"Better" is often a relative term based on somebody's perspective. To rate something as being "better", you have to clearly define what "better" is and have som

"Better" is often a relative term based on somebody's perspective. To rate something as being "better", you have to clearly define what "better" is and have some sort of agreement that "better" is better for everybody. If you ignore the "dissenters" then you effectively dis-empower those people & silence their perspective. Is that "better"? There's a cost of reducing potential novelty. There's a benefit of increasing focus (perhaps increasing implemented novelty of downstream scopes).