I added this to my latest post:-

I should emphasise this: I think Curie (or any other manual curation / cognitive mining groups) are necessary to go through contents, comprehending them, and sometimes reaching out. More often than not, rather important posts are left unchecked in the wild. The best that we can do is to help others connect the dots. Diligent curators that actively screen the playing field would know better than casual curators.

Also, the winner-takes-all effect can be mitigated, once the winners themselves find value in contributing to curation works. You will find this to be indicated as X in my organisational chart earlier. This is what Google calls moonshot, indicative of Google X. It could also be likened as social moonshots. And it could represent celebrities and winners.

I guess it's pretty important to build (or participate) in your own curation groups if you want some voting to go on even if you're not around to vote on stuff. The bigger curation groups like @curie and @robinhoodwhale are shooting for diversity of content, pretty much wholesale and with "errors" (admittedly a tiny percentage of posts really shouldn't have gone through). And I'm sure there'll be pockets of more specialised content curators like @steemstem which are going for science+tech posts.

I don't have the answers to your questions too.. it's like lending a bunch of people a mask with your face on it.. but you keep appearing in places that you potentially don't want to be seen it lol.. but I think what's more pressing is the quote I've attached here from my latest post. Maybe if you're following voting trails, go and interact with the ones of your liking.. I think that's the best any supporter can do :). There are actually many accounts which are clueless about the potentials of Steemit..

PS: Upon writing this, I'm gonna add another new line in that post .. thanks for asking the important questions @lukestokes :)