3 ms·

All your arguments are based on the grounds that the new feature is just "orange names". However, if you read pg's original post, the "orange names" are to acco

All your arguments are based on the grounds that the new feature is just "orange names". However, if you read pg's original post, the "orange names" are to accomplish the 2 purposes of: - Reward users who has an history of making good comments - Make reading threads easier by highlighting comments which are likely to be better. As a result, I think the change does qualify as a "feature". I think PG's intentions are noble and I agree that there could be better ways to accomplish these 2 purposes.

jacquesm 18y ago
if you need to go back to the post in which a feature was announced to be able to interpret it as a feature then imho you've already missed the boat. It needs to be obvious, self explanatory or there should be some kind of easy to understand explanation of what it means on the pages where it is used (which is pretty much all of them). Simply change the sort order, let go of any coloration, 'good' users have their reward and no need to scan for the 'better' people. That will cause enough postive feedback in and of itself to be a problem that will need fixing in the long run but at least it does not openly invite people to game the system. Otherwise you might as well brace for an influx of sock-puppets, how-to-game-the-system guides (we already saw the first example of that) and 'let's moderate each other up and the rest down' gangs. What's next ? Gold members ? little stars ? To me the whole mechanism of segregating a userbase by the introduction of artificial means of distinguishing one user in a visual way from another has all too many bad resonances to feel comfortable with it. If I were an 'orange' right now I'd definitely opt out, and I applaud all those that have done so.