I see comment moderation as one of the 'unsolved problems' left in this generation of the web. When I worked at Foreign Policy we worked hard to integrate new commenting tools and encourage power users, but we were just buried by the threats, spam, and low-value noise. Web technology scales, journalism scales (poorly, but a relatively small publication can pull big traffic), but right now there's just no substitute f…
I know someone running a company that aims to solve exactly this problem, and they were attempting to sell to NPR, too. Last I talked to them about it, they said NPR seemed interested but has the typical years-long enterprise buying cycle. So, this news is really too bad.
NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
301–310 of 463 posts
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#302I see comment moderation as one of the 'unsolved problems' left in this generation of the web. When I worked at Foreign Policy we worked hard to integrate new commenting tools and encourage power users, but we were just buried by the threats, spam, and low-value noise. Web technology scales, journalism scales (poorly, but a relatively small publication can pull big traffic), but right now there's just no substitute f…
Disqus more or less figured out comment moderation around me. I'm yet to see a Disqus-powered comment system overran by undesirable content. HN is failing at comments. During last years, the community deteriorated to the point where for many articles every single comment is grayed-out downvoted. That signifies quite a rift in community. HN used to be upvote-intensive excitement-driven but today it's downvote-intensiv…
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#303Looking at NPR's own article, I'm findng the justifications given to be strongly suspect. NPR's focus on how many participants are engaging, and from what platforms, rather misses the boat. It's not that I feel the decision itself isn't without merits, but the merits given are exceedingly poor ones. I'm hoping they're not the ones actually used.
I've done my own measurement of public user activity on large sites.[1] In the case of Google+, my and Stone Temple Consulting's independent analysis[2] showed that 0.3% of all users actually engage in public posting on the site.
The real question isn't "how many users are commenting", but "what is the quality of the comments received?". Following critiques of my first study, I performed a second follow-up looking at where intelligent conversation was happening online, using the Foreign Policy Global 100 Thinkers list as a proxy for intelligent conversation, and the arbitrarily selected string "Kim Kardashina", as its obverse. This gave the world the infamous FP:KK index -- the ratio of mentions of any of the FP Global 100 Thinkers per instance of a spin-off of the OJ Simpson trial fall-out.[2] A few results stood out -- Facebook's scale, Reddit's relatively high quality, Metafilter's phenomenally high S/N ratio, and the amount of high-quality material posted to blogs (though perhaps never seeing the light of day). I'd be interested in some further follow-up along these lines.
One of the problems is that at Internet scale, Sturgeon's Law is far worse than six-sigma compliant.[3] Not only is there an awful lot of crud, but simple mechanics mean that no one person can see more than the tiniest fraction of what is transacted online daily. The simple acquisition cost and assessment of "is this worth reading or not" is absolutely prohibitive.
Or as Clay Shirky says, what we've got isn't content overload but filter failure.[4]
On the problem of idiots, my personal solution is simple and surprisingly effective: block fuckwits.[5] At scale, this evolves to the problem of figuring out who is and isn't a fuckwit. The ability for individual actions against specific authors and publishers to be applied generally strikes me as a useful tool. Not a complete fix (there are controversial voices who do deserve to be heard). But if the cost of being an asshat is being an asshat screaming into the void, part of the problem is addressed.
(Yes, this means some form of 1) persistent reputation, 2) tools for applying reputation as filters, and 3) limitations on newly-created profiles. The idea of vouchers (again, with a reputation penalty applying) to bootstrap new identities may help. There's much in common to approaches against email spam in this.)
NPR in particular are counting the fact that many messages come from desktop users as a failing of their system. I see that as absolute insanity. Desktop systems are hugely more useful than mobile devices for composing content. Especially thoughtful content. I know this because I've been trying, and losing, that battle myself, using a 9" Android tablet and Bluetooth keyboard -- one of the better mobile authoring configurations possible, and it still stinks. The six lines by 45 characters I can see in HN's edit box certainly don't help. I've written a long rant at Reddit on this specific problem.[6] Whilst composing this comment I've had Firefox/Android crap out from under me, continuously popped out of the edit box, and unintentionally navigated from the page. Thankfully persistence of user state in edit dialogs has improved slightly, but the experience is frustrating to say the least.
I'd use a proper editing environment, say, vim, except that under Android, VimTouch doens't interact with the clipboard. I can neither copy content into* it, nor out. Termux's vim client is slightly better -- I can paste through the Termux clipboard, but copying out is virtually impossible, and doesn't capture more than one screen at a time.
The fact that few people are entering thoughtful comments on mobile likely says far more about the state of mobile tech than it does about NPR's audience.
________________________________
Notes:
1. https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/naya9wqdemiovuvwvoyquq
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3hp41w/trackin...
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1yzvh3/refutat...
4. http://www.cnet.com/news/shirky-problem-is-filter-failure-no...
5. https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/drLZV8sm...
6. https://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmins/comments/4y2k5r/l...
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our HN can decline 5 x more and it would still be wonderful. With out ever seeing, talking to, meeting any HNer I am connected with smarter, curiouser, open minded (er) people than I work with everyday.
Really? To me, the thing that is most discouraging about HN is the rampant closed mindedness. For example, anyone who questions the long term safety of genetically modifying organisms and eating them, will always be downvoted to oblivion.
Not to knock the Anti-GMO argument[0], but it's similar to other conspiracy arguments. I can make so many rational arguments against it, but I know from the outset if I see a comment that says "Well of course the Hyper Loop isn't going to work, it was designed by Lizard people in order to keep us complacent!" I know that I will never convince that person to see what I would consider a rational viewpoint. It's a lost cause. And as I user of HN, I would consider such comments to be noise, and I would downvote them.
Edit: I have the unpopular opinion (at least on HN) of not liking the "right to be forgotten", not to tangent too much, but I think that the ability to substantially change as a person is an important concept of human development, and that by allowing people to willfully scrub their actions from the record, they encourage the myth that people can't change, and that we're always how we currently are. And that, I think, trains people to be less forgiving. It's harder to forgive when you don't think someone can change.
[0]: although I do disagree with it (even beyond the screaming naturalistic fallacies)
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should ask ourselves what value on-article comment sections provide. I believe HN is good because it serves a specific trade purpose and caters to a specific high-end niche audience. HN's participants are willing to cross a significant participation threshold to be part of the community here. I believe that kind of structure needs to be in place to get good community participation. I guess I'd summarize it with th…
Mostly everything you described in that list was something that most web forums and usenet provided, but they were supplanted with a mix of on-article comments and social media in it's current state. It is frustrating to have seen most forums end up evaporating but they are just hard to keep momentum in. It would be really nice to see someone figure out a good way to bring forums back in a way that didn't turn into a…
Isn't that what Reddit is trying to do? Creating a subreddit seems to be the default way to stand up a new forum. Whether the platform is up to the task.... jury is still out.
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#306This is an interesting move, and a topic I've been discussing with friends. I've stopped using sites like Reddit, because the comment sections are just toxic. I've gone as far as installing Chrome extensions that make comment sections disappear from popular sites like YouTube. It's too easy to get drawn into the negativity, and I'm completely over it. "Social Networking" has reached it's low point as far as I'm conce…
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#307I propose the following system for commenting on news sites: -comment period open for 3 days after publication -comments are not published until the end of the comment period, then all published at once -you can submit 1 comment per article only After the comments are published, then a voting/ranking system is enabled for automatic sorting, but nothing is deleted except for spam This eliminates any back and forth arg…
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I might disagree with whatever you dig up; I can only really refute it if I present a good argument against it, which maybe I wouldn't be able to for some comments.
Making other people do the legwork so that you can idly critique them is a classic gish-gallop tactic, and does not add to the discussion.
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Re HN: also anything that can be coerced into a political discussion will devolve quickly. Conservative views typically wind up grayed, even when they are substantive arguments.
Right-libertarian views are generally most popular here - both "conservative" and "liberal" (American definitions of both) views are generally not popular. And god forbid you have views that would be considered slightly left of center in much of the EU.
Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our HN can decline 5 x more and it would still be wonderful. With out ever seeing, talking to, meeting any HNer I am connected with smarter, curiouser, open minded (er) people than I work with everyday.
Really? To me, the thing that is most discouraging about HN is the rampant closed mindedness. For example, anyone who questions the long term safety of genetically modifying organisms and eating them, will always be downvoted to oblivion.