Non-ephemeral comment / ‘Notes’
An interesting idea, could you give an example of what you mean? Or @Marc.2377, since you are also in favour of these?
I’m sure I’ve seen an example myself, but I can’t think of one off the top of my head. But I’d guess that 90% of the time “helpful permanent comments about the post” should be incorporated into the post itself, or in a separate post (A, or rarely, Q).
I do like the idea of calling them notes, if a useful role can be found for them
Recognising useful/helpful non-QA contributions and content in clarifications and feedback
Separately, should users be rewarded for these things (notes, comments, discussion) ? On SE, if someone takes time to work through an issue (in comments) to refine the problem to the point where it is solved, it’s difficult to formally recognise that.
On Codidact, should helpful comments/notes/discussion be rewarded in some way?
Moderation and quality control
If we decide there are to be perma-comments (notes), threaded discussion and chat potentially associated with a post, there should be appropriate moderation† tools to interact with those, for example:
- flags for inappropriate content
- voting for helpful/unhelpful refinements (comments/notes discussion)
- convert comment thread to QA, convert note to answer, convert chat to something, etc
Users can and should do this on SE for comments, but having tools to do it lowers the barriers to doing so.
SNR (signal-to-noise ratio)
The more we load up a given topic/QA with notes, comments and discussion, the busier that topic gets. This is where SE’s model of ephemeral comments is helpful: it gives what most folks want quickly and most visibly.
This isn’t to say don’t expand clarifications, feedback and discussion of posts; just to consider the UX carefully!
†: for ‘moderation’, read ‘user with appropriate level of trust’