I'm having difficulties staying interested in Code Review. I don't feel like I'm participating to anything 'grander' than just stating the same design principles over and over again, hence I started participating less and less. I can't speak for others, but I feel this is a real issue if Code Review ever wants to get out of beta.
Almost over a year ago here, and as far as I'm concerned it's not, which raised the question "How can we make Code Review more useful for a broader audience?".
One thing which should be accepted is that Code Review doesn't fit the default Q&A format. Just consider the 'duplicate' and 'too localized' close reasons for starters. This makes this site "a bit of an odd duck and a trial balloon." as Jeff Atwood called it. This doesn't have to be a bad thing at all - I'm even a proponent of experimenting with the SE engine to use it for other purposes -, but it does mean the system isn't 100% in sync with the purpose of this site. Where the system fails, we have all the more need for proper conventions which are enforced by the community, which brings me to my actual suggestion ...
What if we create elaborate tagging conventions which group code samples (questions) under recurring design flaws/design patterns? This site would effectively become a possible resource for outside users to look for examples on a certain topic. We could even encourage users to review code themselves by applying 'design flaw' tags to their questions. The wikis of the tags prevents us from having to restate the intention behind a design principle over and over again, and the tags become a resource of design principles and common pitfalls.
Somehow the idea of working on something reusable would make it a lot more worthwhile for me, but it could just be my OCD for the DRY principle. What about you?