I've done the survey, and I appreciate the opportunity. One needs to agree on what quality means first, before trying to determine the means of increase it. The survey, as I see it, was trying to do both at the same time, but not doing either justice . I've seen a few posts argue similarly (more eloquently than I) , and others pushing their favourite indicator.
I'd like to see 'quality' broken down into separate factors, such as maintenance, ingenuity, location, challenge, experience, etc. 'Maintenance' indicates if the cache is well maintained - has a dry log, a log not full, a writing implement (if appropriate), etc. 'Inginuity' indicating how well the cache container, hiding methods, camouflage, etc, makes you go "wow". 'Location' indicating that there is a great view, an interesting story, took you where you'd never have gone otherwise, etc. 'Challenge' - how hard you worked to get to GZ (or to work out where GZ actually is). 'Experience' will be most subjective, but when one found the cache, despite it being mouldy, in a boring location, and being a drive-by to boot, was this an experience that I'd rather not have missed out on (I give favourite points to experiences, which are subject to the conditions at the time - meaningful to me, but perhaps not so helpful to others). Ideally the factors would be orthogonal, but challenge and experience crossover a bit and perhaps others could come up with better indicators.
It is apparent that different geocachers will have different weightings placed on the indicators, but having a single indicator of the concept of quality is not solving the problem (consider CHS and Favorites), otherwise we'd not be having surveys and such discussions.