The site also needs to do away with the leaderboard once and for all, and, in a perfect world, make it hard to find out how much karma another user has.
Seeing my own karma has absolutely made my writing suit HN better (I'm a lot meaner elsewhere). It's a valuable signal. I wouldn't wine if I got docked, or if karma went log-scored or something like that, because it's absolutely true that high-karma users also get an automatic point boost, but I'd rather not lose the signal.
I don't scan the comments as much as others probably, but when I do, I prioritize by a few things: Those that include links, and when I have the time, those that are lengthy, since often those can be from people who had a lot to say and you can tell by the tone of the first paragraph if it's worth your time.
I love the egalitarian nature of the system that doesn't single out new users who might just as well have valid points to make.
They care about learning something new, being intellectually stimulated and sometimes just being entertained, but given the limited way that karma is exposed, I'd be surprised if the average user goes to any great length to find out the karma count of a comment poster.
I may have to make it, now that I think about it. It'd probably change my voting habits a bit. Especially if I also removed the usernames until after I voted... flatten the playing field, so to speak, while still identifying like-minded people.
Thanks for the explanation.
Yep, I'd much rather read a dozen guys that nobody knows that help me out in life and help me make terrific changes than become pen-pals and an expert on the top 17 people in the tech industry or on HN. This herd mentality stuff drives me nuts at times.
You know, I also feel that people should own their comments, but something as simple as hiding the name until the mouse hovers over the pseudonym would prevent a lot of abuse. It's not like we all have to become anonymous. I think the board just needs to take steps to prevent automatic up or down voting. There are lots of solutions to choose from.
The celebrity writers always have a certain personality. Whether it's John Gruber or Paul Graham or Dave Winer, they've established exactly what sorts of things they're gonna talk about and how they're gonna talk about it. When we see their names, we know what to expect. Whether it's a good post or a shit post (and everybody has some of each), we still feel like we got our click's worth and are satisfied with that.
If I had a choice to see a new DaringFireball essay or another essay, completely unknown, completely at random, I'll probably go with the DF one. It sells me a certain level of quality, a topic that I usually am interested in, a writing style that I very much enjoy. The unknown essay might be more valuable or relevant, but I'm not as instantly willing to give it a chance.
...unless, of course, the author makes an effort to grab me, by titling his essay provocatively or writing in an entertaining style. But then once he finds success with that method, he's not going to want to drop the shtick and risk becoming unknown again. He'll continue with it. At a certain point he'll become a celebrity poster. Then we're back to dealing with the same old shit as we did before.
Part of the problem is that HN displays us both POINT VALUE and USER NAME before it even gives us the essay. There is no way to read a comment without seeing the author and the point value before hand. So we're unavoidably biased before we see a word.