This is a good point. Two ideas. 1. What if comments containing a link to “evidence” were more heavily weighted? The evidence could be inaccurate or biased but

This is a good point. Two ideas. 1. What if comments containing a link to “evidence” were more heavily weighted? The evidence could be inaccurate or biased but that would lead to better conversations than anecdotal information, no? 2. What if the upvote/downvote were categorized? Examples: - “-1 Commenter appears to not have read post, irrelevant”. - “-1 Commenter did not provide link to evidence or source material”. - “+1 Commenter provided link to research/evidence”. There could be a second layer where people could vote on what they perceive as the quality of the evidence. From this perspective, HN could maybe let more controversial and even inflammatory comments stay while letting commenters discuss the merits of the evidence that backs/refutes them. Just an idea but the current lack of innovation in HN moderation feels lazy and half-baked.