As I wrote in a recent post (we had a discussion there) the problem would be solved if it wasn't a disadvantage anymore to upvote late.
When I see great content but the well known profit maximizers have voted already, I ask the authors to write comments under their posts which I can upvote to support them without increasing the curation rewards of the early auto voters who even don't read any posts. :)
The five minute thing seems wrong to me as you are unlikely to discover and read a post within that time. Those of us who vote manually should avoid adding to posts that were hit by the auto-voters. I get that those do add some value, but they don't care about the content and they can encourage junk posts. Maybe the algorithm could get tweaked again, but I don't know what the ideal version would be. Of course nothing is ever perfect, but we should seek to be better.
Are you familiar with Benford's Law?
It can be used to identify fraudulent data and fraudulent accounts and artificial voting patterns.
I'm aware of it, but not sure how it would apply here. The issue is not necessarily fraud, but more about how manual interaction can stand a chance of earning better. Automated systems can always be quicker than humans, but they are unlikely to be as smart.
Benford's law has been used to identify fake accounts on twitter by collecting the number of followers of suspicious accounts and then collecting the number of followers each of those followers has and running that as a data-set against Benford's law.
I think something like that would be very useful for HIVE.
And as far as timing votes for profit, I believe all votes should be equally weighted no matter who votes or what time they vote.
The "band-wagon" votes are toxic (gamified for profit only).
AND, when I first joined, there was a view counter. The consensus on why it was taken away was due to complaints POB was dead and posts with hundred(s) of votes only had like 3 or 4 views. From bidbots to autovoters it was obvious most of the highest paid posts received very few actual eyes on them. LINK
Fake accounts are not as big an issue for Hive as they need some HP behind them to make any difference. Strategic voting is toxic if it does not take account of actual content.
The views number was not accurate enough to be useful. I tend to judge posts by the real interaction they get. Anyone can get hundreds of tiny votes, including me.
Perhaps,
I don't know if we can reliably measure views across the various Hive dapps. In the old days there was just Steemit.
I'll judge the interest in a post by the comments it gets rather than the votes.
I'd still really like to see page views over 20 seconds.