I'm not really sure that UA is an improvement on reputation.
I don't really see why number and value of followers is a better metric than upvotes.
A follow is not an endorsement and happens once while votes are a constant measure of posting good content.
It seems to me it just depends on how many whales you have following you rather than how much people have voted for you.
Maybe I'm biased because my ranking on UA around 49,000 while on Reputation it is around 29,000. However I haven't used bots to boost my reputation at all and post lots of quality content.
Valid concerns @asphamilton - I came to the conclusion a few months ago that we are idealistically a platform of content, but realistically a platform of socio-network-economy - This means that the value of a user is not measured so much in their shakespearean per say (im being silly to make a point) but in the amount of interaction, their ability to network in simpler terms.
This is what this algorithm is trying to measure. Now, it could very well be that a user is the best content creator in the world, but that he or she is singing to an empty audience. This could be a bad thing, at least idealistically so, but It's also part of the human dynamics.
After all there are countless of extremely talented musicians (for example) singing in bars to audiences comprised of a little more than a bar tender.
But, your point is well taken.
I think my main concern is that Steem was designed so that votes could be bought and sold and voting power (SP) bought sold and delegated. The same is not true for follows so its problematic to use it as a measure. More open to being gamed in a way not in keeping with the economic model of Steem.
Because there conversation seems to be revolving on this possibility, I'm sure its being tackled as we type these comments. today's steem-ua is not it's final revision, it's a work in progress, but the main goal, at least to me, is to rework incentives.
In that department its already working.