I strongly dislike captcha and it would hinder my Steemit experience. It would discourage me from participating.

What if there's never a CAPTCHA challenge if your voting pattern meets the right criteria?  For instance, why challenge someone who always votes 100% exactly 40 times a day?

I say this because bots will often try to fiddle with the numbers to spread out coverage.  But humans do this as well, so it's not a perfect indicator.

Rare bots that use 100% x 40 are either very poorly written and don't earn the author any money (a self correcting problem), or are very well written and benefit the platform by boosting great content.

I dont understand anyone voting without reading the  content first.  I think maybe a timer before they vote again enough time to read a post.  I can't get my head around bots..

Because i post and blog most often at work I have 8 hrs to curate and blog on my own and I enjoy it ! I have never used a bot , and dont even know how to get a bot anyways 9r how to set them up it sounds complicated ! Lol ! Plus im asumeing you have to pay for this bot ! Haha ! I would be inclined to get a bot though for when i sleep or on a part time basis . 👍🤔😉

Captcha cannot be implemented on blockchain level, and bots do not need steemit to vote on posts.

Although I am not 100% sure this will solve the problem or could be implemented on the blockchain (perhaps more on the interface), it is food for thought. Anything to improve curation rewards and curation engagement is a plus in my opinion.

<p>This post has been ranked within the top 50 most undervalued posts in the second half of Jan 12. We estimate that this post is undervalued by $6.58 as compared to a scenario in which every voter had an equal say.</p> 
<p>See the full rankings and details in <a href="https://steemit.com/curation/@screenname/the-daily-tribune-most-undervalued-posts-of-jan-12---part-ii">The Daily Tribune: Jan 12 - Part II</a>. You can also read about some of our methodology, data analysis and technical details in <a href="https://steemit.com/curation/@screenname/introducing-the-daily-tribune-most-undervalued-posts-of-nov-04---part-i">our initial post</a>.</p>
<p>If you are the author and would prefer not to receive these comments, simply reply "Stop" to this comment.</p>

I agree that strategic bot upvoting is not a positive thing for Steemit. I have upvoted this post after about 2 minutes and I'm sure I won't get more than .01 reward but a bot account will shower upvotes at 30 mins and take rewards away from the readers. Not a good result. 
My suggestion is to randomise that perfect time to upvote so it makes it harder to game the curation rewards system by using vote bots.

It is simply unrealistic to think people will not use bots.  Life is never that black or white.  

If you want to encourage people to engage manually then you have to give them some incentive to do that.  

Everyone is very busy nowadays so you need to make it worth their while.  

One way to do that is to get people engaging through commenting and the recent changes that the team announced should go some way towards doing that.

I don't see the point in trying to come up with bot blocking methods because no matter what you do someone will come up with a way to get round it which will create another level of inequality.  

Further it may drive people away from the platform if they are time poor.

1 CAPTCHA is too many.  Expressed anti bot ideas may also be anti human.  Understand people see bots and bot voting is a problem.  So how may we better define the (actual) problem and solution?

Perhaps a different payout time or structure that may not be so easily cracked by bots or rather humans that design the bots.  Maybe we can think towards an idea that will better share STEEM with bots and humans to reward both unique voting styles as neither should be discriminated against.