I don't want to feel connected to the community, I want to feel connected to the content. I don't like scores. A high score means that a comment was posted ear

I don't want to feel connected to the community, I want to feel connected to the content. I don't like scores. A high score means that a comment was posted early, that it was good or agreeable (which is not the same as being good), and that there was groupthink. A low score means the comment is new, or not useful, or not read. Instead, scores should be there to tell us what to skip. A high score (0) would mean that I need to give the comment attention - whether it's new or a must-read is irrelevant. (This also means that we wouldn't need a score/time ordering system.) A low score (-30) would mean that the comment adds nothing new, or is otherwise less worth reading. Upvotes reserved for those who are seldom downvoted. Perhaps this is too hostile and negative, but then perhaps it's more honest, and better able to filter out those seeking points and those who cannot stomach criticism (which I've always found has helped me improve much more than praise has - and improving the quality of new-contributor comments is the only way we'll be able to grow). I also think it's a loss that we can't remove names from comments (though leaving links to profiles). Removing them would emphasize that the score is about the comment, and not about the name. I understand that developing a large user base is important, and that trying eccentric solutions might aggravate our core group into forever abandoning hn for more predictable and friendly sites... but I really do wish that pg would mess with the site more often and for longer periods of time, and not worry about the community's response. Our system is not so perfect that messing with it is guaranteed to reduce its effectiveness.