I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take?
Well, if you're reading a thread about the BP oil rig fiasco and some guy is just repeating idiocy he heard on CNN while another guy says "I used to work for a drilling engineering company designing blowout preventers and I can tell you that the following bits are wrong because..." then I'd take the second guy. But YMMV.
If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
How many people are there that have this degree of notoriety and actually comment on HN? I mean for you, how many are there: a dozen? A half-dozen? These people are already incentivized to write under their real name. So requiring that everyone use their real names would not really change anything regarding the dozen or so widely recognized people whose names "matter".
Moreover, discussion at HN tends to range over many topics for which pg (or any famous commenter) really isn't particularly privileged.
Finally, let's say that RandomDood123 changed his user id to match his real name, Bob Smith. Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's? I expect not. So why on Earth should we require RandomDood123 to use his real name?
Based only on the comment? I'd want something to demonstrate he was who he said he was. Something to back up his claim. Everyone became a drilling engineer overnight with the BP disaster, it seems.
RandomDood123 doesn't have to change his name, either. But something that relates back to who he is. I do check a person's comments for HN, and I generally try to find out who a person is before responding, or taking their advice. If RandomDood123 ran an iPhone App startup, then his advice in that arena would be worth considering.
> Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's?
It really depends on the subject. If I didn't know RandomDood, then yes. If, however, RandomDood had a blog, and some other information that lead me to believe he was in a specific industry, I'd be more likely to listen to what he has to say.
Well, if you're reading a thread about the BP oil rig fiasco and some guy is just repeating idiocy he heard on CNN while another guy says "I used to work for a drilling engineering company designing blowout preventers and I can tell you that the following bits are wrong because..." then I'd take the second guy. But YMMV.
If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
How many people are there that have this degree of notoriety and actually comment on HN? I mean for you, how many are there: a dozen? A half-dozen? These people are already incentivized to write under their real name. So requiring that everyone use their real names would not really change anything regarding the dozen or so widely recognized people whose names "matter".
Moreover, discussion at HN tends to range over many topics for which pg (or any famous commenter) really isn't particularly privileged.
Finally, let's say that RandomDood123 changed his user id to match his real name, Bob Smith. Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's? I expect not. So why on Earth should we require RandomDood123 to use his real name?