We may be talking past one another here with the word "format". I read and responded to what seemed yet another round of irrelevant (or at least low-signal), "This site looks terrible on mobile" style noise, which HN discussions are sometimes entirely too full of. Now, however, I think you (and possibly the grandparent comment) may have been talking about addressing the content to a general audience, instead of peer review.
If that's the case, I apologize for my own noise.
EDIT: Even so, that The Fine Article is (potentially) directed at an inappropriate audience doesn't tell me much about its "crackpottery", except in a mildly Bayesian kind of way.
I like to pay attention to the discussions on physics articles that cross the HN front page because I more often than not learn something by reading the conversations between the people who understand the material better than I do. That remains the kind of discussion I want to see.
If that's the case, I apologize for my own noise.
EDIT: Even so, that The Fine Article is (potentially) directed at an inappropriate audience doesn't tell me much about its "crackpottery", except in a mildly Bayesian kind of way.
I like to pay attention to the discussions on physics articles that cross the HN front page because I more often than not learn something by reading the conversations between the people who understand the material better than I do. That remains the kind of discussion I want to see.