Show HN: I got tired of stressing about my karma, so I wrote this.(bitbucket.org)
bitbucket.org
Show HN: I got tired of stressing about my karma, so I wrote this.
https://bitbucket.org/anthonyb/nohnkarma/overview
11 comments
"The only thing I find off about it is the average karma on profile pages. Personally, I find that it subconsciously dissuades me from commenting anywhere that is likely to result in few/no upvotes. My first comment on a story might get 20, 40, 80 upvotes, but any extended discussion is going to be rather nested, and so you're essentially burning through your average as each comment sits with only one or two votes. Similarly, commenting on "unpopular" articles means few people will see your comment, so you're pulling your average down again."
It's not just commenting on unpopular articles and deeply nested discussions that will pull your average karma down, but commenting on old articles.
By the time I find an interesting article to comment on, it will usually be at least a day old. Nevertheless, I tend to comment there anyway, in full knowledge that very few people will ever read my comment or upvote it, because most of the action on HN happens within the first day, and most people move on to the newest articles very quickly.
The way HN handles average karma calculation in such circumstances is pretty sad because of the disincentive it places on people to comment on good older articles, which are often much more interesting and worthwhile than your typical new article.
This problem is compounded by HN's attempts to disallow duplicate article postings (though there are ways around that), and lack of automatic linking to previous discussions on the same article (though manual linking is occasionally done by HN users themselves).
In short, there should be a way to keep productive discussions going, rather than effectively placing a limit of about 1 day on any given discussion.
I hate to praise web forums in any way, but I do think one thing they get right is to usually bring any threads which have been recently commented on back to the top. HN would benefit from a similar approach.
It's not just commenting on unpopular articles and deeply nested discussions that will pull your average karma down, but commenting on old articles.
By the time I find an interesting article to comment on, it will usually be at least a day old. Nevertheless, I tend to comment there anyway, in full knowledge that very few people will ever read my comment or upvote it, because most of the action on HN happens within the first day, and most people move on to the newest articles very quickly.
The way HN handles average karma calculation in such circumstances is pretty sad because of the disincentive it places on people to comment on good older articles, which are often much more interesting and worthwhile than your typical new article.
This problem is compounded by HN's attempts to disallow duplicate article postings (though there are ways around that), and lack of automatic linking to previous discussions on the same article (though manual linking is occasionally done by HN users themselves).
In short, there should be a way to keep productive discussions going, rather than effectively placing a limit of about 1 day on any given discussion.
I hate to praise web forums in any way, but I do think one thing they get right is to usually bring any threads which have been recently commented on back to the top. HN would benefit from a similar approach.
This is one of the downsides to the karma game - people tend to be reluctant to do anything which will hurt their score. Stories are dead after about 12 hours, and almost nobody checks their comments unless they're in a flame war.
Once I realized that most of my karma was coming from my most casual comments, I stopped attaching much importance to it at all.
My main issue with that attitude is that it primarily comes from older users with a ton of karma. Of course you don't need to worry about it.
I think "upvote" is good and help conversation, but i don´t like "downvote". I think that is unnecessary. Many times i saw comments heavily downvoted and valid to me. Vote what is good is sufficient for me.
I agree here. If a comment is not upvoted, it will stay where it is, and probably go down the list of comments. On the other hand Downvoting, although it has some valid uses (Essentially keeping this place from turning into an uninteresting Reddit), sometimes is used by high karma users as a tool for merely disagreeing, which defeats its purpose.
Karma matters to me. It puts the good replies on the top of the page, the bad ones move down. And that´s the main purpose I think.
That feature doesn't rely on showing you your karma at all though. Why does anyone care what their personal karma score is. I mean what difference does it really make, outside of this tiny corner of the internet? Or even here?
Updates to your karma average are a rolling average and updated asychronously. Basically it takes your comments numbered 6-50, throws out the highest-scoring one, and averages them.
If karma average were based on only those comments between 6 and 50 points, everyone's average would be between 6 and 50 points. That's not the case.
Can you elaborate?
Can you elaborate?
[deleted]
I see, thanks. I misunderstood your comment to mean that karma was calculated on comments between 6 and 50 points, instead of what you meant, which is the last 50 comments minus the five most recent.
Unfortunately, it doesn't weight for in-depth discussions or comments on less-popular articles.
Unfortunately, it doesn't weight for in-depth discussions or comments on less-popular articles.
In the hope you see my reply:
LessWrong has a partial solution for this (possibly inherited from reddit). When you log in, you can see if anyone replied to one of your comments, and you can go to a page listing such replies. It is therefore encourages looong threads of discussions, much of which are worth my while in LessWrong.
It is also possible to reply to years old comments.
About the karma end of the problem, one could try to weight karma by the inverse of exposure. Right now, early comments are disproportionately voted up, while later comments can be nearly totally ignored even if they're very good. But that's a big change, easy to screw up (not to mention it may be a bad idea to begin with).
LessWrong has a partial solution for this (possibly inherited from reddit). When you log in, you can see if anyone replied to one of your comments, and you can go to a page listing such replies. It is therefore encourages looong threads of discussions, much of which are worth my while in LessWrong.
It is also possible to reply to years old comments.
About the karma end of the problem, one could try to weight karma by the inverse of exposure. Right now, early comments are disproportionately voted up, while later comments can be nearly totally ignored even if they're very good. But that's a big change, easy to screw up (not to mention it may be a bad idea to begin with).
I actually quite like the Karma system. I think that the way that it's implemented on Hacker News is pretty awesome - it has certainly made me be more careful in the comments I've made. I have actually made one or two snarky comments, but I immediately went back and deleted them before anyone replied. Other times it's been a misunderstanding, and being downvoted helped me understand that something wasn't quite right.
Certainly it's doing its job, which is to keep the signal to noise ratio high.
The only disturbing aspect of Hacker News is the way that valuable contributors can be hellbanned even after only a few comments. For instance, I saw an individual hell banned for commenting on a controversial story: they weren't trolling (which I assume is the purpose of the facility), only engaging in a debate. I suspect that the one who did the hellbanning did it because they didn't agree with what was being said. As there is no review mechanism, this is purely speculation on my behalf - I will never know why this was done!
Certainly it's doing its job, which is to keep the signal to noise ratio high.
The only disturbing aspect of Hacker News is the way that valuable contributors can be hellbanned even after only a few comments. For instance, I saw an individual hell banned for commenting on a controversial story: they weren't trolling (which I assume is the purpose of the facility), only engaging in a debate. I suspect that the one who did the hellbanning did it because they didn't agree with what was being said. As there is no review mechanism, this is purely speculation on my behalf - I will never know why this was done!
> it has certainly made me be more careful in the comments I've made.
Isn't this the ultimate form of groupthink?
Isn't this the ultimate form of groupthink?
Not really. The purpose of this site is for news about Hackers and startups, or as the FAQ says "Anything that good hackers would find interesting". One of the issues with snark is that it doesn't foster appropriate communication - instead it makes people get defensive or react badly.
There are ways of stating disagreement without being nasty, defensive or arrogant. It's a good thing :-) As in RL, thinking before you speak is a wise way to conduct yourself on HN.
There are ways of stating disagreement without being nasty, defensive or arrogant. It's a good thing :-) As in RL, thinking before you speak is a wise way to conduct yourself on HN.
I disagree. There are plenty of snarky people on HN who know what they're talking about and aren't afraid to tell you. Unfortunately, that means that they get a disproportionate share of downvoting groupthink.
Perhaps the saddest example (for us) that I can think of is CPlatypus (http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=CPlatypus). Apparently a start up veteran, works at RedHat - I don't know what his blog is. I trawled back through his comments when I noticed he was hellbanned, and they were all pretty insightful. He hasn't been back in the last 30 days or so.
Perhaps the saddest example (for us) that I can think of is CPlatypus (http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=CPlatypus). Apparently a start up veteran, works at RedHat - I don't know what his blog is. I trawled back through his comments when I noticed he was hellbanned, and they were all pretty insightful. He hasn't been back in the last 30 days or so.
If they have responded with an inflammatory reply, I understand why they have been downvoted. I agree with you about the contributor CPlatypus, he did have a lot of insightful comments. However, he also frequently accused others (including pg!) of being liars, etc.
For the record, the hell banning practices are extremely disconcerting on Hacker News. On the original site that hellbanning was designed for, it was to slow down trolls, not those who responded in a controversial way. That there is no way of appealing to being hell banned is definitely a negative of contributing to this site: you'll never know you that you need to change your behaviour, and there is no way of fixing the issue - even if you were an insightful contributor such as CPlatypus.
Anyway, I think I've said my piece on this matter - I don't want to be controversial myself so I'll refrain from commenting more on the practices of those who are in ultimate control of this site.
For the record, the hell banning practices are extremely disconcerting on Hacker News. On the original site that hellbanning was designed for, it was to slow down trolls, not those who responded in a controversial way. That there is no way of appealing to being hell banned is definitely a negative of contributing to this site: you'll never know you that you need to change your behaviour, and there is no way of fixing the issue - even if you were an insightful contributor such as CPlatypus.
Anyway, I think I've said my piece on this matter - I don't want to be controversial myself so I'll refrain from commenting more on the practices of those who are in ultimate control of this site.
For the record, his suggestion to openly commit to not use patents was taken up recently by Twitter and widely applauded, although he copped an amazing amount of flak at the time. I found his blog though, so all is not lost: http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/
In this case, hellbanning just demonstrates that HN is run by a private cabal. Whoever it is can run it in their own way I guess, but without any oversight they're likely to ban people for the wrong reason and with no recourse, and doing so doesn't contribute to things like voting quality.
In this case, hellbanning just demonstrates that HN is run by a private cabal. Whoever it is can run it in their own way I guess, but without any oversight they're likely to ban people for the wrong reason and with no recourse, and doing so doesn't contribute to things like voting quality.
> including pg!
gasp! /s
gasp! /s
pg is a documented liar and snake oil salesman.
Often times the people complaining about groupthink are also the ones acting immature. If you inject in your comment the feel of someone trying to rebel ("I know I'm going to get down voted..." or "I hate to be that guy..."), you're already starting off wrong. Act the part of an adult and you'll be treated like one.
I've found that if I spend a few minutes to justify my belief, and approach the discussion as that of peers rather than assuming my opinion is all that matters, things go very well, even when we disagree.
So yeah, HN does have an element of groupthink: that those who are disrespectful are not welcome here, regardless of their opinion. Most likely, their opinion can be found in other comments but written by someone that is looking to engage in an adult conversation and not out to belittle or insult the rest of us.
I've found that if I spend a few minutes to justify my belief, and approach the discussion as that of peers rather than assuming my opinion is all that matters, things go very well, even when we disagree.
So yeah, HN does have an element of groupthink: that those who are disrespectful are not welcome here, regardless of their opinion. Most likely, their opinion can be found in other comments but written by someone that is looking to engage in an adult conversation and not out to belittle or insult the rest of us.
This is correct. Essentially every single one of my 500+ comments is expressing disagreement, yet I only get downvoted if I do something stupid.
On HN, the submissions run media hot (since submissions can only be upvoted, not downvoted) while comments run media cold. (where logic and reasonableness are much more highly valued than in the submissions)
On HN, the submissions run media hot (since submissions can only be upvoted, not downvoted) while comments run media cold. (where logic and reasonableness are much more highly valued than in the submissions)
But there is a clear fear of downvotes, as you point out many start with "I know I'm going to get down voted", a few weeks ago someone posted the HN search for "I don't mean to be ...", but also look at "genuinely curious": http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=genuinely+c... .
I'm wondering if this kind of social pressure is preventing the less confident people to express their respectable opinions.
I'm wondering if this kind of social pressure is preventing the less confident people to express their respectable opinions.
Entrepreneurs are rebels. But in HN you have to contain yourself to not "hurt anyone". Know what, i like all kind of comments, especially the harsh ones. I just ignore the stupid parts and go on. I don´t read the comments emotionally.
The problem is that many others cannot do this. In general, the more emotional the discussion, the more noise is generated. You don't want to have to wade through a dozen nested comments of accusations and pointless and off-topic argumentation before you get to the actual decent content.
> Entrepreneurs are rebels. But in HN you have to contain yourself to not "hurt anyone".
That's an excuse that unprofessional people use to try to excuse their poor behavior. It's the same problem that "brogrammers" are having when they offend people with their "tits or gtfo" attitude. Just to be sure, I'm not intending to imply you are like these people.
And don't confuse HN's brand of entrepreneurs with rebels. They are far from rebels. They are playing a well established, very old game. Their attitude is not a result of the rebellion against any system (they are playing within the system), but rather the very simple fact of where they came from and their upbringing. The common entrepreneur is professional, polite, and intelligent. They aren't pretending to be a rebel. They are starting a company.
While I applaud your ability to read past the rude comments, the simple fact is, this is a discussion. And rude comments are meant to be that: rude. And many people here want to promote civil discourse, not rude, emotional, immature outbursts.
That's an excuse that unprofessional people use to try to excuse their poor behavior. It's the same problem that "brogrammers" are having when they offend people with their "tits or gtfo" attitude. Just to be sure, I'm not intending to imply you are like these people.
And don't confuse HN's brand of entrepreneurs with rebels. They are far from rebels. They are playing a well established, very old game. Their attitude is not a result of the rebellion against any system (they are playing within the system), but rather the very simple fact of where they came from and their upbringing. The common entrepreneur is professional, polite, and intelligent. They aren't pretending to be a rebel. They are starting a company.
While I applaud your ability to read past the rude comments, the simple fact is, this is a discussion. And rude comments are meant to be that: rude. And many people here want to promote civil discourse, not rude, emotional, immature outbursts.
>Often times the people complaining about groupthink are also the ones acting immature.
Not everytime though. Especially in topics like Microsoft/Apple/Google, the moderation is brutal if you don't fit in the groupthink.
A big example: http://winsupersite.com is hellbanned on HN from being submitted as a story(if you do it will show up for you, but actually it's killed so won't show up for others at all). What crime could the site have possibly committed to deserve such an extreme banning(there are no instances of other tech sites that I know of getting banned, can you give me any?).
Post complaining about the banning: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408883
The answer is simple, the site is of Microsoft watcher, insider and enthusiast Paul Thurrott who posts breaking news, analysis and reviews with a sometimes positive slant. That is enough for some "enthusiasts" of other platforms here to flag it to death and ultimately to hellbanning. I am guessing someone who innocently submits stories from there regularly will get their account hellbanned to, for not conforming to the groupthink on here.
This is just the visible tip of the iceberg of the groupthink which downvotes comments and flags any legitimate news that doesn't conform.
You think the point in this post is just a figment of the author's imagination? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3663447
Another example of legitimate news getting flagged to death:
http://i.imgur.com/fSJqq.png
How long before Winbeta is hellbanned from ever appearing on HN for being a Windows-centric news site?
Just because you haven't experienced this does not mean that others have not constantly been downvoted for their (non disrespectful) opinions. I believe that's behind their defensive "I know I am going to get downvoted..." lines.
Not everytime though. Especially in topics like Microsoft/Apple/Google, the moderation is brutal if you don't fit in the groupthink.
A big example: http://winsupersite.com is hellbanned on HN from being submitted as a story(if you do it will show up for you, but actually it's killed so won't show up for others at all). What crime could the site have possibly committed to deserve such an extreme banning(there are no instances of other tech sites that I know of getting banned, can you give me any?).
Post complaining about the banning: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408883
The answer is simple, the site is of Microsoft watcher, insider and enthusiast Paul Thurrott who posts breaking news, analysis and reviews with a sometimes positive slant. That is enough for some "enthusiasts" of other platforms here to flag it to death and ultimately to hellbanning. I am guessing someone who innocently submits stories from there regularly will get their account hellbanned to, for not conforming to the groupthink on here.
This is just the visible tip of the iceberg of the groupthink which downvotes comments and flags any legitimate news that doesn't conform.
You think the point in this post is just a figment of the author's imagination? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3663447
Another example of legitimate news getting flagged to death:
http://i.imgur.com/fSJqq.png
How long before Winbeta is hellbanned from ever appearing on HN for being a Windows-centric news site?
Just because you haven't experienced this does not mean that others have not constantly been downvoted for their (non disrespectful) opinions. I believe that's behind their defensive "I know I am going to get downvoted..." lines.
This is essentially why I wrote the script. My reflection is that you used to be able to disagree with someone on HN and have a discussion. It was occasionally heated, but nobody really took it personally.
These days, anything mildly controversial or disagreeable gets downvoted to death, often without any response at all. In those cases, asking for some sort of cogent response only gets you more downvotes...
These days, anything mildly controversial or disagreeable gets downvoted to death, often without any response at all. In those cases, asking for some sort of cogent response only gets you more downvotes...
> Not everytime though.
No doubt. Hence my careful phrasing. =)
> Just because you haven't experienced this...
I have. But even then, if I take an honest look at what I wrote, I find I could easily discern how it comes off as me acting the part of an asshole.
You post several examples (of which many are merely people complaining about downvotes which aren't contributing anything meaningful and should not be encouraged), but really, they mean anything. There will always be exceptions, but they only prove their is no groupthink beyond being respectful, intelligent, and contributing to the discussion.
> I believe that's behind their defensive "I know I am going to get downvoted..." lines.
Honestly, if someone spends more time writing "I know I'm going to get downvoted... HN groupthink... go ahead downvote me but you know I'm right..." then they do putting thought into their comment, I will down vote. Stop worrying about little arrows, and just be polite, post intelligently, and contribute.
No doubt. Hence my careful phrasing. =)
> Just because you haven't experienced this...
I have. But even then, if I take an honest look at what I wrote, I find I could easily discern how it comes off as me acting the part of an asshole.
You post several examples (of which many are merely people complaining about downvotes which aren't contributing anything meaningful and should not be encouraged), but really, they mean anything. There will always be exceptions, but they only prove their is no groupthink beyond being respectful, intelligent, and contributing to the discussion.
> I believe that's behind their defensive "I know I am going to get downvoted..." lines.
Honestly, if someone spends more time writing "I know I'm going to get downvoted... HN groupthink... go ahead downvote me but you know I'm right..." then they do putting thought into their comment, I will down vote. Stop worrying about little arrows, and just be polite, post intelligently, and contribute.
Stop worrying about little arrows, and just be polite, post intelligently, and contribute.
I think that's what he's trying to do!
I think that's what he's trying to do!
Perhaps winsupersite's karma ran over HN's dogma.
If any of you are 'stressing' about a pointless number next to your username, then I think you need to take a step back and put things into perspective.
I think that's good advice, and I would like to send it along also to the tiny-minded portion of users here on HN who campaign personal, pityful battles on others by systematically downvoting their posts for no apparent reason, as well as those who just can't seem to let things fly, but rather just have to hammer down on users with opinions they simply don't agree with.
I think the karma system as it stands now is problematic because of how it simply enables the generally grumpy crowd of HN to fuel their own overgrown negativity.
I think the karma system as it stands now is problematic because of how it simply enables the generally grumpy crowd of HN to fuel their own overgrown negativity.
Who can down-vote? Not me. Seems to me that it's people who have written lots of good comments that can down-vote. And of course, people running scripts that help them achieve high karma that they can abuse.
A simple "I Like This" without any count would be enough IMHO.
Or at least a simple rule that you can only down-vote if you write a positively karma'd comment to the post you down-vote.
A simple "I Like This" without any count would be enough IMHO.
Or at least a simple rule that you can only down-vote if you write a positively karma'd comment to the post you down-vote.
I think you need maybe 500 or 750 karma before you can downvote.
In theory this means that people only downvote for "doesn't belong on HN" or perhaps "blatantly factually incorrect" posts, rather than "I do not agree with this posts".
HN does have some protection against "voting rings" - so a script or a bunch of friends that all vote for each other probably would be caught. I don't know any of the internals.
I like your idea about only allowing downvoting if you can create a coherent post about why you're downvoting. But the most blatant trolls don't deserve any comment.
In theory this means that people only downvote for "doesn't belong on HN" or perhaps "blatantly factually incorrect" posts, rather than "I do not agree with this posts".
HN does have some protection against "voting rings" - so a script or a bunch of friends that all vote for each other probably would be caught. I don't know any of the internals.
I like your idea about only allowing downvoting if you can create a coherent post about why you're downvoting. But the most blatant trolls don't deserve any comment.
> In theory this means that people only downvote for "doesn't belong on HN" or perhaps "blatantly factually incorrect" posts, rather than "I do not agree with this posts".
The intention was that maybe, but is it true in practice?
> But the most blatant trolls don't deserve any comment.
Old-school individual "killfiles" would do. As it is now some people seem to be locked out of HN by a crowd of anonymous people. It seems to me that the current system is a bit naive about the goodness of how high-karmas act.
The intention was that maybe, but is it true in practice?
> But the most blatant trolls don't deserve any comment.
Old-school individual "killfiles" would do. As it is now some people seem to be locked out of HN by a crowd of anonymous people. It seems to me that the current system is a bit naive about the goodness of how high-karmas act.
What kind of script would that be?
It won't be able to make good comments (I hope), so it would have to monitor pages that have been cited often and submit new things as soon as they pop up. Any other options?
It won't be able to make good comments (I hope), so it would have to monitor pages that have been cited often and submit new things as soon as they pop up. Any other options?
My thoughts exactly. The whole idea of caring (at least more than a light curiosity) about whether other people from the interwebs disagree with something you wrote sounds bizarre to me.
Something I'd like to see is a "HN Enhancement Suite", kind of like Reddit. I don't at this time have the JS chops to pull something like this off, but what I'd add:
* User tagging
* Un-hellbanning per user (Find someone who has legitimate contributions yet is hellbanned? Restores their posts to a normal color and moves their post closer to the top in a thread)
* Ignore text lightening for downvoted posts
* Hide post on flag or downvote
* Popups on username mouseover with profile page info
* Custom CSS (why not?)
* An "ignore karma" switch. Hides comment thread vote arrows, ignores hellbans and text coloring, hides all mention of points anywhere on the site.
* Ignore option, hides all posts by a given userI follow this simple rule when dealing with trolls online.
"Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
It's better not to engage in the first place.
"Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
It's better not to engage in the first place.
Your rule reminds me of Mark Twain's line, "never argue with a fool; a bystander may not be able to tell the difference."
Well, I come to HN for the discussion, so I want to engage. Not with the idiots obviously, but I'm finding that karma is an insidious brainhook that makes me start taking things personally. Particularly drive-by downvotes - they drive me insane.
Now I have no idea whether you're downvoting me or not (other than the position of the comment relative to others), so hopefully there will be less stress and aggravation from here on :)
Now I have no idea whether you're downvoting me or not (other than the position of the comment relative to others), so hopefully there will be less stress and aggravation from here on :)
You'll still get banned by the cabal running HN when you inevitably bump into the guy who can't accept an opinion different from his.
Add a "you've been banned, try again" notifier.
Add a "you've been banned, try again" notifier.
Couldn't have said it any better. Just look at how your post was downvoted for simply pointing this sensitive fact out. The action speaks so loud and clear. In every social construct and gathering you always find that group of "socially immechanical" people who, with every means possible, try to assert some kind of status or rank over others. In the case of HN, it's done by downvoting posts of users holding a different opinion than your own.
[deleted]
The iPhone app I use to access HN when I'm on the move goes one further. It removes the name from everyone, still lets me reply... but doesn't show me the username.
Now in all honesty I think something broke it last year because it used to show, but I've forgotten about karma and it just lets me focus on the content and context of the post.
Now in all honesty I think something broke it last year because it used to show, but I've forgotten about karma and it just lets me focus on the content and context of the post.
earlier work using greasemonkey (no idea if it still works) - http://www.acooke.org/cute/HidingHNKa0.html
I noticed you're loading jQuery before testing the page's URL. You'd be better off testing the URL first to prevent unnecessarily loading jQuery.
I doubt it makes much difference once jQuery's loaded the first time, but I'll have a play around with it when I have a minute. There's some lag currently while it searches the page and replaces attributes, but it's fast enough for my needs.
I can safely say I've never been stressed about my karma.
The only thing I find off about it is the average karma on profile pages. Personally, I find that it subconsciously dissuades me from commenting anywhere that is likely to result in few/no upvotes. My first comment on a story might get 20, 40, 80 upvotes, but any extended discussion is going to be rather nested, and so you're essentially burning through your average as each comment sits with only one or two votes. Similarly, commenting on "unpopular" articles means few people will see your comment, so you're pulling your average down again.
Should karma matter to me? Probably not. But I will confess to looking at people's profiles to see their average karma and time on HN as a way of knowing a bit more about them. I don't think it's unreasonable to feel that the average should be more representative than a straight average of all comment votes.
I don't like to complain without offering a solution, so this would be mine: weight the comment average as a function of the overall points on an article, to allow for more conversation around niche topics. Weight comments according to how deep in a thread they are, to allow more in-depth conversations to occur without a karmic penalty.
Karma can sometimes feel like a superficial way of "keeping score," but I think it serves a valuable role in promoting quality discussion. It still has room for improvement, though.