There are sites that I read, but am not a member of. This goes for a lot of people, including every anonymous user. From my time on the site, I will form opinions about it, although I can't inform the site as a meta post wouldn't be appropriate.
Wikipedia has a way to rate articles based on certain criteria (located at the bottom of articles), is there a way we could do the same thing for each site?
(Updated) Criteria could be:
- References (If the site contains links to other sites)
- Objective (If the site contains objective answers)
- Instructive (How well the site explains its answers)
- Appearance (How the site looks)
A meta post isn't a good way to give individual evaluations of a site, especially for non-members. It's useless as a post - it can't be measured and is forgotten within a week. Not to mention that voting on a meta post reflects the view of the site, not the outside world.
Voting is something which can be measured. It's by far more useful then a whiny rant, which is why SE is based around it. Leave meta to find solutions to the problems, not speculate on what they are.
Now, let me explain the use:
I read UX every now and then, mostly when it appears on the front page. I don't know much about user experience, but I still enjoy learning about it, and the site is a great way to do so. Now, I see several answers that are just an opinion with little explanation and I dislike that aspect of the site. I don't know where UX stands on this - I haven't read their meta posts, or even their FAQ (as I'm not a member), but I still feel that my input could have some use.
And so I would vote:
References -- 2/5
Objective --- 2/5
Instructive - 3/5
Appearance -- 4/5
And after a few months, enough data would be gathered to accurately represent the current site. This would then be used to improve the site.