1.) There's a lack of contrast in the page. A visited link is the same color as a comment that is rated < 0.
2.) The up/down vote arrows are visually far away from the name of the user. Knowing the context of who's saying something can mean the difference between a troll post and an insightful one.
3.) The page is no longer fluid. While this is more preference than an actual issue, I think that a fixed width format is detrimental for those of us who have widescreen monitors (or for those of us who like to tile our windows in small patches).
4.) Whitespace. There's a lot of it. Without your plugin, I can see all of the articles on the front page in ~1400px. With the stylesheet patch, it's about 3x that. I visit HN a lot, and will click on just about every story. As such, when I'm done reading HN all of the links have changed color. When I visit it later in the day, I can at a glance see every story that's new. Sometimes I have it autorefresh every few minutes on a separate monitor, and keeping everything concise allows me to do that.
Those are my thoughts. At this stage I'd say that it's pretty, but not yet functional. Work on the functional portion and I'll keep this plugin installed. Great work, keep it up!
(3) Fluid has a deterimental effect at lengthier line span (when it exceeds 50-60 chars). Hence limited at 700 px.
(1)On HN visited links are read emails for me. Hence they are of not much use and thus same treatment as the dead link.
Also it is funny since the reason most people gave for requesting flushing commenter's name to left was that they upvote or downvote with help of points/commenter's name! Atleast that was my interpretation. I had thought of the exact opposite reason and hence put it in right earlier. Upvote should have nothing to do with who said it or how many points it has already received.
Not necessarily. While I'll agree with that the current score of the comment should have little to do with your vote, who said it is necessary for context. Consider this hypothetical comment:
"The backend code behind the current search functionality at google is absolutely horrible. The search ranking algorithm is pathetic to say the least."
Had this been said by an SEO guy or an employee of yahoo/bing, I'd have downvoted the comment. However, if it were a comment by Matt Cutts (http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Matt_Cutts), it presents itself in a whole different context. It's no longer a flamewar comment, but rather an admittance of areas where someone/something needs to improve.