Idea #1: Peer reviewed blogging

Everyone knows of digg, slashdot, and others where people submit stories and people vote them up down and provide commentary.

The first group to do this was academia. They would submit articles to committees, who would review them, and choose to publish them in their prestigious journal-- or not.

Crowdsurfing does cool things, but it serves the common denominator.

I think a better model might be to have the people that actually submit stories get reviewed by 6 other people. In turn for a chance to have your article reviewed you review 6 other peoples and say yes or no. By review I mean thumb and article up or down.

Normally this would develop a culture where everyone thumbs everyone else up. However, here's the twist. You can only thumb half of them up. The more your rating varies from 50%, the less you are weighted. The more highly others rank your articles, the more your articles are rated.

Another aspect to your score might be the score readers give your articles, your tags, and how many readers articles you support or write garner!

Just an idea.