As one of the people who recommended this site be opened to public beta, I'm going to quote the relevant portion of my recommendation here on the off-chance it's useful to anyone:
The best model for this site is Skeptics - no limit to the subject matter, but strict limits on the sorts of problems that can be solved and how they can be solved. Focus on real problems, focus on testable solutions and rate based on comparison to normal, non-hacky ones. After the first week of gold-rush nonsense, a community is forming around these principles, and with support they may produce something that truly does make the 'Net better.
That said... This sort of strict, rule-based content moderation is not for everyone. Expect the site to struggle to retain contributors for a long, long time. We must resist the urge to push for laissez faire policies that don't irritate people but don't push them to do better than the status quo...
If that comes together, this could work. If it doesn't, we'll find ourselves shutting it down in a few months, or worse, dealing with ugly in-fighting. The dangers are real. But so is the potential.
The biggest danger I see for this site is that it becomes yet another lame content-farm, regurgitating the same sketchy folk wisdom found on 10,000 other sites (Replace All Your Cleaning Supplies With Vinegar!!! #LifeHack) - if we can avoid that trap, this site may actually accomplish something.