pvg said -> "It would be a little difficult to have an exchange with someone if you can't tell who is who."

cperciva said "Knowing who wrote a comment often provides very useful context"

You are both completely right. My suggestion doesn't make sense.

It was just a "spur of the moment" suggestion to provoke thought (de Bono's PO mental operator). I dind't think it through at all.

You could give everyone a unique identifier per thread.

That would only solve one of the problems. Some of the users here are skilled enough that the average user doesn't know enough to keep up a disagreement. It's easier if the user names stay.

For instance, the ggp is a security professional. I give more credence to his opinions than others.

It was only intended to solve one of the problems, as the other 'problem' is exactly what removing the names would seek to address: a person's authority/history influencing the weight of their comments within a thread. It'd really benefit people who've earned a negative following, but I don't see such a mob mentality on here as opposed to certain aggregators in which biases become apparent in just a few threads.

Yes, but sometimes a person's authority is actually relevant. Consider this short exchange from the other day: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=841887

On the other hand, when somebody who is deeply respected (be it pg, or any prolific high-karma commenter) posts on something where they have no particular expertise the comment shouldn't get special consideration due to the author.

I can't think of a way to reconcile these, and there's enough people who post here that are actual authorities in relevant areas that I wouldn't want to give up the first. Being able to know that, say, a comment about security was written by tptacek matters more to me than "oh look, pg made a two-word post that got 9001 points".