Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's a signal to noise problem.

In a perfect world I would research each comment, do basic background checkes against stated facts, think through the implications of the comment, etc. and then form an unbiased opinion. I would do this with every comment thread. After I had done this I would be uniquely qualified to form an opinion on every comment, and I would be wise because I'd read and understood all the comments. I'd also have spent most of my day doing so.

The reason comment scores, and usernames as a proxy for scores, are interesting is that it's a good way of cutting through the noise. Most people just don't have the time to read through all comments on a thread and form an opinion on each one seperately.

That's what I'm really missing about the points - I don't care how many points a certain poster or a certain comment has, but I do care greatly to have an indicator of quality so that I can skim through a thread and pick out the best comments. Particularly on long comment threads where I don't know much about the subject, or on busy days.



or.... you could just read the comment and form an opinion based on the content.

The reason comment scores are bad is that it leads to leads to anchoring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring This is probably why dumb and/or mean comments get upvoted (as discussed in tokenadults top comment).


You are an optimist. In a perfect world it would take you 100++ hours to read and research all HN comments per day.


That is why in a "perfect world" thought experiment, resources are not finite.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: