One method to fight "the fastest gun" problem, is to cherrypick good questions, and actually write well-written, detailed essays, along with samples. Although more time consuming, these answers usually float to the top in rather short time frames -adding more quality.
I've tried this approach; taking the time to give a detailed answer with reasoning behind my choices and explanations for areas that might be unclear. Two things happen:
1 - The fast, but "good enough" answer wins out for the short term 10+ votes (and "Accepted status), then the question falls into the mire, occasionally floating to the surface via a Google search, where I might get one or two votes.
2 - My answer is accepted, enough that noone else bothers to partake in the question, and it falls off the radar having received maybe 1 or 2 votes.
In terms of getting good answers into the system, I guess things are working as intended. In terms of creating an engaging experience for the questioner and answerer, this seems sub-optimal.
and actually write well-written, detailed essays, along with samples.
Unless the question is on a topic I love, that makes it into work. Is the point of SO to gain points to look clever in front of your peers or to actually help people? I'd rather just write a post blog to send someone to, since it stops other people editing it and I'd get all the credit and the traffic.
Perhaps I'll give it another try - maybe it's settled down a lot since launch when pretty much every question was getting a quick fire answer in minutes.
