the problem is that without a vote count, how do you know if 2 people voted for it (and thus really isn't a big deal), or 127 (and thus, the OP should really fix his stupid site). The only alternative are "me too" posts, which are hideous (and which is basically what my reply was).

In short, as-is, the OP really has no way of knowing just how aggravating his site is.

Thanks for explaining your comment, that makes sense. I do think, however, that your parent's comment makes a point on its own merit, not sure it needs to be "me too'd" 127 times to be heard. It also gets a prominent position on the page even without a vote count.

I'll concede that 127 visible upvotes are much preferable to 127 "me too" replies, though!

Helps three groups of people.

1. Those who aren't familiar with the topic. With a single-digit score, there's potentially not much value there. With a three-digit score, hey, maybe people shouldn't use large images in the background. Then this person can either follow it or look up or ask why this is. It's marking significance to an otherwise unknown topic.

2. Similarly, if the author of the site sees this, they can see just how many people agree with this. This is important because again, high score means people agree with it. This person may still not take action, but should at least consider it if it's a high enough score. Maybe even chime in and respond with a rationale.

3. The rest of the community. This will either acknowledge your own views or raise a red flag if the score is high enough. Did you miss something? Are enough people just plain wrong according to what you believe to be true? Should you post a counter-point or add/ask for clarification?

These are all good reasons to bring back vote counts (which, again, I'm in favor of) but only your point (2) is a reply to my question about this particular case. (1) and (3) would apply to any comment here on HN.

I guess what I didn't take into account in my previous comment is that the guy responsible for the animated GIF might drop by HN and might take the GGP's comment more seriously if he sees a large number of votes attached to it. This makes sense and is another good reason to get vote counts back here, especially if it discourages others from posting me-too comments.

If people saw [ 528 ] as the vote count for that comment, they'd be less likely to upvote it themselves.

That would be a bug, not a feature.

If you see a comment or article you approve of, you should upvote it, regardless of how popular (or not) it is among other people. If there are 529 people who approve of a certain comment, then it comes by those 529 upvotes honestly.

This is the reason why some beggars on the street make more money than a full time job (If they're in a really good spot).

Everyone thinks they're just giving them a little bit. But all those little bits add up to a lot. Without any visibility into how much other people have already given them, there is no way for people decide if they really need the money or not.

If you saw a beggar on the street, and knew that they'd already been given $1000 so far that day, would you still give them a dollar?

I don’t see upvoting as giving something to a beggar; I see it as an exchange of value. You give me something I like (something interesting to read) and I give you something you like (karma).

There are comments that I feel deserve 5-10 votes, but not 100.

I've also heard the exact opposite argued: that there's a pile-on effect when someone sees how the majority of the community thinks.

Huh? So what if people upvote a comment with many votes... no harm done, right?