Christian, you pose the issue that if we assign trust based on historical performance and skill set of the reporters that we will overlook bug reports by others.
and then you say that we need to find triagers, because that's the only solution. well, good freakin' luck. to state it bluntly: i hope you can find a large chunk of money that someone is willing spend not on new development, not on marketing, not on visual appearance and not even on fixing bugs but on reading, verifying and categorizing bugs in kde. let me pause for a moment while i laugh my ass off.
professional bug triage efforts do not come from the "volunteer" part of the community. we've pretty much proven that much. we're good at fixing bugs, we're good at finding bugs ... we suck at categorizing and organizing them.
continue to scream at the wind all you want, this is what we know based on repeated trials. so as to avoid the foolishness of ignoring data and repeating mistakes, i'm suggesting we need to improve the software we use to work with bug reports and change the processes by which we gather bugs. tom alber's thoughts on this are therefore, imho, much more useful.
now, if in your project it's mostly random users that bring the bugs in, then the software ought to let you note that. hell, you could simply read that "low trust level" list of bugs first. so rather than standing in your way, my suggested change actually makes it easier for you to find the demographic you are looking for too!
when it comes to kicker, kscd, kjots, etc... i can tell you it's exactly the opposite as kprinter, however.
and i'd like to see a lot more triaging happen within the OS vendors (most of whom are linux distributions) and have their bug reports float to the top since they are likely better researched, the result of user feedback, and often contain patches.
think about it.