[afternooner]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Much of the content on HN is long form journalism, some is content that is so specifically specialized in a field, that only those with thesis in that field will understand. Part of the brilliance of conversation on the web is interactions between disparate fields. On may articles, if I have to read all the way through a theoretical physics post and understand it without a synopsis, I wouldn't be able to add any value to the conversation, and the thread becomes an echo chamber. The initialism tl;dr does matter, because it's a clean and easy way to identify the content that someone looking for a synopsis will look for.

I understand the goal. HN doesn't want to become reddit, and values engaged discussion. But tl;dr isn't reddit, and it isn't going away. Language is ever evolving, and the way we talk today would have sent my granddad into a tizzy. Part of being a platform, and HN is a platform for ideas and conversations, is that the people will decide how to manage that relationship. Moderation can only trim the edges, and remove the bad actors, but the tonne and tools will not be set by moderation, but rather cultivation by the users.

[dang]

I agree with you about specialized content, but this has nothing to do with "tl;dr".

The best HN threads are already great at giving context and making clear what a story is about. (That's usually how I learn what stories are about.) And yes, no one has time to read every specialized paper or the expertise to understand all of them. That's why we often prefer a high-quality popular article, when one exists, to specialized literature. Original papers typically get linked to in the comments anyway, for those who want them.

All of this is good and necessary. But none of it requires "tl;dr".

"Tl;dr" is an equivalent in comments to the linkbait gimmicks that we edit out of titles, and it should be kept out of HN comments for the same reason. We're not asking you to make the effort of reading every article or understanding every specialty, just the effort of looking at an HN thread for its content, without gimmickry.

[Omniusaspirer]

I very much question the value of a comment from someone who is incapable of understanding the source material linked in the submission in the first place. If it's so technical you need somebody elses slimmed down (and likely faulty) synopsis to even comprehend it how likely is it that your comment truly contributes to the discussion?

[afternooner]

I would encourage you to re-think this stance. Interdisciplinary conversation is a tremendous tool to approaching hard problems, conversions, and ideas. I've encountered this enough in my life to know it to be very beneficial. We get arrogant when we specialize, often missing simple solutions because we assume that the solution has to be hard because we're very smart, and we haven't effectively solved it yet.

I've often had aha moments when someone who didn't understand the problem, framed a question in a way that caused me to reconsider my approach.

Besides, jargon, not comprehension, is what keeps many smart people out of conversations that they can definitely add value.

[afternooner]

I don't see the tl;dr as you do, but if that's the perception of most people, then I am in error.