This wasn't my idea (someone else had posted it), but I think it would be nice to see the usernames fade from grey to green as the comment score increases (maybe capping at 10 or 15). That way, one can quickly scan and see the best comments, but there isn't such a direct relationship as a numerical score. For example, the username could go through these steps:

  004400
  005500
  006600
  . . .
  00EE00
  00FF00

That way one can even faster pick out things that people have generally agreed is of good value, but it isn't immediately obvious what the exact score is - there's a fuzzyness to it - and there's also a cap on the displayed score (in that you can't get more green than 00FF00 and starting at 004400 would cap it at 12).

It fits my use cases which are skimming for good comments and figuring out if something I don't know much about has value (for example, if someone says, "they should have done it this way. . .", it can act as a barometer of the suggestion's value). It also seems like it would be easy enough to implement.

I'm not going to vote on the poll because I've actually found that the level of discussion has felt better without the votes shown. I enjoy the site more for the reason you've cited. Not to psycho-analyze too much, but the lack of vote scores removes the pressure to have the best comment or a better score than someone that has a different perspective. Even if two people are being totally respectful to start with, it can become psychologically difficult when the other person is getting more votes. One might try to make it a debate (that they're trying to win against the other person) more than a discussion (in which two parties are trying to figure out the truth together).

However, the site has become a bit less utilitarian and it sometimes does take me longer to weed through the information in the thread. Maybe varying the color of the usernames based on the comment score (and capping at 12) would add some limitations and fuzzyness to it that would meld the two. Capping at 12 would mean that both parties arguing might get the same public presentation of 00FF00 and that might quell the need for parties to prove that they're the winner of the argument by popular vote. Likewise, humans don't perceive colors exactly and that might add another layer that would diminish people comparing themselves so much and trying to score points. I guess I think it would be interesting to see if this would be a nice balance.

Example: A person posts that they think VPSs are better for hosting than renting a physical box and they talk about their reasoning (machine images that you can bring up more boxes of, launching new instances within minutes, whatnot) and it's a good comment. Someone replies espousing the virtues of physical hardware (a tad more speed, not sharing IO, whatnot). Now it becomes a bit of a competition between the two ideas (and the two posters). They were both good, valuable comments about different approaches. There is no right answer and there might not even be a better answer. The community knows this and both have comment scores above 12, but each person feels pressure to "win". With the green usernames, they're both at 00FF00 and have no idea if the community has given the other person more votes. There's no need to score points off each other or need to defend one's ego. You know you've made a valuable contribution and the other person has also, but for all you know they've gotten a good fewer votes than you. It still allows everyone reading the two comments to know that they're both generally good advice. So, there isn't a fight and an on-looker can see that both comments should be read and headed.

This violates two simple, and obvious, tenets of investing:

1. Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

2. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Actually Luigi, you're missing the best and most fundamental rule:

3. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns

This was a reply I wrote to tptacek (first quoted part his) -

> Meanwhile, not having up-to-the-minute scores makes the site more pleasant to participate in; one isn't prodded to make statements in reaction to ludicrous (and likely ephemeral) voting swings.

I feel the same. The change makes the site a bit harder to consume - particularly, skimming-quickly-for-a-couple-good-points is harder.

But it makes the site much nicer to participate in. First, I don't feel the need to reply to mean, nasty, or incorrect replies to me unless I have something to add. Second - and I think this is really nice - voting has become less about promoting an argument or viewpoint and more about saying "thanks for this" or "less of this, please" - I find myself voting up thoughtful stuff I disagree with more often now, and voting less frequently overall.

Personally, I'd say the site is harder to consume efficiently now, but more pleasant to interact with.

--

It'd be interesting to see voting by people who are regular/frequent commentors vs. mostly lurkers, if there was a way to segment it out somehow. I bet the response rates are different between the two groups.

How about switching comment scores on after a certain amount of time? I've found myself especially wanting them when looking through older threads.

My dad works in the airplane industry and had an interesting story to tell me that relates to this. (I'm not sure exactly how accurate it is or what the source is, sorry). Apparently, it is illegal for pilots to read while flying. Even if they are heading in a straight line with no one around for miles. This is because one time an pilot wasn't paying attention and due to a series of software failures, the plane turned into a mountain. Interestingly, the plane was tuning at a very exact amount so that the number of Gs remained constant.

In any case, this single crash caused regulation to state that computers can never fly planes by themselves. This strikes me as rather unfair. If a single human crashed a plane, it does not make it illegal for humans to fly planes by themselves.

Another example is that in London, subways must be driven by a human. Even though driving a subway may be trivial (there is no way to steer), Londoners apparently do not feel comfortable being driven by a non-living thing. They want to be sure that if they die, the driver dies too, adding a level of accountability.

It seems that this sort of wide-spread mistrust of machines is driven more by socially normal paranoia than any kind of logic. I for one am rooting for machines to take over all forms of driving. There may be a few mishaps, but it will probably become hundreds of times safer eventually.

I didn't say I'd do whatever got the most votes.