Just a few notes though as not sure if people are aware and then I won't say anything I swear.
You can and could RATE cards in my lists on any scale you want. So basically you can tier the cards like you did, filovirus, in for example 5 tiers on my website by putting in numbers from 1-5, or if you wanted from 1-1000 or whatever. What the app then does, it transforms these values in a normalized way, meaning percentages depending on how many cards got each number. That alleviates the problem of some people vote cards tentatively higher while other rate cards tentatively lower, normalizing both. If people want I can elaborate why I think this is needed. So no matter which of the ways I offer to vote, eventually all cards have a percentage value. So I could just use Adam's poll and run it through my algorithm, basically.
Where do we draw the line, if I exclude "bad" players. Is it level 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 of Dominion Online? This is just an arbitrary cutoff. I rather like the approach of weighting each vote depending on the player's level. Low ranked players barely have any influence anyway, but who am I to tell them they are not allowed to vote? But that aside, from the data I have seen, most of the players that take the time to vote on a rating/ranking of Dominion cards, of course are experienced players at the least, meaning this is certainly nothing to worry about. I can guarantee you that the ratings are not affected by "bad" votings. The only thing I have noticed that if the opinion on cards change over a time, the lists are slow to adapt. But that is rather a fault of the people's perception. For many it takes some time to admit that the value of a card changed. Even top players fall into this trap. I remember the Urchin/Urchin opening discussion where even top players at that time didn't realize the power of that opening and Urchin in general. Just to name an example.
Also, to get a bit philosophical. Those lists have the aim to be objective. But what is objective anyway? Let's say a card, is in reality a real power house card, but most players just didn't realize it yet. Of course then this card might be represented undervalued in the list. BUT the list is the status quo of the community's view. So the real strength of a card might not always be reflected by the current opinion of the masses. If you look in the history and other fields of society, like science, the opinion of the masses wasn't always equal to the truth. But for card games like Dominion this isn't so easy to determine as there is such things as a meta. Let's take Sea Hag as an example. It was voted #1 in the $4 list, but now suddenly drops drastically. What would you say is true? Was the card ranked previously incorrectly? Was the meta just wrong and the card was not that good at all? Or was it correctly at #1 for that time given the at that time available expansions? This is very hard to answer in my opinion. It might be a bit of both. But who decides that? We had sites like councilroom.com in the past that helped finding objective answers. But if we look at cards like Sea Hag, Ill-Gotten Gains and Venture, I have a hard time believing that only the addition of expansions changed their value that much. They might have been good back then, but probably not that good as reflected in the rankings. So how do we alleviate that? I can't find a better solution to what I am doing right now. Even if cards are not fully correctly valued, it is still the best representation of the opinion of the masses. I wish we had a site like councilroom.com now where statistical analysis would help ranking the cards better.
P.S: If people think that Adam's list is more correct than mine, don't forget that his list is like 9 months newer. So it is just obvious that especially Empire cards are probably better ranked.