The readers here tend toward the more sophisticated end of the spectrum, and of course the presence of scores doesn't preclude future readings in depth. We all understand that scores are blunt indicators, but why not have access to that information? Knowing how the community "graded" a particular comment is an interesting piece of meta-information, even if you believe the cognitive anchoring effect diminishes its value as an indicator of the relative quality of the comment. But given the quality of the audience, high scores are likely to be positively correlated with quality comments, don't you think?
> high scores are likely to be positively correlated with quality comments, don't you think?
"likely ... positive", granted, but strong correlation, no.
Keep in mind the change was an experiment to mitigate effects of HN growth and the corresponding trend towards average of audience. The "tend" you mention had been unquestionably moving back to the middle.
That said, I don't have a problem with points switching on after the comments page goes to archive mode. I can ignore them then, while those who want to see them then can neither vote based on bias nor vote to correct perceived bias.
Discussion and reading should be thoughtful instead based on clicks
One's own comments can be self-appraised by seeing one's own score in real time, influencing one's own future thoughtfulness.
There are strong opinions and good arguments on both sides. Perhaps we should leave scores hidden, but provide a user preference to turn them on -- after reaching a certain karma level. If one argues that the rapid growth of the site has led to an exaggerated score influence, maybe a "norming" period makes sense. Downvoting privileges have to be "earned," so why not score visibility?
