This is my dilemma, and based on pg's recent poll may be part of why that vote was split. Basically, I feel that I'm interacting more intelligently but receiving less value from the conversation.
I feeling that I am contributing differently, assessing comments more on merit and adding my own thoughts less. I'm certainly voting on comments less (both up and down).
But I find I lack context in many of those discussions - when there are two different views on technical matters, I can't tell the difference in the group's opinion (especially if one is a reply to the other, so not comparable by which is 'higher' in the tree). Group think is bad, by blhack's mysql example is positive group interaction.
I also notice a similar lack of feedback on what is and isn't acceptable by the group. If a snide one-liner sits at the same level as a well-reasoned response, there's nothing to tell us all that one has 15pts in support and one has 1pt (an extreme example - other, more subtle ones, are now only noticeable if someone is greyed out for a negative score). There's no opportunity for us to learn from other's experience.
When you get to a certain level of Karma, you will have the ability to vote down comments (but not articles). The figure changes - I think the level is currently 500 (it was less when I rose through the system, but there were fewer members so fewer votes to go around back then).
Comment scores are currently visible for the author. That's what I mean by not learning from other's examples:
Let's say you say "mysql won't help with foo" and get no upvotes. Ten minutes later, in the same thread, someone says the same thing but adds a link and get 20 upvotes.
You can't tell that their behaviour - adding the link - was valuable to the group. They're above you, which could be a time thing only, so you learn nothing from their actions.
And next time, you make the same reply. If you could see their votes, you would learn from that (for most HN instances of "you").
A more likely case is a person who posts "mysql won't help you with foo" with no link and for no upvotes and "this is the ninja lisp trick" with a link and notices that they get far more upvoates for it.
But the most likely case is a person who notices that the first person to refer to Balmer as "monkey boy" in a hit thread gets massive upvotes.
I feeling that I am contributing differently, assessing comments more on merit and adding my own thoughts less. I'm certainly voting on comments less (both up and down).
But I find I lack context in many of those discussions - when there are two different views on technical matters, I can't tell the difference in the group's opinion (especially if one is a reply to the other, so not comparable by which is 'higher' in the tree). Group think is bad, by blhack's mysql example is positive group interaction.
I also notice a similar lack of feedback on what is and isn't acceptable by the group. If a snide one-liner sits at the same level as a well-reasoned response, there's nothing to tell us all that one has 15pts in support and one has 1pt (an extreme example - other, more subtle ones, are now only noticeable if someone is greyed out for a negative score). There's no opportunity for us to learn from other's experience.
All in all, I want them back.