Would url submissions work better if an initial comment were required?

What do you mean you've recently been heading to the "New" section? That happens to be how the site works. Submissions don't end up on the front page for any other reason than people browsing New and upvoting submissions.

The majority of submissions have 0 comments because again, that is how the site works. HN is a link aggregator first and foremost, and discussion follows upon the discovery of a resource that encourages intellectual curiosity. This is entirely controlled and decided by the site users themselves, not the one who submits. The authority is "users as a whole" rather than "a single user".

> if someone took the time to post a url on HN, surely a discussion on the topic is the reason?

For sure a lot of discussions could benefit from an initial comment, but the main reason is generally the fact that the submitter himself found it interesting and wants to share. Alternatively, it's a highly trending topic (breaking news or something else) and it's left up for a broader discussion.

> Would it not be more useful to require the poster of the url add a comment to kick off the discussion?

This would lead to a lot less submissions overall which is bad for the site and the community.

In my own experience as someone who submits stories, there are often stories I will submit that I myself don't grasp fully, but I know for a fact that other people on this site would be interested to read/learn about it. In such a case, I could never leave a meaningful comment but I could still benefit from all the karma that comes with a good submission.

It's a good point, in that I imagine the submitter is hosting an ephemeral salon of sorts: much of the atmosphere easily prepared, and no need for chairs, greetings, or snacks.

So I do feel one ought to play the host for a bit, reply often, and expect replies during a certain window.

On the other hand, I lack a lot of expertise in the submitted link more often than not, and the sole motivation to submit is "I think HN would find this interesting." Still, it would help to set context in a way, and filling in the first comment would do that (even to initialize the "host's level of knowledge"). The comment could end with a topical question.

For me, /newest is like the borderlands, and the core hub is the front page. Sometimes I can visit the bustling downtown and drop in on some really deep, insightful discussions. It's cool to see a new link also appear on the front page that I had upvoted--almost like "validation of the tribe."

After reading the comment from skilled, I don't feel as bad about submitting without a comment, but in the future, I should take your thoughts to heart and at least say something, even just to answer why I thought it was interesting. (Just me, though.)

Of course, that first comment should come with the implicit preface that it might have been a totally random collection of neurons that coalesced to a spark of mind to submit the article, hopefully to be overtaken with others weighing in.

The comment from krapp is also a good point, so that's another consideration.

The problem with this is that many people here never bother to actually read the posted article, and initial comments will tend to bias the thread in a particular direction, lowering discussion quality.

Discussion should be about the article, and the article should stand or fall on its own merits. Who posted it and why is irrelevant, that's what text posts are for.

If you can't find something worth commenting on, or if a subject doesn't interest you, then it's valid not to comment. It's preferable to have most submissions die quietly than to encourage mediocre conversation and fruitless engagement.