I'd like to think the same, but from a numbers standpoint -- we're probably going to need a fairly clear incentive for the "reviewer/early adopter" side.
It's going to be a balance of quality vs. volume of reviewers, but these will all be some fun challenges to figure out and tackle.
edit: Your comment (after re-reading) made my day.
I commented below regarding this issue of voting for free and it not costing them anything.
I feel like, after reading your comments parent and your reply that I'm replying to, I feel that it might be beneficial to have each user on the site have a weight calculated from various criteria (that probably doesn't exist yet).
Firstly let's assume that submitted ideas have a lifecycle, something like this:
Inception (posting to the site)
Green-lit (threshold of submitters required Yes votes)
Lack of Interest (threshold not met)
Released (product launch)
Let's say a project reaches Release (from our above defined lifecycle), all users who voted "Yes, I would use this" for the project might need to verify they've used the app or risk having their weight ratio degraded (thus making future "Yes, I would use this" votes count for less). If the project they 'backed' fails then there is no change to the weight.
This solves one side of the problem for idea submitters. They should be able to view something like an "Interest Index" which takes into account the weight of users who have stated they would use it.
Eventually if I clicked "Yes, I'd use this" on 40 projects and 20 of them reached release and yet I never followed through with using them, my vote might not count for squat any longer.
I'd like to think the same, but from a numbers standpoint -- we're probably going to need a fairly clear incentive for the "reviewer/early adopter" side.
It's going to be a balance of quality vs. volume of reviewers, but these will all be some fun challenges to figure out and tackle.
edit: Your comment (after re-reading) made my day.