I think I perhaps prompted this post, and therefore would like to elaborate a little. I'm a relative newcomer to the site. I'm a storage engineer, and I like to think I know a lot about the subject.
This means that practically speaking, I have nothing to contribute on quite a few of the questions asked, simply because of the target audience of serverfault - notionally, posts should already have done the basic amount of research that'd put them past my level of experience.
What I could do though, it looks at posts not relevant to my area of expertise, and see if they have enough detail. And if they do, mark them as such.
This works well on another site I use - it's nothing more than a flag on a post that can be used as an additional search criterion. 'approved' means that an established community member has given it the nod. No more, no less.
This means you can:
search for 'approved' posts (filtered by tag potentially) and see a list of things with enough detail to at least start giving a decent answer, in the right subject areas that you could give a good answer in the first place.
search for 'unapproved' posts, because even if they're outside your subject area, you can usually tell if they do have the key points of a 'good question'. (e.g. not a dupe, relevant to audience, enough detail to start diagnosis).
or don't filter at all, and then you're seeing the same view you would otherwise. (I'd suggest this would be the default).
I think this would mean that you are able to focus on things you could add value to, and skip over the things that you cannot, which is good for everyone concerned - and is part of the rationale behind 'tagging' in the first place.
(I would also suggests, some way of 'show me new questions for my tags' would be quite handy too).