Hello! I would like to give some attention to this post. Author is well-informed, has a comprehensive writing style and has the ability to write the article on M.Sc. student level that is still understandable for the general public.
From my perspective, I don't like the content in "science" tag because there are a lot of articles that are no science at all, articles that are just plain re-writing from some general newspapers and lot of text that are manual for high school (elementary school) classes.
For me, it's frustrating sometimes when some of my posts that were made directly from the scientific paper earn much less than some general post - but now, there is no way to fix it.
For example, my best-written Math post earned 0.37 $ while the best-paid math post got 37 $ although the first post was much more difficult to write.
If you focus on the amount of effort that a post took to write and try to make some correlation to post payout, Steem is going to be a frustration to you. This is not a blogging platform, it is a social media network. The amount of post payout depends almost entirely on the amount of time and effort the post author has put into engaging with other users in the social media network; making quality posts helps of course, but it is a MUCH smaller factor in this equation than the engagement with the social media network. The number one mistake I see people making when new on platform is to spend all their time and energy writing posts (and seeing very little reward for it) when time and energy spent reading and honestly/thoughtfully commenting on other poster's posting is more important to build up the network needed for success.
As far as the post you linked, I am reasonably sure it is plagiarized from a French language source but have not been able to prove that yet. You will note that all the images are French language and no source is given for the images. The language usage feels like auto-translated English version of a foreign language piece - there are some funny word choices that I don't think would have happened if this was just a poster who spoke English as a second language. Leaving aside the question of originality, a factual post like this needs to cite sources. Those images, which are definitely not the original work of the poster, need to be sourced. Sources need to be listed for the factual claims. I personally don't support science posting with upvotes if it does not meet this very minimal bar of citing sources for all material that is not the original work of the post author.
Problem is that people get frustrated too soon, with too little efforts.
My goal for the first month was - to buy myself a coffee (5-10 $)
And to write about the topics I like, cars and science.
It's a good fun for me and just the sharing of my regular daily curiosity.
At some point, I became a bit greedy, but I learned... It's ok now.
You are maybe right about my first young favorite.
But... I think we could have new, successful author.
And the nickname is nice @scienceangel
Oh yes totally understand what you are saying about frustration, and the main reason I shared that above is because I see this is a root cause of frustration - if you already have it in your head that your success is going to be less about the quality and time you put into your posting (at the beginning) and more about the time you put in networking, it helps to align the effort you are putting in with what will actually bring you reward down the road. The entire first few weeks or month is likely to be kind a slog if all you are doing is posting and are not spending at least as much time interacting and building the network. And the most valuable "reward" you can receive when you are starting out is the friendship and "follow" of an established user with higher stake - this means way more than a payout on a single post. Checking your submission now.
In future please link to a specific post and not a poster - it makes it easier to give more focused feedback. I enjoyed her last post and upvoted through my main account: https://steemit.com/health/@scienceangel/why-do-some-people-faint-after-having-their-blood-drawn
Clearly written and well cited. From the particular lens of Curie, this post doesn't really have any original thought and is more just a summary of the existing sources and literature on the topic - this is absolutely fine for a post in general, but to me I am not sure it meets the high bar of excellence I am looking for when submitting Curie posts. From the expanded guidelines: "Fact-based articles must be properly cited and with author’s personal take on them. Simply paraphrasing other sources without adding anything substantial does not qualify, even if properly cited."
You could argue that the author did add a short story RE her personal experience with this issue, and added a sentence of conclusion at the end. My personal opinion is this does not qualify as adding anything substantial to the information that was already in the sources.
Definitely a quality poster, I have added her to my Curie follow query.
Cheers - Carl