Slowwalker is a hugely influential South Korean whale. Kind of a Rev. Moon on steemit. Even if he posted one-word posts he would be voted by large parts of the Korean community. His post is maybe 5% about the content and 95% about the power of his name.
I've checked one other post by gooddream (no. 8) and I saw a vote from xeldal - this is a sign that votes were bought from smartmarket. So you didn't see "bidding bots" but that doesn't mean the votes are "natural" in this case but rather were paid for in a subtle, indirect manner.
That is to say that this list is basically not very useful, sorry!
The problem is if votes are bought from smartsteem with a memo link, he is able to track this (some slip up possible if a transaction is lost or not returned by a full node), but if votes were bought from credit, how should anyone know? Maybe I could exclude all votes from people who received any payout from a voting market within the last month ^^
I would recommend you direct your research toward importing into the @trufflepig analysis system some external theory of quality, possibly from the academic world.
Or maybe the Wikipedia framework could be adapted, why not? Steemit desperately needs a more sophisticated assessment framework, using the rewards is self-referential and ultimately self-consuming. The rewards should be a consequence of intrinsic quality (defined without resorting to rewards) and not the other way around. High rewards are NOT indicative of quality.
This is the most important update to be done to the @trufflepig algorithm. Bidding bots usage and other tricks are only the trees which distract us from noticing the forest