We have rules in place to look for literally underrewarded posts but if they have great content we still vote them a bit even if they have the usual maximizers frontrunning them cause we don't want authors who put a lot of effort into longform content to stop since the rest of the stakeholders stop voting certain posts cause they're already at $1 or to not feed the leeches more rewards. 

I'd also be interested in seeing more stats of our votes. 

>But the point is, that even the best post can be easily overlooked and often is.

I certainly don't disagree with that. I can't count how may times I've come across something amazing that managed to slip past numerous curators and is almost at payout. I'm glad that both ocd and curangel will still vote them with one day left to payout and I'm good to be in a position to raise some noise for them via the communities. Unfortunately, posts still slip past us, even with the best efforts. 

As for how many ocd upvote with <$1 reward, I can vouch that they do a LOT, although they aren't anywhere near that by the time ocd are done with them 😉, which could be why it feels like it doesn't happen much. I've just spent this week flooding ocd with posts around the $1 mark and under, with the joint HomeEdders contest. Just finished wrapping up, so apologies for my late reply. 

Why is it that just because of this post, OCD became the bad guy for not upvoting enough underdog posts? Do you know how many posts we have to scour every single day on Twitter posh curation alone? Currently at 150 damned posts. 153 to be exact as I curated supposed to be yesterday but I just recently finished because I got busy with real-life matters. If OCD had all the voting mana in the world, I would have recommended all those posts for varying degrees of upvotes. I felt even bad for decent posts that I skipped for simply not following the posh curation rules. I also made sure those posts that are recommended for upvote are really low that having a $9 pending payout is already skipped. That's just for posh alone.

Curating with Love Sniper for intro posts is another thing. We have to scour at least 50 posts per day and upvote those decent intro posts and most of those are <$1 and very overlooked. That's for love sniper ALONE.

I'm the one compiling for other niche communities curation support to encourage users to post in appropriate communities. Do you know how many curators and community leaders drop posts there for undervalued posts? At least 7 per day with an average of 10 posts for curation per day. That's for other communities.

Do you know how many communities are supported by OCD? More than 30. Do you know how many posts are dropped per community? 3 to 8 per day. Still not enough?

OCD Daily, posts promoted by curators pro bono, and intro posts dropped in discord, those are not even counted in the curation. Still not enough?

Now, why is that OCD is still a bad guy for overlooking some of the "best" posts? Can OCD upvote all those "best" posts in a day? No. That's why other curation initiatives exist. Still the bad guy, eh?

It's easy to say this post is over-rewarded because of the pending payout. What wasn't accounted was the hours of consultation, discussion, and editing of the post. What wasn't accounted was the reputation of the author. Not the number beside the username, but the years of engagement with other authors through bears and bulls of the market. What wasn't accounted was the potential help of this post to new authors, which is clearly shown in 99% of the comments. What wasn't accounted was the wisdom of different curators who are clearly beneficiaries of this post. All people see are the numbers in the pending rewards, not what's happening behind the scene. And then complain about how this post is over rewarded.

"Curators just upvote their circle of friends". Where's the proof? If that's the case, I wouldn't have recommended all those Venezuelans I had no interaction on chain. If that was true, I would have recommended Filipinos only. If that was true, my friends would have been rich in upvotes.

OCD has been heavily scrutinized and nitpicked when it has been very transparent in its actions. And if curators are upvoted, they're simply rewarded for their hard work. Or do you want curation work to be free, eh?

Did you really?

Are you trying to pretend you just run ocd out of philantropy? 

If I ask a friend to upvote my comment again, will you downvote it more? Or is that not a selfvote, then? 

Either way - the more I think about this, the more I disagree on all ocd votes, actually. I have little to lose here. I was just commenting on your reward pool - sponsored party.

Yeah I sensed a bit of sensationalism there.  The self vote didn't help matters.  Maybe do some big open transparent statistic post, describing what's happening.  *I dunno.*

I guess once people make up their minds like that they wouldn't believe it anyway.  These things always comes with flak though.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.