Fact: any voting system is prone to some abuse.
Truthfully, how many people deal with "fake" or "revenge" voting on a regular basis? I say the percentage is small enough to be negligible.
When it was anonymous, it was actually a lot. Certainly not negligible. It was enough to drive the previous owners away for a while, or at least to make them ask not to be emailed anymore.
Comments and corrections are more useful, if the page owner actually pays any attention to them.
True. Also, the "Needs Major Updates" button is very important.
Most votes are actually pretty meaningless. With non-anonymous voting, even more so people vote 10/10 on everything including almost completely blank pages and spam photos. Usually it’s the same members doing it over and over again. Perhaps I shouldn’t list them by name though. For the offenders, their vote weight can be manually adjusted, but this presents other ethical issues, such as who gets to decide if a vote is dumb or mindless.
To me, votes shouldn’t be only some kind of “award”, but are truly needed to flag the bad stuff out there. There are a lot of mountain, route, and/or area/range pages seriously either lacking in details or inaccurate. Accuracy is better than pretty pictures.
Make sure to use the “Needs Major Updates” as well as the comments section.
If you see a page that is lacking or inaccurate, please flag it regardless of its score. Also, don't be afraid to use the comments section for constructive criticism.
As for things like photo voting, to me this isn't so important. Page owners can detach whatever photos they find meaningless anyway.
Here's an idea that might actually help with these voting "problems": Use the number of votes an item gets divided by the number of unique views (or member views) as a factor in determining it's score. That way the non-votes count against it; sort of a way of anonymous down-voting that shouldn't get abused.
This has been looked at and discussed. It has its own problems such as with adopted pages, et al, as well as pages that are linked to other sites and used by the news media. For example, if someone gets rescued on so and so mountain and the news story mentions the mountain's name, SP hits typically skyrocket, all the hits from non members. Also, some members have their pages linked to other sites, whether they did so or not. I know the Nepalese Government, for example has links to some SP pages, and UFO sites link one mountain in Nevada (just a few examples). It was and is an interesting idea, but it does present some real problems.