what parameter do we use to define good quality content anyway? As far I know most of the cases are about how close you are with big fishes, the rest are more like a randomized one.
It does not mean there isn't any good ones, but those can not be defined without subjectivity and personal preference.
I think for this platform good quality content is determined in large part by community engagement. If a lot of people are engaging in the comments it's quality, yes?
then for a big one who love to upvote their commentators, smaller fishes will come there to comments for getting votes and the posts become better quality? Bigger holders will be able to make better quality contents than new ones, because this perspective saying that to one of the way to increase quality of the post is by holding bigger HP and upvoting people who come commenting the post.
everything has their own pros and cons.
I think a good parameter for quality content would be engagement. Which is better content?
5000-word, well-researched and detailed post about whatever subject with 4 comments and no reblogs
vs
50-word paragraph that is controversial with 50 comments and 6 reblogs.
Surely the 50-word post is better content because of the engagement and its having more direct connections with users.
I used to write very detailed posts about silver stacking but in 2017/18 and one day I had no time, so I wrote 1 line "Here is today's Silver Post" and added a single picture of a silver-coloured pole. It got 3x as many comments and about 4x my post payout.
I dont know, maybe im talking out my 🫏hole