Overall, comparing our results to the predictions implicit in rational action theory and costly signaling theory, the majority of evidence suggests that rising costs for extreme scores yields greater crowd wisdom even when there is no conflict or competition among users. However, there appeared to be an asymmetry: boosting time costs for reporting very low scores had some negative effects, which is consistent with rational action theory. Indeed, if raters have initially little or no motivation to report low scores, increasing the cost of reporting such scores may reduce their rating effort even further. We therefore suggest that tuning signaling time costs should be viewed as an optimization problem of fitting appropriate costs to selection regimes and to the expected motivation of the users (30).