We're seeing lots of complaints from people who are mystified by blogging rewards. They say things like:
* How can any single post be worth so much money? Don't we need to spread the money around more to make it fairer?
or
* I spent hours on my essay and she posts a hot pic or two and makes fifty times as much as me? No fair!
Well, folks, I'm here to suggest that you're frustrated because you're looking at things all wrong. An important purpose--maybe the most important purpose--of the author/blogging reward is to serve as a mechanism for the distribution a valuable currency (Steem) to the public based on the community's assessment of each member's contribution to the cause, with the opinion of those having "more to lose" by being wrong counting more than those with less to lose.
People seem to have two problems with this. First is how to measure "contribution". Second is the disparate voting power. Let's address each of those.
Much of the frustration centers around confusion over how each blogger's contribution to the community gets valued by voters (or should be valued by voters). Folks seem mystified that a makeup tutorial could possibly be eSTEEMED (see what I did there?) more highly than a thoughful article about cryptocurrency or perhaps a beautifully vulnerable description of one's personal life struggles.
However, remember that the purpose of Steem is first and foremost to place a valuable currency into circulation. Given that, there's really only one "logical" way to measure a post's value: Does it make the currency more valuable and lead to broader interest and circulation? That's it. The end. It doesn't matter how much time the author spent. It doesn't matter whether the post was eloquent or vulgar. All that matters to a rational Steem holder, especially a whale, is whether or not the post improves the value and distribution of Steem.
With this understanding, it's clear why the often-maligned make-up tutorial was rewarded so handsomely. It represented a-first time opportunity to expose Steem to a new demographic--a critically important demographic (and I don't mean just women). The beauty and fashion indusury is huge, and it "sells well".
It's also why pretty girls get upvoted so regularly, my lovely wife included (and thank you for that!).
(A shameless photo of the lovely wife, Cindy)
Fact is, beauty and sex appeal are draws. We are hard wired for attraction to such things. There's just no avoiding that, and we'd be silly to try.
You may view such things as shamelessly shallow, and that's okay. But shallow or not, these things were deemed by whales to be important to Steem's growth and distribution potential, and that's why the makeup tutorial post was worth so much.
Which brings up the next issue: Why is there such disproportionate voting power? Said another way, why do whales have so much influence? Well, there's a technical answer and a practical answer. The technical answer is spelled out quite well in the Steem whitepaper (anti-collusion, etc.). The practical answer is rather simple: Those with more to lose should have a bigger say in what happens than those with less. Perhaps the whales were wrong in their assessment that the make-up tutorial represented a potentially huge new market for Steem? If so, then they will pay a much larger price than minnows for their poor judgement in upvoting it so. And...that's as it should be. That's how self-sustaining and self-regulating systems work. Put too much decision making authority in those with little to lose, who are not sufficiently vested in the system, and...well...you end up with a fiat economy. Head's they win and tails you lose.
To conclude, the best way to get your posts upvoted is to demonstrate (explicitly or implicitly) its usefulness in distributing Steem more widely and increasing its market value. If you're not interested in that, then hey, that's cool. Stick around and post all you want. We're a welcoming place! Just don't plan to make tons of money and don't begrudge those who do.