It feels to me like the comment sorting is actually dictated by a rough calculation of impressions / votes rather than just raw votes, which is why this sort of thing can happen.
I find HN strikes a really good balance here, occasionally putting new comments at the very top, but not enough to flood the top comments. It's much better than Reddit at least. HN also seems to give additional weight based on the length of the comment which filters out many of the joke/quippy comments and gives preference to comments which add a lot to the discussion.
I guess the difference is I don't make these types of posts on software-engineering heavy discussions. I've been a Wikipedia editor for a few years and I have a lot of niche interests in botany, evolutionary biology, anthropology, microbiology, etc.
There are certain non-software/hardware topics HN seems to really like (phages, the gut microbiome, and nootropics come to mind). It seems that making a long comment with a bunch of citations related to one of those topics is more likely to get you upvotes. Probably because its something a lot of people will be interested in but you're much less likely to be disagreed with given the lack of community expertise around the topics
Maybe my posts wouldn't do as well on a botany forum haha
This has happened a couple of times with my comments. Once there were at least 200 comments on a hot button issue but my comment rose to the top anyway.
What I'd like to see are average upvotes of buried comments. Comments that were highly rated based on their content rather than their exposure.