I have no concept of excessive. It's whatever the market says it's worth. If a post gets $100,000 and it's just a piece of art work which looks like paint thrown on a canvas then that is what the community views the value of that art at that time.
The question is whether or not it's ethical to interfere with the market in this instance? I don't think it's ethical to interfere. I don't understand why people are obsessed with Sneakers or with Pokemon Go but I do understand people value it a lot and would probably vote these topics up a lot. I wouldn't vote it down just because I don't want some other person to make money and I don't understand the attitude of blocking others from making "too much money".
To the girl with the makeup tutorial, I'm happy for her. Same for the African guy who made enough money to get out of poverty. These are success stories of the Steem platform and do more to market Steem than anything else.
Yeah, you are right! is sth is receiving value, then it means that the community deems it as valuable! good point! :))
Take a look at this video:
She is one of the most successful Youtubers alive today. Most male nerds probably will not understand how or why she gets millions of views and is a millionaire from just Youtube. If she posted here she'd probably be trending daily and people wouldn't understand why.
But the insight is, maybe it doesn't or shouldn't matter to us why someone is trending other than a lot of people like them or what they do? She is the kind of superstar poster who would bring Steemit to mainstream audiences.
That's the thing, though, your vote is only one out of many, and you help to determine what the market will bear in this regard. Don't like sneakers and Pokemon Go you should indicate this with your voice. Just my opinion.
I do, by indicating what I like more than Pokemon Go and Sneakers. This way the people who like Sneakers and Pokemon Go don't have their voices suppressed by my disagreement on the value of their preferences.