For me it's a combination of many things. It's not just one set thing.
My breakdown goes as follows and depends on how much I vote percentage wise on the content I curate.
Is the article well written and over 300 words?
(This is a blogging platform so in order to half decently rank and get SEO traffic 300 words is the minimum easy check)Do they promote the content on their socials and how active are those socials. (This is one of my heaviest vote weights at the moment)
Does the article spark engagement and end with a question? (Simply ending a article asking a question that relates to the content is a great way to spark engagement on a post)
Does the person power up or cash out?
(If someone is simply cashing everything out they get a much lower vote from me. Those that power up some if not all get a higher vote from me as it shows me their dedication to the success of POB/Hive and that they are invested into the success of it)
The points that justify for you the quality of a content are very clear and relevant to the platform.
I really appreciate that, and I see that it is a technical form that is valid to be based on when evaluating content. I'm still new to the community, so my way of analyzing is simpler and more straightforward. Although, after a while, I intend to adopt rules that are as clear as yours when it comes to voting.
I, in particular, believe that good content should have personality, be consistent with the proposed topic for discussion, and that the publication not be unnecessarily extensive, because unless it is something that piques my interest, I will not read until the end.