Arxiv has been working just fine for a long time, there's no need to change it. Besides I'm not going to voluntarily post my work so I can get publicly rated by a bunch of unknowns lol.
You're thinking of social-media-type "reputation".
Instead, think of the goal being to associate measures of worth with the reviewers. If you're publicly rated by a bunch of worthwhile people, count yourself lucky.
> Arxiv has been working just fine for a long time, there's no need to change it.
Exactly, that's why I am not suggesting any change to Arxiv.
Think more of people eg submitting Arxiv URLs to Hacker News for what I have in mind. Or discussing Arxiv submission on a forum or in a wiki etc. You can imagine some specialised software that has some better support specifically for material from Arxiv.
That's what I mean by 'overlay'.
Or think of Slatestarcodex publishing a blog post with links to his favourite Arxiv papers for that month. That's pretty much equivalent to what a journal produces. And if Slatestarcodex compiles that link list by doing some peer review and chatting with the authors of the papers, that's almost exactly what the journal does.
Instead, think of the goal being to associate measures of worth with the reviewers. If you're publicly rated by a bunch of worthwhile people, count yourself lucky.