Apologies torquewrench; because my comment was not adequately clear. I had no computerized process in mind. I certainly should have defined what I meant by “designated process”.

At present we have something that we could call “the human-oriented protocol”, which tells us humans what to do under certain circumstances. I’m saying that the human-oriented protocol should be changed to reflect a principle that I have not seen expressed here in my reading of posts. (This doesn’t mean that someone else has not expressed in -- just that I haven’t seen it.)

The principle can be stated as follows. The added value that derives from a post has two elements: (a) the post itself and (b) a combination of the quantity and quality of the comments (discussion) elicited by the post. I think of (a) and (b) as comprising an information package.

So the author would need to wait some good time after the discussion seems to have died down to make an assessment of how much added value has come from the second component of the package, and who was/were the key contributor(s) to that added value.

And, please excuse the repetition, the rewards that the author would assign at the time of doing that assessment would be more or less independent of the current system that comprises Steem dollars and the current rules for their allocation.

So the principles that you have advocated where appropriate human judgment is an integral part of the assessment is fully supported by what I’m advocating.

Where I suspect our positions are radically different is that I am advocating that major surgery be applied to the present system.
Cheers!