> the site is designed to prioritize the content of a comment more than the identity of its author.
The site design is similar to HN on this front. I think that it is culture that separates the two instead.
> as comments become upvoted or downvoted based only on what's in that specific comment
This is desirable imo. It should not matter who makes a post but rather the quality of the post itself.
Regardless, I think that groupthink is an inherent problem of upvoting/downvoting and that this is the main cause of it. The best system that I have seen so far is the one that slashdot and its clones use.
> and not the overall identity of the author
This instead leads to personality cults, where for example tptacek's comment will get to the top regardless of its contents and bury superior comments by "irrelevant" users. Plus it is not like groupthink does not exist in HN either.
> it would be like starting an entirely new conversation with every single person you meet
I do not see what you mean by that. Repeating the same things? If so, I do not see how this would be the case. Rather, I think that being able to discuss with others and evaluate what they post in face value without letting your prejudice and opinion of the person itself get in the way is ideal.
> The site design is similar to HN on this front. I think that it is culture that separates the two instead.
Agreed. Culture is important.
Regarding my comment on identity: I'm trying to make a more subtle point, which is that it's difficult to build a long-lasting relationship via an online community if every comment is essentially speaking to a broad, new audience. I can't say, "Hey User-X, you mentioned this last week and I was thinking about it yesterday, and wanted to say this...". There is no continuity and no relationship-building.
Another (poor) metaphor would be: imagine your job is a traveling elevator repairman/repairwoman. You go from building to building, working at each for a few days. Sometimes, you go back to the same building. Maybe you strike up a conversation with each building's maintenance staff, but the fact that you have no enduring identity, means that you never quite get to know anyone, even if you recognize some of the same faces.
Forums didn't have this issue, largely because of avatars, signatures, and basically being forced to read every comment.
> This is desirable imo. It should not matter who makes a post but rather the quality of the post itself.
I think this makes sense at first glance, but the downsides (personality cults) are a separate issue that arises from the voting system. If you had comments/posts organized chronologically, 'cult leader' comments wouldn't be at the top. This also only seems to happen when the community is large enough for an individual to be anonymous within it.
The site design is similar to HN on this front. I think that it is culture that separates the two instead.
> as comments become upvoted or downvoted based only on what's in that specific comment
This is desirable imo. It should not matter who makes a post but rather the quality of the post itself.
Regardless, I think that groupthink is an inherent problem of upvoting/downvoting and that this is the main cause of it. The best system that I have seen so far is the one that slashdot and its clones use.
> and not the overall identity of the author
This instead leads to personality cults, where for example tptacek's comment will get to the top regardless of its contents and bury superior comments by "irrelevant" users. Plus it is not like groupthink does not exist in HN either.
> it would be like starting an entirely new conversation with every single person you meet
I do not see what you mean by that. Repeating the same things? If so, I do not see how this would be the case. Rather, I think that being able to discuss with others and evaluate what they post in face value without letting your prejudice and opinion of the person itself get in the way is ideal.