Very important distinction you've just made. Popularity VS Quality. I don't have a crystal ball to know which one would be the best moving forward. One thing that is for sure is that making money with curation as it is right now will be an arms race that only a privilege few will be able to engage in using bots and lots of Steem Power.
I have been observing my voting behavior and I have to say that they are emotional. If I like what someone created, I'll vote regardless of how many time I've voted during the day. I feel compelled to do it. So asking me to restrict myself from doing it is almost impossible.
If I were ask to rate "how much" I like it then it would always be relative to what else i've seen during the day.
Like I said, I don't know what the answer is but I don't like the fact that I have to "rush" to upvote an article before 20 bots jump on it. Also, it prevents newcomers who may have great content get buried by "the establishment" or the "inner circle".
You brought up some very interesting concerns. I think quality is more important than popularity, but I also realize that trying to implement quality control is pretty much futile. I've never seen any social media that isn't based entirely off popularity. In fact, even if you make the best platform that measures objective quality, ironically, it will just make your platform unpopular. Humans are inherently irrational creatures and there's nothing we can do about it.
Agree except that "objective quality" does not exist.
I'm also skeptical if it truly exists, which is why I used it hypothetically.
I agree, in many instances a quality author can produce quality content but fail to get it promoted to a level commensurate with the value it brings based upon the number of followers they have. Wherein some at the top become "vote whores" and post garbage to rake in some $$$$ as the dung beetles below them devour it. It's an interesting paradox really and takes dedication to the grind to build a following that will actually promote quality content.
@pawsdog