I agree, I enjoy takeaways because it gives me a point of comparison. Also if I suspect I'm not interested enough to check out the actual link, it's helpful to determine if the link is worth checking out after all.
dang's position is that HN threads are about conversation. That's a weird constraint though, and I doubt takeaways reduce conversation in the first place since there's always going to be a difference to one's own internal summary of the post. Perhaps the conversation aspect should be measured empirically, compare threads w/ takeaways vs without ;)
EDIT: I will also say that HN's main draw to me are the comments that are informative. The meta-analysis is super helpful. Takeaways could be considered at the bottom of the range of meta-analysis, so banning people for takeaways might also reduce informative comments.
I think that takeaways do always reduce the quality of conversation. If someone is unwilling to be engaged enough to even glance at the linked article, they probably can't provide meaningful or relevant commentary on it, having read only the synopsis. The amount of effort it takes to RTFA is practically nil.
I've seen entire threads spawn from a clear misinterpretation of the title alone. Encouraging people to put as little effort as possible into understanding a topic can't possibly improve the quality of the discussion around it.
And that doesn't even consider the likelihood that whomever is creating the summary is consciously or subconsciously applying a bias to controversial articles.
Unfortunately, it does seem like a bit of a zero sum game. Providing a summary of the article will prevent people from reading the article, and people would rather engage entirely with the comments than the article itself.
>> Providing a summary of the article will prevent people from reading the article
>> I've seen entire threads spawn from a clear misinterpretation of the title alone
Those who would only read the summary are the same ones who would only read the title when no takeaway is present. Should these people be willing to at least read a summary, I suspect that in the majority of cases the resulting comments are a tad more on point. Barring any serious bias by the author of the summary as you mentioned.
>> If someone is unwilling to be engaged enough to even glance at the linked article, they probably can't provide meaningful or relevant commentary on it
Unfortunately the commentary will come, whether it's based on a title or a summary.
>> The amount of effort it takes to RTFA is practically nil.
I agree... most of the time. Sometimes, articles are far too long for what is being reported. How in the world some authors manage to write 20 pages of drivel to stretch out an article that could be presented in one paragraph is beyond me. If I'm not quite sure whether a certain submission interests me, and the article is extremely lengthy, I appreciate having a summary to look at to decide whether I'm willing to invest 15-45 minutes to RTFA - or whether to close the tab and move on. If even skimming the article becomes too much of a chore, I'd rather just get the important tidbits from a summary and move on - usually without dropping a comment.
Common example: articles on criminals and their court proceedings. I just want the facts pertaining to the case. More often than not, I don't give a rat's ass about the 90% of the article that is dedicated to detailing every moment of the defendant's childhood and the lives of every single family member and acquaintance they've ever had. I'm not interested in a woven tale designed to evoke my sympathies. I really don't care to know their favourite flavour of ice cream. I understand why authors choose to write such articles; namely, to tell the other side of the story and humanize the situation. They often just stretch it out too far for my liking, and a summary saves a lot of time.
dang's position is that HN threads are about conversation. That's a weird constraint though, and I doubt takeaways reduce conversation in the first place since there's always going to be a difference to one's own internal summary of the post. Perhaps the conversation aspect should be measured empirically, compare threads w/ takeaways vs without ;)
EDIT: I will also say that HN's main draw to me are the comments that are informative. The meta-analysis is super helpful. Takeaways could be considered at the bottom of the range of meta-analysis, so banning people for takeaways might also reduce informative comments.