2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
We've resisted adding voting to comments because, to be fair, you have to have votes in both directions and that starts to get cluttered, but I also recognize the need for an efficient "me too". Nobody wants to read a bunch of comments saying "I agree with so-and-so", after all, but people want to be able to signal that agreement.
I once proposed a more explicit "me too" feature for comments: rather than an anonymous upvote, a user would be able to "co-sign" a comment. Unlike the anonymous votes you see on Reddit, Hacker News, or SE, these would be signed ("posted by X; also supported by Y and Z" or the like). I don't remember now whether there was some problem with doing this or if it's still waiting in the to-do list; I'll try to check later and update this post.
We don't need the corresponding disagree/downvote option: if you disagree, you can leave a comment explaining why.
I see that Monica answered your question directly. However, there is another point to keep in mind.
Comments are not for content. That was supposedly the case at SE too, but was poorly enforced. We are more strict about that here. Comments therefore shouldn't be important enough to vote on.
If you see a comment that tries to answer or address the content of the question, flag it for moderator attention. We can ask the comment author to write a real answer instead, or simply delete the comment.
If you have something to say relative to the content of a question, say it in an answer. We are generally more tolerant here of answers not actually answering the question, but bringing up issues related to it. As long as you make it clear you are not directly answering the question, there should be no trouble.
If the above is done right, there should be very little motivation to vote on comments.
0 comment threads