I don't know what you mean by that. There is no h1 tag in the URL.

Sorry, I'm partially referencing michelangelo3's comment. The "Title" that we use for our post is also used as the h1 tag, as well as to construct the page URL (unless the title is edited, h1 = page URL). So when the page URL is constructed, the community (or first) tag precedes the title which would be given slightly higher importance.

Yes, but doesn't the lower SEO of the main account then influence the SEO optimised account? Or is the link alone a criterion for a ranking increase?

I might find this difficult to articulate but I'll do my best 🙂 If done well, the 2 should compliment each other. If the main account says something along the lines of "I have written this article about Lego Set 14433 which details my experiences building the set, and how much I enjoyed playing with it, blah blah" and then links to Lego Set 14433 - Building and Play Experience then when Google looks at the refferer content and deeper content, it'll say "Yes, these are relevant to each other and I like this". Whereas if I dump Lego Set 14433 - Building and Play Experience at the end of a "Gareth Southgate depresses me" article, it will say "Huh? What's lego got to do with Gareth Southgate - this fool's link spamming, I don't like this".

In the first (honest) example, Google will like both accounts because they're acting honestly (of course, this is all algorithmic) whereas in the second (dishonest) example, at minimum, the linking account is penalised and depending upon domain usage, both accounts might be. Internal links would be weighted differently to external links - another example is if at the end of my "Lego building and play experience" article, I link to other relevant information (perhaps the set on Lego's website), Google would also like this (assuming that the post reaches $20 and the nofollow link is removed.

Overall, the consistency will also appease Google. The account "Lego-Builder" who always talks about Lego will always rank higher than a generic account like mine which talks about lots of things. Google will have more confidence that the results its displaying will be relevant to the search term.

So lots of factors required to make the idea work and ensure that Google doesn't see it as "This fella's trying to manipulate me" which Google's been working very hard to prevent and dislikes. Which is why their algorithm's always been so secretive - if people know their rules, they'll play the game.

Unless we define very early votes as autovotes.

This is what I was thinking. At the moment, we know that autovotes tend to happen after about 5 minutes and sooner for the biggest voting bot delegations. Of course, if the rules change, voting habits probably will too.

many people follow these bots

In the main, I'd say these followers have relatively low voting power with less influence.

I think that we can say with a high level of confidence that if voting bot votes were removed, it would instantly signify a massive improvement in the Trending page. It might also highlight the next challenge (whether that's the voting bot followers or something else).

I'd be tempted to approach this as incremental changes rather than trying to find the silver bullet straight out of the gates. Of course, using suggestions by remlaps - I know that he and others have thought about this a lot over the years.