This is a double edged sword, and most probably the thing I like least about HN. It strikes me as elitist and encourages a particular type of groupthink That I am uncomfortable with. As an example, conservative thinking is usually rewarded and less conventional thinking is usually overlooked. In some ways, I find HN to lack diversity in its culture and what it values (which is why I rarely contribute - I definitely put myself in the "on the fringe" category who will remain that way unless some diversity in thinking creeps in, or there's a radical change). This is interesting because I am a big contributor at other sites where I feel diverse thinking is more respected .. I am absolutely happy to accept this is my own bias, however, HN is a unique experience for me in that respect (except Slashdot that I gave up on for similar reasons). Personally, I don't pay any attention to these scores. I prefer less profile visibility, less badges, less karma and more weighting on an article or comment in isolation. If anything, maybe encourage certain knowledge domains, eg. Science or biology. The domains themselves are less important to me at this moment (except where they are political - and I include gender politics in that: it's stifling and off putting to me, despite its current popularity), but it may diversify what I see and view at HN. Ultimately, I don't get a lot of benefit from HN, but there are some (few) exceptional articles that I wouldn't otherwise see - which is why I visit HN. Diverse thinking is very important to me. I am more likely to attribute HN "rigging" to encouraged groupthink than being gamed. Other than categories and less egocentric measurement, I don't have suggestions that would improve things. I apologise if my post offends, I've felt these views since I first came to HN. It's not intended to insult, but it most probably will.