That makes sense. I missed the description the first time around.
I autovote, but I also check out all the posts I autovote and remove the ones that are undeserving. I also constantly adjust it.
I think people who do this should pledge to 'give away' 25% ~ 50% of votes to random people with decent content. I upvote a lot of people in #powerhousecreatives which is the curation group I'm part of. Let others be the judge and I'm not talking about voting the people who dance for you.
My stake is relatively small and I do trail vote a few large curation accounts as well. I can't manually curate and I think decent curators should have a % of my stake to dole out (I check a lot).
I'm trying to improve. The bigger guys should too. I guess it's better than circle voting.
I added the caption to make it less confusing after your first comment.
No need to justify what you do - this is a problem of the guys who could make a real difference setting a bad example. Still good that you put in some manual work of course ;)
I think we need to justify what we do.
Everyone should reflect on their actions monthly or weekly and justify what they do at least to themselves if not in a comment or post.
It doesn't matter how big accounts are, everyone should be accountable. I guess we should focus on trying to get the bigger guys to improve first, then work our way down. By the time you learn to set up autovotes, and figure out how to game curation, etc. I would say the Steem honeymoon is over and it's time to be better.