RE: Steem Improvement: A GENEROSITY Rank Algorithm - A Method of Increasing Post Quality That Promotes A Reduction of Rewards Pool Exploitation.
Well, we could try to communicate in Latin, but it's been a long time since I was conversational in the language and I suspect that given that I was trained in Cicerean Latin, I probably couldn't even get by in the Vatican, so you've got the advantage of me in at least two places.
The cost involved in finding content you're interested in is a lot more than the difference between a vote you could offer to something at random and something that supports a creator and creation that you like.
You are absolutely correct that votes are not equal. But we are not actually talking about the value of your votes, because you know what you've voted for. You know who you've voted for. Contrary to the original poster, I don't see much value in applying a Generosity Index to myself; I act to pursue my best interests in every context that I can. My votes have been to things that I enjoy. If those votes go to a small circle or a broad circle, it makes no difference – I've rewarded things that I want.
See, you're applying your personal metric to trying to valuate someone else's vote, and that's just essentially wrong. It's wrong not because it's morally wrong, although I would say that it contradicts some of the very few moral guidance axioms that I possess, but it's wrong because it's not useful. It ignores content. It ignores the one thing that the vote is supposed to signify.
Your problem is that you want better mechanisms for discovery, and I would completely support the idea that we need far better mechanisms to find content – not creators – that we, individually, will find worth rewarding. Discovery is the most broken part of Steemit, without question. You don't actually care about how much someone votes, or how much someone gets rewarded, you care about finding content that you're interested in. Your assumption is that content that someone else finds outside their usual circles is somehow more valuable, but there's no reason to make that assumption. It's essentially invalid.
Just because something was harder to find for someone else doesn't mean that it's inherently better. It just means that they got lucky, or applied tools that you don't have access to.
Always look at your assumptions. If you don't, you end up making judgments which do not result in desirable outcomes.
An example: if I say that my father it's marvellous, you have one type of information ("one vote" for my father), probably it's at least a good father. But if a complete stranger says that my father it's marvellous (same "one vote" for my father), you have a bigger information, probably it's really marvellous. Last, if my father says that he is marvellous, you have almost no information.
Now with Steem Power in real word, from a whale.
If Bill Gates says that he is marvellous, we have little information. But if Bill Gates says that my father it's marvellous, well, this became very interesting, a lot of people may ask to know more about my father.