In my view, forum members are on average too inclined to upvote posts and comments that aren’t well-argued because they agree with the conclusion.
A big change, which I’ll write up separately, is something like paid, open peer review for posts which seek to seriously update the community. Likely bringing in outsiders. This will be expensive, but it passes a shallow cost-benefit test, to me.
Do you mean pre-publication or post-publication peer view? If the latter, I suppose the author need not be involved (and need not pay for it). As such it should not in itself increase the effort it takes to post something. (Though people may spend more effort on the post if they know they’ll be more scrutinised; however, in my view that’s not necessarily a bad thing.)
In my view, forum members are on average too inclined to upvote posts and comments that aren’t well-argued because they agree with the conclusion.
Do you mean pre-publication or post-publication peer view? If the latter, I suppose the author need not be involved (and need not pay for it). As such it should not in itself increase the effort it takes to post something. (Though people may spend more effort on the post if they know they’ll be more scrutinised; however, in my view that’s not necessarily a bad thing.)
Post!
I edited the post to make this clearer