4 ms·

This has been discussed before, and if my memory serves me correctly it wasn't that well received.

• chrischen 17y ago
  What was the problem?
  • ghshephard 17y ago
    Well, for one, seeing an comment on cryptography by cperciva already communicates a great deal before you've even read the first word. Not to say he's never wrong, but I'm inclined to believe that his largest mistakes on the topic are still more accurate than my most carefully reasoned treatises on the subject. You can find many, many such Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) on HN who likewise carry weight on a topic (PG on Startups?) by their very identity.
    • gruseom 17y ago
      Absolutely. When Peter Norvig drops by to make a comment or two, I want to know. Besides, it's human nature to always ask "who". Any system that tries to override human nature has its work cut out for it.
      • Locke1689 17y ago
        Besides, it's human nature to always ask "who". Not just nature, but efficiency. The statement, "In argument subject, not author, holds interest" may be true in theory but in practice this breaks down. People without established expertise may have worthwhile contributions but it's easier for people to receive contributions from people with known expertise. For example, I would just as wholeheartedly receive a comment from cperciva as one from "A well-known cryptographer and talented mathematician with a relevant and competitive PhD." This is mostly notably seen in the physical sciences wherein most theoretical physics treatises are given little attention from the mainstream physics community unless there is a credible and relevant PhD backing it. Physicists simply don't have the time to pick through all of the papers from amateur hour and point out where they messed up the calculation that they should have learned in Quantum Optics 332. This expedience is partially reflected in HN comments. While ideally everyone would have a chance to respond to every comment to point out where it is factually incorrect, few have the time. It is also disconcerting to see a factually incorrect comment with more points than the factually correct reply. In each of these cases, one could comment to express agreement with the reply and reinforce the incorrectness of the original comment, but a combination of vote up/vote down fulfills a similar function in a fraction of the time. Perfect? No. Expedient? Yes.
    • chrischen 17y ago
      I didn't mean to suggest hiding the name so that we can't find out who posted the comment, but rather just making it more difficult. So you can still find out who wrote the comment, by clicking on the link to the comment, or perhaps requiring a mouseover. I mean I can already see some problems to being able to see a name, and having that "communicate a great deal" just by the name. If the comment communicates a great deal, then why can't the comment stand on its own merits? It just seems that more people will be inclined to upvote because of the person who said it. And I understand the concern about being able quickly skim and find notable experts replying. This is a potential problem with hiding author names. But I think some of this problem can be alleviated by the fact that better comments usually float to the top anyways. Also perhaps this feature can be something that is only disabled after reaching a karma threshold?
      • roundsquare 17y ago
        I think your right if you assume that the argument is a self contained object. But a lot of times an argument draws on someone's experiences. In these cases, it can be useful to know who the person is. For example, I remember reading earlier comments about the negative impact of working all night long on a start up. If I had said this, people would (rightly) ignore me. But if someone who has a startup had said this, it should carry more weight.