scroll to bottom for TLDR
Wow, YES, thank you, exactly! I just joined Steemit recently with high expectations...so it's not surprising to be disappointed, but I think there's still incredible (maybe unprecedented since youtube) potential for this platform to really procure the best original content online. But as of now, thoughtless, lazy, subpart and simply pointless posts are on top, CONSISTENTLY.

But, the potential is still there and can be realized, because the basic idea of steemit HAS succeeded in getting the right attention from content creators. So the potential comes from the people who actually have remarkable skill, insight, or vision, AND the people who loved the concept of steemit and were dedicated to supporting it. So yea, it's awesome to see when these people get recognized--sincere thanks to curie.

I think some of the higher-ups are MISTAKEN when they assume people leave because they are DISCOURAGED that their content isn't upvoted--I mean, yea I'm sure that is the case with some--but I think more than that, when users see undeserving content consistently make it up there, they lose faith in the system and reevaluate whether steemit will be the one to execute the idea properly and go critical.

The solution is obvious, because the whole thing is pretty simple (just look at how quickly and how many people have identified the same specific issue). At the most fundamental level, the problem is the misallocation of resources, which, due to visibility of upvotes/$, is instantly evident to the talent who come for those resources. The reason this misallocation is possible, is because there's no cost for upvoting. So why wouldn't you upvote a friendly's post--let's say, of his cat doing something he thinks is funny but it's really really not--when there's no cost, and it'll make them feel good! I mean, you'd have to be an asshole NOT to. The problem is, it's not the same as laughing at your buddy's bad joke, because no one else is competing for your free laughs.

A large part of a user's post visibility is due to their network. So when you have a user with a large network, and there is no cost to upvoting, even a small percentage of friendly--and really, just rational self-interested people that understand that more upvotes given to their network will be reciprocated eventually--WILL INEVITABLY introduces HUGE DISTORTIONS when attempting to determine value. I mean, if you ran a high quality sushi place or steakhouse, you couldn't expect even your best friends to blow $1000 a week with you, EVEN IF you were offering the undisputed best for miles around (unless your restaurant also happens to offer the finest hookers and blow). There's a reason REAL capitalism is by far the most efficient system available for the purpose of directing resources into the most productive hands.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who can glance at a post's quality, upvotes, and then the author's network size, and very quickly work out where this is headed. So I do believe this issue is actually crucial in determining whether steemit will live up to its potential and needs to be handled ASAP--before awareness reaches the point when "slower-adopters" start asking their early-adopter friends whether steemit is just hype. It could be happening now, as I wouldn't really consider myself an early-adopter.

TLDR:

1. there cannot be ZERO cost for upvotes; there will be no effective and true measure of value; and eventually there will be no value offered by the system (no value greater than anything else that offers the same functions and has a larger/faster growing network), unless you had a 24/7/365 fully-staffed, well-compensated division doing nothing but going through and handpicking posts (value has to be added somewhere, it's not spontaneously generated from nothing). determining value requires the evaluation of costs/benefits versus alternatives. So...

NO COST -> NO VALUE -> NO POINT.

2. If curie's not an official steemit division, they should be, and also be given near the highest priority, until the network reaches the threshold (i mean, ideally it would be permanent since the best original content should always be the primary objective)

3. to offer the highest value to steemit, curie's highest priority (up there with gaining more influence within steemit, will probably have enough leverage soon) should be the identification of talent and the most effective distribution of incentives that results in retaining and attracting the best. I'd recommend stripping out or altering particular guideline submissions that are not geared towards that purpose. Also, the vetting process should establish criteria for identifying potentially outstanding contributors to follow up on (if not already in place), rather than solely focusing on only the submitted post. If a user is capable of producing a single post that displays the desired qualities, it's safe to assume they'll be able to produce at that level given sufficient incentives. Again, this is vital in the early stages when it's too easy for large networks to facilitate, and unfortunately incentivize, publishing bad content.

anyway, goodluck to you guys at curie, take pride in doing good work :)