I've been using Stack Overflow sites for a few months now and, overall, I must say that the mechanisms implemented to glue users and activities to the interface and systems are nothing less than impressive.
Every now and then, still, I feel like a particular question did not receive enough attention. One of the reasons I believe is the fact that Stack Overflow (for example) had become a bit flat: people specialize in a few subjects, monitor questions, provide quick answers and move on.
There is not so much incentive to review answers or to or sort out existing answers (using the existing tools, I think).
Also, a bit too much emphasis is given to the speed of the answer, IMHO.
I believe that on average it would be very productive to have experienced and knowledgeable users not write answers, but review answers provided by others (to act like editors).
Still there is not much incentive for such work.
So, I was thinking what if there was a mechanism similar to bounties, but for review work or for voting?
Has this been considered and discussed earlier? If not, what mechanisms with the framework of existing so-like sites sounds interesting to you?
EDIT (trying to clarify a bit):
I think current system is great and though I subscribe to "if it is not broken don't fix it", I don't subscribe to "if it is not broken don't question it".
Here's a use case (of a very particular situation in which current system might be improved; but a use case nevertheless):
- assume you are knowledgeable, have some reputation on Stack Overflow and have some time; would you ever go and read a question with less then 10 votes which has an accepted answer on a subject that you feel you have not much to learn on?
- I think (please do correct me if I am wrong) that it can happen that no real expert is interested in reviewing it. I realize that normally it will happen that someone who is knowledgeable in the subject will look at the question, but I am just trying to establish that it will not be a priority
- now it is not so hard to imagine that some percentage of such questions don't get looked at by an expert at all and end up with sub-optimal answer and maybe there is something that could be improved here
- also, people are not so eager to read old questions
I was first thinking about a flag that would say disputed, but it is easy to imagine abuse and/or noise on such a mechanism. The second idea was a sort of reopening an interesting question with a bounty (this can, I think, be done now, but then the connection between questions is weakened). Finally, there's an idea of spending reputation (funding review with reputation), but then there is a question of bias. Therefore I've asked the question here :)
And one more note, I thank anyone who took the time to read this and even more thanks to people who commented and/or answered. Still, I think it would be beneficial to first to try to think outside of the box and then to try to put it inside the existing things.