"By the way, irony intended by using such a service for your comment?! :-D"

Absolutely ! I'm experimenting in order to learn because the whole mechanics is not only complex it is also obscure (probably on purpose). I intend experimentation to go on at several levels - for instance I've "pumped" my last post over the $100 bar, see if this psychological threshold plays any role here ... not sure but we'll see. I do believe my post is good though :-)

Then back to the trufflepig discussion - I absolutely agree that the whole idea of rewarding content in Steemit is valid: there definitely IS correlation between payout and quality! But my argument went to the "second degree" and looked at trufflebot: since the correlation is not 1 and Steemit is ALREADY using this assessment dimension, re-using it in trufflebot is "procyclical" and reinforces whatever bias this dimension has.

On the contrary introducing another assessment dimension helps to give more balance and offers an alternative. Precisely because it's difficult to say what is quality and all we know is that the equation "high payout = quality" certainly does NOT hold (not 100%, not for all posts anyway) then maybe we can do better by defining quality along more than one axis / dimensions

And the idea is that through the trufflepig YOU, the owner of the bot, are free to define your own assessment dimension. Some people will certainly disagree with your choice of what you consider to be quality but so what ? They are free to create their own trufflepig and train it with their parameters if they wish.