I would like to give some thinking material to all curators, as since joining Steemit I learned so much about the system that I thought I write some thoughts worth sharing.
As curators we have the power to decide what posts are good and what posts are not by up voting, and hence since we up voted other people are more likely to find this post and up vote. Finding posts that are good and worth reading, and promoting them with an up vote gives you Steem power.
Yet there are several bots liking your post at random promoting services to up vote your post. Perhaps as a result I see so many posts on Steemit that makes me question “who would up vote this?”. In contrast I see fellow writers that write top quality content that get barely any up votes. So in this article I would like to question the curators feel of what is worth or not.
For example an article just about food and nothing personal (as it should be, this is the internet, among us sane people there are as well the most fucked up people scrolling through our content, occasionally fapping to it or finding information to find you IRL) and just a nice experience in a country that the reader might want to visit will get 0 up votes (like 
Now what articles do Curators like? Long writing articles that resemble a self help book, that give you very general advice about life without presenting you the solution? Selfies of a pretty female face or work out pictures that reveal desirable body traits of the writer (as well a definite up vote from the fucked up people mentioned above)? And the thing that I can understand but now is there in abundance on Steemit is Block chain news.
When up voting an article I would like the Curators to think about what kind of Steemit they are creating by up voting. Do you want a Steemit where everyone posts workout schedules with pictures and selfies, self help articles and block chain news? I feel like the variety of genres of posts has become compromised due to that. What are your true interests? Up vote an article that interests you.
I can understand why I also have difficulty getting up votes, as I mostly talk about controversial topics. The starting claim seems too difficult to accept that people may not be willing to read further and allow me to induce some reflecting process about something that is going on in the world. I also have not been getting any comments agreeing disagreeing, so maybe my articles are in too big chunks for people to read. However there are many great Steemians that write good posts that I see that are underappreciated. So I would like the Curators to reflect when deciding what to up vote.
Please note that the system (which is in this case the Steemit culture) is the website. The content makers make whats in the site, but the Curators decide what should be emphasized. The trending section of Steemit shows the works already curated and noted worthy. Up voting the content in the new section curates the content that will be on the trending page in the future. That is the power the curators have. Use it more wisely.