This is a discussion point and even when I have a proposal, I make this question with the primary reason of comparing alternatives and understanding why the current reality is regarding SE sites. I searched a bit regarding this topic and couldn't find them in previous questions but I think it should exist somewhere; perhaps someone asked the same before. Please don't hesitate on DUPing this question if it is the case
Today I was reading something at philosophy site where they discussed about being an upvoted answer objectively true.
Even when I can imagine it's not about being true but useful (which worked for StackOverflow in first place), something triggered an up-to-now asleep concern I had: Most of the times, voting produces positioning, and positioning produces voting, despite other answers being as useful as the first, if you take the time to read. I would like to say there are some similarities with an unstable equilibrium.
Should we really keep that feedback between position and upvotes for questions? How was this topic discussed before?
Actually, one can sort the questions in the main question list to be chronological or hot, but I see answers are only sorted by hot.
(foot note: my proposal is to, by default, randomize (or sort chronologically by last edit date) to the top all the answers with a net votes amount > 0, and with a button, link, or option let the user sort them by net amount, letting them to have the answers sorted as is now)