Steemit and Content that "Adds Value:" What it IS, and Why it MATTERS

For the last couple of weeks, I have been experimenting a bit with the types of content I have been posting.

The Many Content Creation Possibilities We Have!

As part of this, I have temporarily stepped away from my typical modus operandum of just posting "long form" article style and personal essay posts. I happen to be a life-long writer and blogger, but not everyone is.

Among other things, I have tested out the zappl.com front end-- which is a bit like a Steemit version of twitter, designed for microblogging; then I tested out @jesta's chainBB front end which brings to mind old style message board communities from the late 1990s-- always enjoyed those. 

On a different tack, I tried a couple of new approaches to my own posting, including being part of one of the many "challenges" around here (the seven day black-and-white photo challenge), putting up an item for sale as part of the new @steembay economic initiative and lastly starting an "engagement initiative" of my own-- the "Daily Discussion" series-- in hope of doing my part of bring up the otherwise declining stats for "number of comments per post." You can find more on that by following the dedicated #dailydiscussion tag.

That last project happens to be a personal soapbox issue for me... I believe engagement and interaction is essential to the growth of any social content platform, so I decided I needed to "put my money where my mouth is," metaphorically speaking, and take steps to encourage interaction.

Does "Adding Value" to Steemit Actually MATTER?

As I started playing around with these different post formats and monitoring how people interacted with them, I got to thinking about a debate that was actively doing the rounds, not long after I joined Steemit back in late January of this year.

Back then, people were talking about "Quality Content" and whether people's content "added value" to Steemit, and whether "adding value" even was important.

I don't recall there being any firm conclusions drawn, but there were definitely different camps on the subject of what constitutes "value." 

And now I'm considering that question, again... especially in view of the current debates over whether the proliferation of paid upvote bots are resulting in content "of little value" being upvoted and featured when it really doesn't deserve to be.

But let's take a look at "value."

Traditional Blogging and Online Publishing and Value

In many people's minds, the idea of quality content and adding value to a web venue suggests article-length blog posts with original writing and illustration, often well researched and properly cited.

Subject matter and format might not be so important... recipes can be just as valuable as reports from a conference, or someone's travel journal.

In a broad sense, the common thread is that we can look at the content and ascertain that it's original to the person who created it, and they clearly "put some effort" into it.

I'm going to shove "post length" into the background for a minute-- as there is lots of very "wordy" web content that that's little more than a jumble of words, and lots of 250-word essays that make strong but concise reading.

Short Posts-- Done Right-- Add Value

It could easily be argued that the 40-50 words you can cram into a @zappl post doesn't really add much "value" in terms of content. 

On the other hand, the half dozen+ zappl posts I've tossed into the mix this past week have received 21, 39, 21, 22, 21, 62(!) and 37 comments respectively (compared to a sitewide average of 2.2 comments per post), so clearly they were capable of moving people to engage with the content.

And yet, they were just a few words long-- and by no means a typical 800 word essay with six photos. 

But I would venture that they added "value."

So this leaves the open-ended question of whether it is purely the "content" that adds value in a free standing sense, or does the ability to stimulate interaction add value, as well?

Let us remember that Steemit is a social content site... and "social" suggests some kind of interaction and engagement.

Contests, Challenges and Initiatives... and Adding Value

We have lots of challenges and contests on Steemit... and here we could also question whether they generate content that adds "value."

I was personally part of a black-and-white photo challenge-- it was pretty simple and added pretty repetitive content over a period of seven days. The posts did enjoy SOME interaction, but we could question whether the actual CONTENT adds value to Steemit. Maybe? Maybe not? My own experience was a much lower level of interaction... perhaps because the creativity is "guided," rather than original.

Of course, there are many contests-- poetry contests, fiction writing contests, photo contests, art contests and more. 

But again, where is the actual value in contests and challenges?

Once again, I think we need to look at the overall impact, not just whether the top level posts are of worthy quality.

A challenge (photo, or otherwise) is often a way to inspire users who might otherwise be at a bit of a loss as to what to contribute to get involved with the community. And surely, that has "value," even if it's in a different way from an encyclopedic 3000-word article like one of my favorite Steemians @teamsteem regularly puts together.

Ultimately, it seems to me like "value" is rather intangible, and certainly dependent on how people use and perceive the platform.

Content "Created for Upvotes" and Value

Now, let's touch back on one of the primary current debates and controversies for a bit... many are concerned that the proliferation of automated paid upvote services will mean that too many "garbage posts" end up getting rewarded, while content that truly adds "value" get lost in the mix. Which is what got me inspired to have a deeper look at the concept of what "value" might actually BE.

Of course, this is where we get into sticky territory. 

Google, Value... and Why We Should Pay Attention

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, before there was Steemit... there were lots of content sites, and then there was Google-- taking it upon themselves decide that "content mills" and "spun content" was garbage and should be buried in organic search results because they did not really contribute to a positive user experience. 

Some of you may remember the days when a Google search for something-- let's say "bananas"-- mostly yielded a long list of sites that had links to search results about bananas, but no actual INFORMATION about bananas. Whether we like Google or not, they determined that sort of thing was crap basically designed to earn a few fractions of cents by serving visitors some advertising and perhaps hijacking their browser to install some malware.

I remember watching far too many videos with Matt Cutts (formerly head of Google's anti-spam division) explaining the latest counter spam initiatives designed to negate the efforts of the "Black Hat" SEO purveyors.

What's My Point?

If we pretty universally agreed such web sites (aka "content") were crap elsewhere, then just how different are posts on Steemit mostly created by someone for little other purpose than to launch a bunch of paid upvote services to add rewards?

For me, that becomes a question of "Would I enjoy reading this content if it just happened to be on my friend Bob's web site?" 

If I can't sincerely answer "yes" to that, then I can't sincerely declare that it "adds value" to the community. So if we can then ascertain that it doesn't add "value" then I would say that it's a REAL PROBLEM if a lot of such content is being boosted by purchased upvotes because it represents a false reflections of what quality looks like.

This, of course, assumes that we care about the whole question of "adding value." Assuming also that "value" isn't necessarily limited to encyclopedic essays, but also includes generally ENGAGING discussion and debate.

Value: Because we DO Want a Future Here!

To conclude this exploration of Steemit and value, I want to step away from our little home and just look at consumer behavior in marketing.

Why do we buy things? Why are we attracted to them? Why do we go eat at a restaurant that looks clean and appetizing, but not at one that looks like a home for rodents and roaches?

In general, because we perceive we are going to get something of value to us.

On a longer term scale, that's also why "Frank's World Class Hamburgers" is likely to still be in business 10 years from now, but the roach infested pit will not.

What does that mean in a Steemit context?

Our future and growth (and world domination!!!!) depends on people looking at our community getting an impression and making that split second decision of whether to explore further... or back out. And if those people just find an ocean of valueless memes, plagiarized web articles and other spam... they are NOT going to become new members. What's the implication? There'll be nothing to drive the community forward. Which means the value of Steem is more likely to go down than up.

And unless you're particularly masochistic, my guess is you'd rather enter the year 2023 with $80 Steem, than with 8-cent Steem.

That last bit is just a guess, mind you...

A Few Words of Thanks...

I don't usually do this, but in fairness, these are not all my thoughts... this post owes its existence to a number of people who have shared their thoughts on "value" in the time I have been here. To @joseph, @donkeypong and @kyriacos who were very active voices in some of the first discussions I read here, back in February; to @personz, this is one of several posts I "promised" I would write; to @stellabelle who's always crusading for a better Steemit; to @bex-dk who also has explored this area at length; to @lukestokes for reminding us all to "check our expectations;" and to a new friend and @curie curator @carlgnash who truly understands the value of value. So thanks for the inspiration!

To Discuss! Let us examine "value." Do YOU think value matters? Given that most sites that ignore the importance of providing value and quality shut down should we be more concerned about the caliber of content we put before people? Or should we just take the "Facebook approach" and say "everything goes?" Keeping in mind, of course, that Facebook regularly closes the accounts of spammers and "controversial" people. Leave a comment-- share your experiences-- be part of the conversation!

(As usual, all text and images by the author, unless otherwise credited. This is original content, created expressly for Steemit)
Created at 171207 17:13 PDT