41–50 of 103 posts
non recognition of subjectivity of terms like "journalist", "annoying", "off topic", etc., used in description, don't bode well for success of this project.
The focus on "identifying journalists", muting "annoying" voices, the "RESPECT" button and pushing specific comments to the top by featuring them kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth... And I would be the last to argue that comment sections below news articles are anything but a cesspool - they're notoriously bad! But I'm just not sure a control model this heavy handed and lip-servicey is the right approach.
[1] https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myths-of-community-design...
non recognition of subjectivity of terms like "journalist", "annoying", "off topic", etc., used in description, don't bode well for success of this project.
The term "journalist" is no more subjective than "author" (literature) or "programmer". As with many things, the line is normally drawn where people start to making (wholly or partyly) a living from the activity or not, i.e. whether they are professionals.
I think it's dangerous to set hard requirements for such labels, specially ones like "journalist". It's not a given that journalism is considered worth protecting and, while in most western countries there's a sort of public agreement that "journalists" deserve protection, this often seems to be associated more to the word "journalist" than the act of journalism itself, and taking that label away from someone may also leave them defenseless, as they no longer "deserve" the protection of a "journalist".
The focus on "identifying journalists", muting "annoying" voices, the "RESPECT" button and pushing specific comments to the top by featuring them kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth... And I would be the last to argue that comment sections below news articles are anything but a cesspool - they're notoriously bad! But I'm just not sure a control model this heavy handed and lip-servicey is the right approach.
Same. Reading "Five Myths of Community Design" on the same site [1] left me kind of wondering if they really built a service people would want to use. Personally, I've always thought the "like" model of modern online interaction is broken, but my idea about fixing it would be to add "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons, but only display the sum the two as a measure of engagement. [1] https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same. Reading "Five Myths of Community Design" on the same site [1] left me kind of wondering if they really built a service people would want to use. Personally, I've always thought the "like" model of modern online interaction is broken, but my idea about fixing it would be to add "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons, but only display the sum the two as a measure of engagement. [1] https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myth…
You need more than agree and disagree to measure engagement, otherwise you're just measuring polarization. For example you might want to measure several reactions such as: interesting, funny, angering and sad.
Of course this is just a theory; until someone implements it and evaluates the result, I may well be completely wrong and maybe it'd even have the oposite effect.
Seems the project isn't being so actively developed any longer? https://github.com/coralproject/talk/graphs/contributors Why is that? (In the summer of 2018 and onwards, 90%? 95%? of the GitHub activity abruptly disappeared) Two other open source blog commenting system that are being actively developed are Commento https://commento.io and Talkyard https://www.talkyard.io/blog-comments (I'm developing it).
We’re doing all the development under the next branch, a big rewrite to typescript :)
Can you configure the dev branch to show up on the landing page of github?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same. Reading "Five Myths of Community Design" on the same site [1] left me kind of wondering if they really built a service people would want to use. Personally, I've always thought the "like" model of modern online interaction is broken, but my idea about fixing it would be to add "Agree" and "Disagree" buttons, but only display the sum the two as a measure of engagement. [1] https://coralproject.net/blog/five-myth…
You need more than agree and disagree to measure engagement, otherwise you're just measuring polarization. For example you might want to measure several reactions such as: interesting, funny, angering and sad.
non recognition of subjectivity of terms like "journalist", "annoying", "off topic", etc., used in description, don't bode well for success of this project.
The term "journalist" is no more subjective than "author" (literature) or "programmer". As with many things, the line is normally drawn where people start to making (wholly or partyly) a living from the activity or not, i.e. whether they are professionals.
It's more contentious than that. Journalists supposedly deal with "facts", but there's often considerable disagreement over facts or their interpretation. No matter your political persuasion, I'm sure there are "journalists" making a living on this, as per your definition, but who operate on the opposite end of the political spectrum from you and from whom you'd want very badly to strip that title of legitimacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It started as a Mozilla Foundation project, and then Vox Media took it over.
Why didn't Mozilla continue leading the project? (If you happen to know) Here's a blog post about the change: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/22/the-coral-project-i... It writes: "After 3.5 years at Mozilla, the time is right for Coral software to move further into the journalism space, and grow with the support of an organization grounded in that industry" , and "... The Coral Project will receive the backing…