These are important considerations and I remember you did a similar post a while back. If Steemit isn't able to bring in new people and retain them then it isn't going to succeed in the long term.
I think I have a suggestion that might help but would probably also be unpopular. It seems to me that too many posts are being made and too few people are actually voting and commenting. Votes and comments (even from those that have tiny SP) still help to promote content and bring it to the top of the pile.
One solution to improve things would be to prevent people from posting until they have done a minimum amount of upvoting and commenting. It's not a perfect solution. People could just randomly vote and use comment spam but even if only some of the people do things properly it could improve things a whole lot.
I also think the 4 post limit is probably a bit too high and this kind of restriction on posting would help with that too. The problem right now is that there is just so much new content it is impossible to keep up.
I have noticed that their are some big money posters who have started churning out multiple posts per day. This on the surface is understandable but in some senses makes the visibility problem worse for newer creators.
These writers are often on botlists - so their posts automatically get upvoted and start trending. Unfortunately this removes a chance for newer posters to get noticed and make some money on their posts too.
I personally don't see any reason why anyone should be posting more than once a day but that is my opinion I'm sure those doing it would disagree.
My point of view is that we all have some degree of community responsibility in this platform and if we act in too mercenary a way we will kill the proverbial golden goose.
Another unpopular solution might be to limit the rewards for a single post. This would help with fairer distribution of awards but again would be a matter of contoversy and most people would be against it.
Finally another thing I have been considering is the impact of the feeds feature. Since it has been implemented I have been having a lot of trouble keeping up just with the people I follow. It has severely impacted my viewing of new posts and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
I know @dan and @ned would not even dare consider doing this but I think it might actually be of benefit to the platform to remove that feature. It would level the playing field a bit more.
Another idea to help with this which has been discussed before is to anonymise the name of posters for the first few hours a post is out. Again I doubt this will ever be tried but it could help to flatten any advantages that older users have against new ones.
Anyway these are some of my thoughts on the matter.
Hmmm.... being able to post a top level blog post only if you have up voted posts, comments, etc. Not a bad idea.
EDIT: I am not for limiting how much someone can make, simply because I am anti other people deciding what is "fair" and setting caps. It is too subjective.
Yes I think that would be controversial and most people would be against it.
Good ideas!
Thank you:)
I kind of like the idea of anonymizing poster names for the first hour or so. That would force people to actually read the content before voting.