I recently took a look at the badges overview and it seems to me that a lot of the gold badges are literally or nearly impossible to earn on the Philosophy SE, such as "Stellar Question", "Great Question", etc. have never been awarded and the conditions are nearly impossible to meet on this website. The conditions are exactly the same on more popular websites such as the Math SE.
On Math SE, the most upvoted question has 394 votes, and 41 questions have a total of 100 or more upvotes. On Philosophy SE, the most upvoted question has only 83 votes. This is not because this question is "worse", so to speak, than the most upvoted question on Math SE, but this is simply because the Philosophy SE attracts less visitors.
Wouldn't it make more sense to link the conditions to earn badges to the number of visitors or active users on a site? It's not that this bothers me personally that much; it's just that after reading a lot about gamification, I think these badges are a great way to motivate people to write good questions and answers, and since the developers of this platform decided to implement such a badge system, I suppose they believe in that too. However, since some of these badges are virtually unattainable on this website, it seems to miss the point.
I do understand that they might simply want more visitors (which is probably why this site is still in beta) rather than change their criteria to earn badges. However, I think it is due to the nature of the subject that this website will always attract less visitors than Math SE, for instance. Once you accept that, I think it's best to make motivate these (fewer) visitors as much as possible, which might in turn lead to a more and higher-quality content, which might in turn lead to a (slightly) higher number of visitors.