IN FAVOR OF UNSIGNED EDITORIALS. In answer to Dana's question, there are plenty of good reasons for The New York Times to keep unsigned newspaper editorials. The first is to give the editorials the institutional authority of a respected newspaper. Liberals we should be glad that the Times' liberal editorial page isn't planning on surrendering that. Of course, this cuts both ways. The intellectually dishonest, rabidly rightwing Wall Street Journal editorials draw undue prestige from the quality of the Journal's news pages.
Bylined editorials would also be totally impractical for certain kinds of statements. A candidate endorsement, for instance, would lose all its power if it was just Joe Shmo instead of The New York Times endorsing, say, Ned Lamont. All of that said, I do like the bylined "editorial observer" pieces that occasionally run at the bottom of the editorial page. These pieces are almost invariably more fun to read and I'd be happy to see the Times make a more consistent practice of running them.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)