[derefr]

The voting mechanism certainly does help, but only to a point. Imagine a "new" page where only 1 in 10 posts are worthy of upvoting (about the same as now.) Now, after some growth, imagine that changing so only 1 in 100 are valuable. Then one in a thousand. If you don't weed out bad submitters, it eventually becomes so hard to find the things that are interesting that you either start "grading on a curve" and just upvoting the best of what you can see—thus creating schlock like Reddit and Digg have—or you give up and move on to another site.

To put it in telecommunications terms: you need to keep the signal clear throughout transmission. If the clarity drops, amplifying it again (through a process like voting) will only pick up the bits that survived, and will also amplify some of the noise in the process. If we can eliminate the sources of noise, however, then we don't have to amplify.

[petite]

But both signal and noise are completely subjective terms to the community. What some people may consider quality posts, others may consider that noise. That's why you need voting that reflects whether the total community considers an article signal or noise.

Perhaps the solution would come somewhere from tweaking the front page display based on votes, or even customizing displays based on past voting practices from users, but I certainly do not believe that condemning the submitter is the solution. If that were followed through, I believe that the only articles that would eventually make it through the submission process come from a community that consistently echoes back the same interests to one another, without ever deviating from the norm.