Having thought about the site and its problems. Undoubtedly it is the 'friendly' nature of the site that is the route cause of the problem. For thousands of years writing has been a solitary trade, and nothing has changed. Excepting now, we use a computer to replace the quill and paper.
Yes, it is good to recommend a book you've enjoyed but when 'we' enters the equation, the popularity contest takes over and merit of the work becomes a secondary issue.
On examination, let's get this one to the Ed's desk is a noble intention but more often than not the preferred candidate's work takes the place of something superior. The end result is the same; the work of the 'friend' is rejected by the Ed's desk and the other writer eventually leaves the site. Every month, there are mediocre books pushed past better books – it cannot be denied.
To add insult to injury there are those who have achieved their gold stars through dubious methods. All those friends and dummy user accounts idle. An army of sockpuppets fat from the ride on a gold star manuscript for which they were created lay waiting, to be passed to the next 'friend.' We notice the writer of 'the Jin Deception' offer his support to Chris Cross, and her book rapidly heads towards the top of the pile. Kfran, supports the stalled 'Spirit Prisoners' and overnight it heads the weekly chart.
Apart from to send other writers to other routes. What can be achieved? Harper Collins have no friends; present them with a mediocre manuscript, they'll just say no. (Again)