[Analemma_]

It's a neat idea, but I would want identity verification - only upvotes from people well-versed in the field should "count", precisely so it doesn't become Reddit. Which means you would have a chicken-and-egg problem when the service got started and few experts were on it yet.

[ampvchen]

That's actually something we are working on. We are working with verified researchers in the field (industry and academic) to help surface good papers and foster an open discussion.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

There are websites that try to do that (e.g. scirate) but the problem is that people doesn't participate much. The problem is not the website, but convincing academics to comment and vote (academics are typically starved of time, and reading a paper and writing a good coment is not easy...)

It would be nice if someone solved the problem and managed to create a working one, though.

[paulsutter]

What about collecting tweets from verified researchers? It could help getting to critical mass. You could even consider papers tweeted by researchers that are followed by your known researchers, and so on, with the right weighting (something resembling pagerank).

With the right weighting this could really boost the size and quality of your dataset.

[ampvchen]

That would be interesting to leverage Twitter.

Right now we are working on helping the community surface information and working with verified researchers to build their "curated" lists for different topics.

[adamnemecek]

Can I have a beta when it's ready? I've been thinking about this for a while and I like to think that I could provide useful input.

[ampvchen]

Awesome, yea. I'll send you an email.

[austinjp]

Also very much something is be interested in, if invites are available, thanks.

[sampo]

Perhaps you could get an ordering based only on the upvotes from your friends, and maybe friends of friends with a lesser weight. Maybe also include upvotes from strangers whose past voting pattern is similar to yours. Maybe one can construct some PageRank-esque structure, whose votes should be weighted heavily and whose not, in the light of your own voting history.

[chrisseaton]

> based only on the upvotes from your friends

That would create an echo chamber. You need to know about research that challenges your assumptions.