Thanks for the reply!

If I understand this correctly, it's basically a kind of further instance or consortium of users who can influence the amount of a post's payout. Hmm, difficult.

Right, it's intended to crowdsource abuse resistance while protecting the participants from retaliation. It would be ideal if the rewards algorithm handled this automatically, but it's clear that it doesn't (in its current implementation). So, unless someone is going to design and implement a new rewards algorithm, we need to make adjustments at the next layer.

One of my ideas for achieving this goal was that votes could only be given manually.

This has been proposed many times over the years, but I honestly don't think it's technically possible with the blockchain's design. Personally, I don't see automatic voting as being much different from Google's automatic search indexing. It could never scale if Google asked people to do it manually. IMO, if it's designed right, it's a good thing, but we're currently saddled with suboptimal designs.

I still think that posts with only one picture and a few words that are valued at several 100$ do not convey a good image.

Yeah, I definitely agree on this point. (possibly with very rare exceptions)