What I've learned about Quora from this link is that the highest voted answer (currently) is historical hearsay, when an answer with half the points is based on actual, first-hand experience.
This happens on every moderated forum all the time, including HN. I've learned to get over the idea that the most correct answer will be moderated highest. One reason is that the righter answer might have been posted later. Another is that a less right answer might have been written in a more entertaining or attention-grabbing way.
If you want a HN example, take my post on "Google's Android faces a serious Linux copyright issue."
It was moderated 8, and contains the precise answer to the issue/controversy (it quotes the exception from Linux's COPYING file that both LWN and Linus himself cited later to refute the alleged "copyright issue")
The highest-voted comment on the article (38) does not mention this exception, and is full of inaccuracies like "Unless these programs are actually copying parts of the kernel into their source, they are not derived works."
Put me in the "no" camp. All due respect to the HN front page, but how does that speak to their ability to becoming either a high traffic site or their ability to monetize the traffic they have?
It is interesting, but only because of the people on it. It's sort of like the Ask HN section here but slightly broader audience and scope.
The site itself has some impressive features but also some bewildering layout issues. One problem is - how much bigger can the site get before the quality of the participants is diluted too much?
In my personal experience, somewhere between 'very little' and 'lol'. I'm sure there is quality somewhere on that site but between the hard to look at design and the piles of low quality answers it's difficult to find.
Taking what other posters saying are saying a little bit farther: stack overflow is for work, quora is for fun, metafilter is for nothing.