So you are saying some authors are duplicating their posts and tricking Blurtbooster?
If so, this is just one more reason Blurtbooster should be stopped. All it is, is Blurt Universal Basic Income, a terrible form of curation that encourages low-quality posts and abuse of the reward pool.
I must note, there are so many garbage posts on this platform, thanks to Blurtbooster. People take a photo of a plant they see outside, and boom, it's another $2 post. I spend about 6 to 8 hours per post writing for Blurt, including research, image or video creation, writing, and editing. It does not come from another platform, it is created for Blurt. I am one of Blurt's highest-paid creators, making about $6 per post currently, even though I only have 122 followers.
This post of yours already has a higher value than any of my posts on Blurt ever. Congratulations!
Didn't you forget another high power bot and the upvu case in your reasoning? Fortunately these 2 bots stopped voting them (great reactivity) and blurtbooster even went to withdraw his votes in the last 7 days, thus losing part of his reward (not to mention the fees).
The biggest problem with voting bots besides being generally basic is that they usually don't have a voting limit. Personally, I am in favor of voting bots only when it's a complement (as limited to 5% / 10% of automatic votes not to have vote power to 100% during hours and the rest in manual) and on the principle of the whitelist only.
Someone able to make daily posts of 2500 words minimum doesn't exist, especially when it's not lifestyle (with personal content) and there again you have to have a very busy life, but in this case doesn't leave time for writing posts. As you said, to make a good post, it takes 6 to 8 hours and usually you get a thousand words maximum.
Reasoning? I asked you a question.... (which you didn't answer.)
I guess there is some language barrier here. I wish I could speak your 1st language, but unfortunately I'm only fluent in English. We have to do our best.
I disagree with you that the biggest problem with voting bots is their lack of voting limit. ANY automatic voting is terrible curation, it doesn't matter if it's 1% of 100%. Automatic voting is the opposite of good curation.
The reasoning is because you only stopped at blurtbooster, but there are other bots and manual curation groups that were also tricked. As for the answer, I think my post is clear on the topic of duplicate content and cheating. Or perhaps, I didn't understand the question?
Oh, yes... I wasn't trying to be complete with my statement, just to point out how horrible Blurtbooster is. It's true there are other automatic bot curation accounts, you're quite right. I wouldn't know how to name them all. Upvu is one of the worst because people like "Offgridlife" buy huge votes and get their spammy garbage posts on Trending that way.
Yes, it appears you misunderstood my question: "So you are saying some authors are duplicating their posts and tricking Blurtbooster?"
I was asking for clarification, because the wording on your post made little sense to me. I find it quite hard to understand your point. Put another way: "Do you mean that certain Blurt users are duplicating their posts to trick Blurtbooster?"
Or: "Is the problem you are point out, that Blurtbooster is being fooled into voting twice on the same content?"
Hopefully my question is clear now. If not, don't worry about it, thanks.
It's a group of people (I think they either know each other or at least are in contact) and their posts are only about 2 themes, black and white photos or flowers. Each of their post is translated in 5 or 6 languages and contains 90% of generalities (example: history of photography, how to take black and white photography...)
What they do
They take the text of their old post that is between 5 and 8 days old (it depends on how many unique posts they have), they change the order of the translation (for example if Spanish was before English, they put it after in the new post), add a beginning text and new photos.
Doing text comparison requires a lot of processor resources (especially when the order is different) and a dedicated analysis database (blockchain queries being too time consuming) that's why bots are easily fooled.
Thanks for the info. Generally what I do when I encounter those accounts is mute (ignore) them so I never have to see them again, and won't ever be tricked into giving them a vote.
free market economics
free market economics