It's a small issue for those who are accustomed to check for sources, but can be a nuisance either way. Due to repetitive exercises of trial and error, sometimes, it can be a longer task than usual. The importance to cite your work and provide examples will make the difference between a post that just claims and nothing else.
Example:
Throughout this publication, it cited well enough, in words where it got it's studies, but it would be nice and courteous to its readers to provide a link to it. Otherwise its saying "just take my word for it. Its there" rather than, "here's my word and here is the evidence to support my word". It adds merit.
Not that it's much work to go to a web search and type it in to see if it's true, but it saves the serious investigator crucial time to access the information. If more pick up that simple small habit of collecting the goods and organizing it the best you can, will go a long ways in the positive direction for everyone who is interested to find out more. This way the detective can solve his curiosity quicker and efficiently and move forward.
From top to bottom NHL didn't cite anything (properly, imo). So what studies then?
I am not going to get into it because that isn't the point of this post.
The NHL publication, taken at face value, in my own eyes, appears as though its just hearsay and well, that isn't good enough. It's probably true of what it claims, and if one goes deeper one could see if that were true or not. But the lack of links to the claims can dissuade away the serious reader.
It is very well known that a great majority of people don't even research their own material as is, and not leaving a direction to go to will inevitably leave to a misguided audience. Lets not add action to the idea of leading sheep off the cliff, ok?
Take a stroll throughout any so called "informative post" in this Blurt Blog platform and tell me what you see. I see a bunch quite a few leading in poor example and receiving plenty of votes (usually because of delegation to bidbot accounts). It sets an image that isn't so eye appealing to serioud investors.
As a stake holder and bloggers alike who take this for a serious way to gain income, it's appalling to see poor shit posts gaining the lead. Is this going to continue in a grander scale?
Try harder folks, it will be worth it. If the value of this coin comes from within, we best do our part and vote accordingly.
In my opinion, i find it to be a better idea to carefully select organically than use bid bots. Or have these bid bots only vote users content that pass a minimum requirement at minimum strength, then come back through and vote organically or gift liquid blurt, if found to be a greater quality post. I think this way we will see an increase in vote strength on smaller accounts, when the pool isn't being drained on nonsense.
I won't feel sorry for those who post nothing but links either when they recieve no votes as a result.
Let us know what you think. I am only trying to give a small advice on a small issue that could possibly make a greater difference on the long run and to prevent our pool from being drained to freeloaders who will only just take advantage of getting more for less work while the rest who do work more and get less.
Cheers.
If you are one of these harder at work and getting less for it, raise your voice here in the comments below. Maybe we can help you get more noticed.
Very true, but after nearly six years on blockchains I have to say quality has very little to do with support... tame puppets owned by the insiders get the best rewards, and nobody checks anything, here or anywhere else.
I'm nobody