My approach is to use bots to support good content creators vs good content per se.

I recognise within that

• I won't get to review/ enjoy every piece of content that every good content creator I support makes
• sometimes a content creator might make a post that is worth more (or less) than the weighted vote I've given it. So any individual vote is given 'on balance' based how I value their content as a whole
• consistent support incentives good content creators
• consistent support can cause people to 'get lazy' or 'get greedy' however I (try to) review my votes regularly and if a content creator consistently is falling below their own high standards, they risk losing my support altogether, or having the weighted vote reduced

I've written about the subject a few times before, and I see bots as essential if Steem is to scale.

For example, it is easy for me to vote in a laissez faire fashion when my vote is worth $10, however should Steem become the size of Facebook and each of my vote be worth $1000 or $10,000. Every vote and each weight percentage will be publicly scrutinised. I would need to run my curation operation like a company with a raison d'etre to justify the rewards I'm meating out. Else I cannot see it being sustainable.

I think it's a good thought experiment to think how curation on Steem would work with a billion users and a trillion dollar marketcap.