You wrote in a comment above that this is a separate, non-personal account, something like a curation job. I can’t imagine myself in such a role, so I will slightly change the initial conditions, again hypothetically. I’m not sure if this is appropriate, I suspect I understand why you made this post, but still, I want to respond.
Hypothetical conditions — curation from my personal account, no need to pay anyone for HP. The voice strength from 500k HP is 100%, at the current price of HIVE (0.35 USD), this would be about 7.5 USD. A 100% vote will not cause a significant imbalance in the voting.
- Manual curation, without automated voting.
- Depending on the quality, I think the voice strength would range from 50 to 100% (10-20 votes a day), considering that not every text I read would get a vote, so 10-20 votes a day would be more than enough.
- For me, quality means that when I read, my brain starts working at higher speeds, meaning there’s a thinking process. You’re not just consuming; you’re asking questions and seeking answers for yourself, rather than consuming ready-made answers. I don’t care about the visual aspect, pretty pictures, infographics, etc. I think a picture should be included when it’s essential to the meaning, or it increases the value, but articles filled with pictures just for the sake of pictures can sometimes be irritating (we're talking about quality, and it’s subjective, just my opinion).
- A rational decision would be to split the votes about 50/50 between new authors and those who have been around for a while. For example, the morning voting could start with the latest published posts in the blockchain, and the evening voting could be from the subscription or community feeds, something like that.
- In most cases, I wouldn’t vote for mediocre articles that have gathered a certain amount of votes for them. At the moment, I can’t name a maximum threshold after which I wouldn’t vote. Exceptions might only be those texts that blow your mind, make you rethink certain things, or make you think about things you hadn’t noticed before; it’s hard to explain, but I’ve come across such articles.
- Sometimes, there are truly good comments that contain more substantial information than the article itself, like your article. And for this case, there should also be a reserve vote, but it shouldn’t be 100% or even 50%, it should be less, but as a rule — and every rule has exceptions.
- The significant weight of the vote is also a tool to help develop content in a certain direction. I like articles about sociology, and voting would contribute to the creation of more content in that area. So, this can and should be used as a tool to develop communities.
Well, these are the ideal conditions I described, but in practice, there will naturally be nuances, such as lack of time, and voting without fully reading the text because you need to vote so the vote doesn’t expire. Lack of time will adjust the voting, for example, towards authors you’re subscribed to or those with whom you have good connections.