I have couple theories:

# 1. Reviewers sucks

[And we know they do][1]. [And  we put in place something to improve them][2], but that only made good reviewers [get grumpy][3] and not review. Which leaves us with bad reviewers. A good nugget the right way dispensing manual review bans from the moderation team, and flagging those bad reviewers when you find them should help.

# 2. Tagging sucks

And we know they do. And folks try to fight their way into improving this but it's difficult and filled with hurdles. Checking out the [first revision of this question is more than enough][4] to perceive this, which even after [5 people touched the question][5] nobody fixed this in a sensible manner. Until this isn't improved in a concrete way, including changing our naive policies of old, it will continue sucking.

# 3. The ways to reach an expert suck

And this is extremely linked with the previous point. Experts have to swim trough all the crap that reach us. Is just impossible to find *good* questions, more so put them in the experts way. That leaves us with non-experts giving counsel.

# 4. Most users don't know how to recognize quality when they see it

And worse, give **low quality content higher quality** feedback than they deserve. So, the system to differentiate good quality from bad doesn't work. I don't remember last time I saw a good researched, interesting question in the Hot List sidebar.

---

In summary, is a multilayer problem, which can be tackled from several angles, and I consider that every angle should be explored with pointy solutions.


  [1]: http://meta.askubuntu.com/q/8421/169736
  [2]: http://meta.askubuntu.com/q/7812/169736
  [3]: http://meta.askubuntu.com/q/8544/169736
  [4]: http://askubuntu.com/revisions/507573/1
  [5]: http://askubuntu.com/posts/507573/revisions