If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.
I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.
Like what? I assume you mean in social sciences and which is applicable to filtering/ranking content online
Quite the opposite: social sciences are still a pretty young field where repeatable, predictable results are not easy to come by and only work on a statistical level. Exciting stuff, but defining “objective” measures is not within our reach in this particular field.
Ranking social media is as subjective as it gets, I do not think there is a “right” way it could be implemented.
what are the better measures? Like scientific instruments? I’m lost now. It seems we have gotten in the weeds a bit.