> Your issue regarding the appeal to authority is present in real life to a large degree, and not limited to websites. Correct, which is why I mentioned the cu

> Your issue regarding the appeal to authority is present in real life to a large degree, and not limited to websites. Correct, which is why I mentioned the current situation works if you want a model that reflects typical human judgement, including bias and errors. Removing humans is just a labor-saving feature. If you don't mind spending the time, then human editors can do a good job of it, just like with peer-reviewed journals. Make the score independent of the site's userbase size: e.g. from 1 to 10. No -47s or +581s like on reddit. Comments can also be kept in a useful range, instead of something blindingly obvious getting 80 points and something controversial getting 0 (+20,-20). The key is always the editors themselves. Quality reflects the average of the editors, which is why you see a regression toward the general population's mean when everyone is imbued with editorial ability. I would be a very good editor for a few subjects and not good at all for most others; multiply that by a million and the overlap gets you the current situation with various social news sites. Pick editors randomly and you get Slashdot. Pick editors carefully and you get Science or Nature.