<p>I have been here for not quite long but I do have a taste of what HNQ does. So, count me in among the league of those users who feel exasperated when an HNQ bloats a mediocre question and it gets unnecessary number of upvotes.</p>
<p>But before investing in too much, let's take a stroll. HNQ has been the centerpiece of debate among many of our sister sites and Meta since time immemorial, mostly for the reason you articulated. (See <a href="https://meta.superuser.com/questions/11712/dealing-with-low-quality-questions-that-end-up-on-hot-network-questions">Dealing with low-quality questions that end up on Hot Network Questions</a>, <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/238420/prevent-questions-on-the-hot-list-from-being-upvoted-by-casual-visitors-only-re">Prevent questions on the Hot List from being upvoted by casual visitors (only rep is from association bonus)</a>, <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/219922/what-is-the-goal-of-hot-network-questions">What is the Goal of &quot;Hot Network Questions&quot;?</a>, <a href="https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/31508/what-is-the-goal-of-having-questions-from-math-se-in-the-se-network-hot-question">What is the goal of having questions from Math.SE in the SE Network Hot Questions List?</a>, <a href="https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12515/do-physics-hot-network-questions-help-or-harm-the-site">Do Physics Hot Network Questions help or harm the site?</a> etc.)</p>
<p>Few points are noteworthy:</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> The intention of HNQ is to advocate the field among the wider community to popularize the field. To evoke interest among the non-users and lure those who aren't yet in the community. (And <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/220099/1266833">entertainment</a>.)</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> In pursuit of those, we witnessed not every time &quot;popular&quot; questions are synonymous to well-researched sophisticated conceptual/computational query that practitioners, veterans and students of that field would like at the outset.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> There is the assertion that casual users who join only after viewing the HNQ would flood the posts with upvotes and so there a <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/238420/prevent-questions-on-the-hot-list-from-being-upvoted-by-casual-visitors-only-re">proposal</a> was raised to prevent that. But it didn't go anywhere. IMO, it can be a reasonable issue to ponder about but would not jump to the conclusion that  this is the sole issue.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> Not every time HNQ posts are low-quality. Sometimes even though the original query is mediocre, the answers are are broadly appreciable (eg. Ben's post on <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/590925/362671">possibility theory</a>).</p>
<p>Crux is that while HNQ can be flawed, it's not outright useless. How it can be fixed and any other issue are, however, not the relevant queries to be addressed here - those are for another debate.</p>
<p>Coming to the main query: how can we improve attention to the not so popular and yet the more useful, more conceptual and more intricate posts that are lurking in the deep vault of CV?</p>
<p>Here are my takes:</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> <strong>Advocate our site among your peers!</strong> Seriously, I urge you and all comrades of this community to advocate and disseminate the site among your colleagues, your social media influence sphere. Invite the professionals you are acquainted with. Invite your professors here. Draw in more professionals who can appreciate the genuine posts.</p>
<p>CV regularly tweets posts (different from HNQ) in its handle. Share those among your followers. We do have an envious number of veteran practitioners and big guns here. But we want way more.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> <strong>Award those unsung posts by putting bounty.</strong> And why not? What are these reps worth for if not for uplifting other good posts? If you have come across any post that you feel the user has toiled and sewed meticulously to concoct a well-researched post, then reward it! Questions but not answered yet? Put bounty. Bring it to the center stage. Well-researched formal answers, properly cited answers, nitpicking yet formal derivations that were written years ago but only received paltry votes? Reward them! By doing so, you are necessarily infusing them with new lives. The posts would be revived again to be viewed by the present community.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$\bullet$</span> This is more of a speculative lament: <strong>Adopt practices that potentially can make well-researched posts to HNQ.</strong> Unfortunately, I haven't yet delved into what makes a post to HNQ apart from some quick votes. If it is so, then so be it. Quickly upvote those good piece of questions that seem to be very well-researched and conceptually rich and intricate.</p>
<p>But imo, the goal should be to rope in more  veteran practitioners, professors and other advanced people who aren't in our site yet. After all, we are here to make a knowledgeable repository of statistics and that should include those advanced posts that otherwise get snubbed thanks to handful few users who could appreciate the worth or have the knowledge firsthand to respond. Increasing the knowledgeable base here would certainly be beneficial.</p>
<p>This is, again, my humble opinion only. Perhaps let me stay here for a year or two to acquire more experience to provide a better commentary but for now these are the options that I can conjure up.</p>
