> to me this answer you gave to @kevinwong (about what kind of content will attract a userbase and is therefore desirable) seems to suggest otherwise.

My voting generally reflects that and I never voted for @ozchartart until Papa Dan came down from the mountain to tell the rest of the stakeholders we are doing it wrong. I consider that more harmful than just about anything else that can ever happen, including @ozchartart making some money instead of other posters (at ultimately the identical net cost to stakeholders)

It nevertheless doesn't change the fact that your suggestion of the notion of @ozchartart being a random poster who got lucky is a straw man. I don't believe anyone has suggested it.

The closest might be my suggestion that he is good at networking and got votes that way (itself pure speculation), which is still not being a random poster who got lucky.

> Also, wasn't that a good part of your problem with krnel trivium posts

In part, and as I said my voting generally reflects it, but also the small to nonexistent target market for the content itself as I said at the time. I've explicitly contrasted that with @ozchartart in fact. Whatever I think of or about @ozchartart's content (generally little in either case), I recognize that trading and charting is something that is proven to potentially attract an audience and a community of significant size. I don't know if @ozchartart is the one to do that, but his topic is at least viable.