Opinion on these synopses seems to be strongly divided. Sometimes they get lots of upvotes and "that was helpful" replies. Sometimes they get snide comments abo

Opinion on these synopses seems to be strongly divided. Sometimes they get lots of upvotes and "that was helpful" replies. Sometimes they get snide comments about what a waste of time they are and how their authors are just looking for cheap karma. There doesn't seem to be much correlation between which of those happens and how helpful the synopsis actually is. I think having two different voting mechanisms would cause more confusion than the benefit would justify. What about showing the first bit of (1) the original author's text, where present, or (2) the highest-rated toplevel comment, as a mouseover? Even when the highest-rated comment isn't "representative", it probably gives some idea of what the article is about.