Hacker News Reader

I'm basically a lurker (I'm guessing I've probably been around for about two years although I've only had an account for about a year). I frequent Hacker News because it's a good technology news filter that keeps me informed of the latest trends without having to sift through link bait blog posts in Google Reader. For me, the enjoyment of lurking has definitely declined with scores being hidden because it's difficult to quickly find valuable comments. I voted for "I liked it better when comment scores were displayed."

I'd agree that comment wars have declined which probably makes it a much more enjoyable experience for frequent commenters. Having comment scores shown seems to encourage lurking and quick consumption while hidden scores seems to encourage thoughtful comments but it makes lurking difficult. I'm guessing the goals of the site are focused more towards commenters/community than it is towards lurkers.

I'm basically a lurker as well (< a dozen comments in 3 years probably), but despite the increased difficulty in identifying the best contributions to a discussion, I still overall feel I and the site both are better off without the comment scores visible. The quality of discussion has improved so drastically that I'm ok with the fact that it's harder for me to visually dissect the wheat from the chaff.

The site was better with scores 2 years ago than it is now, but given the options at present, I'd stick with pg's decision.

As a starting point, I think there is not much downside in showing full integer comment scores for comments over n (n=2?) days old.

In addition, I think there are a variety of ways of improving the "ease of consumption" (ie scanning for good comments) without re-introducing the gaming-type issues with integer comment scores. For example:

1. Use a log(karma) function or some other simple obfuscation method 2. Highlight/mark comments by a small number of point thresholds or quantiles 3. Highlight/mark only the top x% of comments on a thread

I do think there is value in seeing some signals of comment quality, but I don't think these need to be particularly granular at all (even just one or two "good comment tiers" could be sufficient).

> But it makes the site much nicer to participate in ... snip ...

To play the devil here...

Basically, you need the site to provide you with restraints to overcome your self control problems?

> First, I don't feel the need to reply to mean, nasty, or incorrect replies to me unless I have something to add.

You never did before. In fact, you shouldn't have. You upvote comments that add to the discussion, and down vote comments that do not add any value.

> Second - and I think this is really nice - voting has become less about promoting an argument or viewpoint and more about saying "thanks for this" or "less of this, please"

It's always been that way. Or at least, that's how I always approached it. That you weren't doing that before was your problem.

> I find myself voting up thoughtful stuff I disagree with more often now, and voting less frequently overall.

I find myself voting less frequent as well. Mostly because it serves not real purpose now. Whereas before, I could upvote quality comments, now the only person who sees quality comments is that person.

The arguments I see for hiding of the points seem to revolve around solving personal issues people have. Your comment succinctly displays that.

Now, let me just say that I don't care whether points are shown or not. That, I believe, is the wrong argument. Rather, comments should be highlighted based on their value relative to other comments under the same post. This means specific points aren't revealed. Highly valued comments are highlighted. People browsing for information get a better understanding of what is valuable and what isn't.

Otherwise, what's the value in having a points system? By not using it to display valued comments, it makes having points pointless (honestly, no pun intended).

Edit: I want to be clear, I'm being fairly straightforward above. I'm not intending to attack you. If I was too succinct and it came off too harsh, please forgive me. Your comment was a good one, and I don't want you offended by what I wrote. =)

Basically, you need the site to provide you with restraints to overcome your self control problems?

Yes, as do you, me, and everyone else. Although It's not so much a self control problem as it is that we're all susceptible to the same biases.

Yes. The point I was trying to get across. =) However, that begs the question then: why bother with display points at all? If they serve no purpose externally, then they don't need to be shown.

> Basically, you need the site to provide you with restraints to overcome your self control problems?

Hah! Fair question, but I don't think that's it.

Here's an actual example - I wrote a detailed comment about the evolution of a certain field and then I linked to resources for people who want to learn more.

This guy who is a bit of a knucklehead replies, "This is wrong, you shouldn't get your info from Wikipedia" - actually, he was mistaken and I knew what I was talking about. But if his (incorrect on both counts) comment was voted higher than mine, it would make sense to reply to it to clarify.

Another example is when someone mis-summarizes something to put words in your mouth. If it gets voted up by chance a little, it's a self perpetuating thing where it looks accurate. If there's no points, everyone has to evaluate it critically and then, that's fine.

Like you say right here, points sort of signal quality. There's an implication that if one comment is at +5 and there's a reply at +15 saying "You're mistaken", then the +15 comment is correct. If someone is being a jerk and incorrect, it's a lot easier to ignore them when they don't have a seemingly-legitimate blessing.

> The arguments I see for hiding of the points seem to revolve around solving personal issues people have. ... I want to be clear, I'm being fairly straightforward above. I'm not intending to attack you. If I was too succinct and it came off too harsh, please forgive me. Your comment was a good one, and I don't want you offended by what I wrote. =)

No offense, absolutely a valid and good comment. Anyways, I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a personal self control thing so much as -

1. People respond to incentives and signals.

2. An incorrect comment that's highly voted up puts out the signal that its correct and authoritative.

3. If someone replies to you and says "you're wrong and an idiot" and there's an external signal that they're correct, there's a very natural incentive to reply to that.

4. Whereas if people are forced to use critical thinking and evaluate comments on their own merits, the external signal is removed, and a lot of the incentive to reply (clearing up that you're not, in fact, wrong and an idiot as apparently signaled by this highly-voted comment) is no longer there.

I guess you could spin that as being about personal things, but I don't think that's it - a lot of veteran commentors who are seemingly very self-controlled people (tptacek, patio11, etc) have responded along similar lines. When someone says something nasty and incorrect about you and there's a public signal that it's correct, there's a very natural incentive to reply which is largely removed by this change.

I don't think it's just about personal things. As someone else replied, points affect all our judgements. However, overall, I found that for the most part, the points were fairly accurate. Good comments got a good number of points. The problems people point to seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule.

My issue is that if you aren't using the points as any indicator of quality, then you've effective made the points useless. Why display them at all? They serve no purpose.

The problem with this debate, and this pole, is the black and white nature of it. Either you display points, or you don't.

Rather, I'd like to see a solution that balances the two. Don't display points, but use points under a single topic to figure out the worth of a comment.

> If there's no points, everyone has to evaluate it critically and then, that's fine.

That seems to be something a lot of "no-pointers" are pushing. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize a few things here.

1. People could do that before.

2. People are just as like to vote based on preconceived notions.

3. People who aren't experts in the field have little information other than what's presented to go on. Just because someone makes a seemingly good argument doesn't mean they are right.

> If someone is being a jerk and incorrect, it's a lot easier to ignore them when they don't have a seemingly-legitimate blessing.

4. All comments are given an equal stage. Even comments that are wrong. (Voting down shouldn't be for disagreements. Rather, for comments that don't bring value). Basically, it levels the playing field for a debate between evolutionists and creationists. It makes them seem as if equals.

5. We still dim negative comments. Any argument for not displaying points needs to account for the dimming of negatively voted comments. As someone who has been negatively voted into dimness, only to be subsequently upvoted, negative votes being singled out doesn't help matters.

People need to split the points and highlights discussion. Don't display points. However, use them to highlight comments in a threat. Base the comment value on the threads point distribution, not on a grand distribution. Basically, a high quality comment in a low traffic thread will have a different points value from that of a high quality comment in a high traffic thread.

> voting has become less about promoting an argument or viewpoint and more about saying "thanks for this" or "less of this, please"

The problem with not displaying comment scores (or other approximate indicators) is that I have no way to know how my "this is good" or "less of this" votes will interact with other votes. In particular, there are times when I see a comment that I think deserves to be at 1 but not 0, and without scores, I don't know whether my downvote will take it too low.

Perhaps some modifications to /bestcomments would ameliorate the need for visible comment scores as a consumption guide. A tiny star or somesuch that linked to the /bestcomments page would seem to fit natural use pretty well.