zlacker

I know you're talking about comments, but I did a quick snapshot of the front page and color coded each submission by it's category

    blue = hardcore hacker stuff

    turquoise = industry-related light reading

    biege = acceptable entrepreneur/political commentry

    red = fluff, stuff we could do without

    black = meta (eg. this thread)

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=scw684&s=7

That's a pretty healthy mixture if you ask me. Only about 10-15% or the articles are unworthy of HN, and even that's debatable. The majority is technical stuff, with a few valuable pieces on business/economics in general sprinkled in.

So although some people seem to think the quality of comments is declining, I still believe HN provides phenomenal quality in its capacity as 'news for hackers.'

I'm not sure if changing the rules will do much good; it might have the opposite effect. I think there's pro-active measures we can take which might prove best, like: finding interesting people and inviting them to HN. Quora would be a good recruitment ground.

One last point, I think the role of the founder/leader is very important to online communities. I've been in other forums which went to absolute shit once the 'pg-equivalent-person' ditched them in favour of Twitter. More essays from Paul Graham, perhaps ones talking about online behaviour/ethos, would be a big benefit :-)

>>Tycho+(OP)
I too am not really worried about the site. I haven't been around as long as some, but I've noticed more than anything that topics about startups that used to be exciting are now getting stale. We've learned new things from HN that leaves us looking for more and we aren't finding it yet. I trust in the community and those writing about technical topics to keep pushing the limit and teaching us new things. I don't want to see the mechanics of HN change too drastically.