 days should be equally favorable to the voter, with the goal of identifying quality versus money. A sort of a blind draw if you will.