Lately, I see we don't give points for meaningfulness more than for popularity.

Perhaps we could measure meaningfulness by the size of the tree of replies and assign karma according to that. That would even solve the post-to-upvote ratio problem.

I just don't know what to do with the downvote-for-disagreement thing. Not everyone regard it as a problem, but I'm not sure I agree.

Maybe Slashdot-style metamoderation...

The very best submissions get virtually no discussion.

One measurement to make might be the votes divided by comments.

Let V = votes

Let C = comments

Let IT = 1.0

Let R = V/C

If R > IT then the article is "worth IT"

Let "the paper it's written on" be 0.1.

If R < "the paper it's written on" then it's not worth the paper it's written on (not that it's written on paper, but you get the idea).

But all this is tinkering around the edges, and doesn't feel like it's significant. Perhaps a new model of how a site like this works at all is necessary.

"The very best submissions get virtually no discussion."

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. The best stories produce a high volume of high-quality discussion. Your proposed algo punishes submissions that generate discussion, which seems to be the opposite of what's desirable.

I have to agree with RiderOfGiraffes -- an article with a high number of comments relative to points usually indicates that the article is more opinionated than informative, since most everyone who upvoted it posted their personal reaction to it. Although they are popular, I feel these are usually low-value articles and discussions.

Additionally, it's very hard to have a high-quality discussion that is also high-volume. Once an article's comments get over several pages long, you can be sure that most commenters are not reading everything before commenting, so you get a lot of similar comments. Sometimes this is valuable (e.g. "Ask HN"), but most of the time it just worsens the signal-to-noise ratio.

Maybe we just need a semantic distinction between editorials (opinion pieces) and articles (investigative/fact-laden pieces)? Perhaps make editorials count for less, in the same way self-posts currently do?

I think those good stories that generate good discussion still get more points than comments. With the really good stories, no matter how many people comment, more people upvote, because there are lurkers.

It's not perfect, but I'm finding it a pretty good predictor.

FWIW, here is HN sorted by votes/comments, with a minimum threshold like RoG suggests:

http://www.upthread.com/

I made it for myself. I'm sure it misses some good stuff, but what does make it is almost always top-notch.

Note: there's a hidden span after the links with the score if you're curious. I have it hidden because it can be distracting.

If we lack discussion, it is only because there are not enough good questions, or those questions are too hard to detect.

Maybe we could get better results by identifying unanswered questions.

Judging meaningfulness by the size of the tree won't work. Looking at which threads have a large number of replies, that's more of an indicator of controversialness.

Good point. Size of the tree plus total of delta-karma of the replies multiplied by a factor (may vary with distance from post).

Stack Overflow does this nicely - 5 points for a question upvote, 10 points for an answer upvote.