Earlier quoted context omitted.
You weight the intent system too highly and ignore the effect on the reader. SO's interface worked pretty well for opinion. Who cares if it's impossible to accurately score? The most useful stuff generally ended up near the top, so readers could quickly find a lot of good material. As to the green checkmark, a querent isn't obligated to select a best answer. And if they selected one, so what? It pushed one answer up,…
They even state when you go to ask a question: > We prefer questions that can be answered, not just discussed. And to me (and this is of course just my interpretation), but that means that questions that can only yield subjective answers aren't really meant to be asked there. Additionally, the FAQ[1] goes into even more detail that I think supports both my and SE's stance; the question ITT is, to me, clearly more und…
But that doesn't really matter. You cite the rules as the authority for what should be there. I agree that the users and the rule-writers have different ideas about what the site should be. I'm saying the rule-writers are wrong, just like the Friendster rule-writers were wrong.