It would be interesting to see if sites where anonymity is prevalent (Like 4chan) also fell under this 90% rule. It wouldn't surprise me if it were different.

I'm not trying to argue that Hubski should be more anonymous, it would pretty much counteract most of what Hubski is. But rather I think that this "Snake-oil" isn't that elusive, it's just that the snake oil is more of a double-edged sword. Anonymity - and per extension more content - isn't always what you want. Sure you get more engaging participants in a discussion, and it would probably help creating a more diversely opinionated userbase. But at what cost?

I've frequented some of the non-/b/ boards of 4chan for a long while, and while discussion is everywhere, it rarely meets any quality standards except proper spelling and grammar.

There are a lot of places on the internet to have that kind of free-for-all debate, of which most remind me more of a gladiatorial arena than of a conversation between differing opinions. I personally don't think that Hubski should strive to be another one of those. I like Hubski quite a lot the way it is, not saying it shouldn't change at all, but I think one of the areas that shouldn't be compromised on are these quality standards.