Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments About Comments

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the talk-talk-talk dept.

Social Networks 276

theodp writes "This weekend's NY Times is all-about-the-comments. First, Michael Erard recounts the history of Web site comments and explains how their technical origins have shaped the actual commentary we've come to expect as usual today. On dealing with people-behaving-badly, Erard writes, 'Only a few [high-traffic sites] seem to have tried user-moderation systems like the one developed by Slashdot's creator, Rob Malda. Founded in 1997, Slashdot rapidly began to suffer from what Malda called 'signal-to-noise-ratio problems' as tens of thousands of users showed up. Rather than embracing the chaos (which was a hallmark of Usenet, another digital channel of communications) or locking things down with moderators (which e-mail lists did), Malda figured out a way for users to moderate one another. Moderation became like jury duty, something you were called to do.' Next, NY Times community manager Bassey Etim, who oversees 13 comment moderators, offers up his comments on comments, agreeing that 'the comments are where the real America is.' Finally, there's Gawker's next-generation Kinja, which aims to further blur the lines between stories, blog entries, and comments."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Like this? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924625)

Personally, I like making comments on comments. I especially like self-referencing ones.

C(C(S(C(C())))) (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44924697)

I like making comments about comments about a story about comments about comments.

Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44924773)

I like reading about comments on comments about stories about comments about comments.

Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) (4, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#44924945)

> 10 print "Comments about ";
> 20 goto 10
>

Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) (0)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44924971)

I like reading about comments on comments about stories about comments about comments.

I like quoting previous comments about commenters commenting about comments in my comments about comments on stories about commenting on comments.

Re:C(C(S(C(C())))) (3, Insightful)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#44925157)

Without comment's on spelling's and grammer's and the rage at wrong apostrophe usages' I think these comments's' are missing some \. fundamentals.

Re:Like this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924809)

This. [slashdot.org]

So many (2, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44924631)

. . . comments on my comments!

Re:So many (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924779)

djupedal's comment begins a sentence in the subject line, and then uses ellipsis in the comment body before completing. I find his commenting style to be annoying, and seeing his user id starts with a 5, I don't recommend reading his comments. At best, I would mod him -1 redundant.

Re:So many (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925057)

Just do what 29 (and counting) of us have already done, log in, flag him a foe & he's always -1.

Re:So many (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925127)

Your review of djupedals comments leaves much to be desired. Is the problem with the ellipsis that he doesn't start it in the title, as is the norm? You don't mention why his style is annoying to you personally, and there's nothing in your review about cats. You do give a recommendation without sufficient supporting discussion, but your post ID number is not divisible by 3, which reflects poorly upon you and your internet provider- next time be more careful. At best I can give your review 1.5 stars.

First post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924633)

Hurp durp. Seemed appropriate :-]

Re:First post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924671)

Durp! You have been pwned. First post is a chillingly difficult thing to obtain, and a position not given up willingly by the contenders.

Re:First post! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924877)

The easiest way to score a First Post is to not even read the summary, let alone the article, Since everybody then dogpiles onto the First Post, it lets the least qualified poster set the direction of the whole discussion.

Dumb,

Re:First post! (4, Informative)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44925003)

If you structured it so "last post" was a thing, people would never stop commenting. At least the race to first post is self limiting.

Re:First post! (4, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44925081)

Last Post!!!

Re:First post! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924719)

Made even more appropriate by not actually being the first post.

I never understood the desire to 'first post'. It's like saying "I've not a single useful thought in my head, and look how fast I can let everybody know it!"

unleash the trolls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924741)

FIRST POST!


surely I have captured the coveted first post this time!

Re:unleash the trolls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924999)

Well, I have to give it to you- that was quite fast and vacuous.

I've got 14 mod points (3, Funny)

Andrio (2580551) | about a year ago | (#44924653)

Earn my blessing, or my wrath!

Re:I've got 14 mod points (5, Funny)

marcello_dl (667940) | about a year ago | (#44924769)

except you can't use them in this thread...

Re:I've got 14 mod points (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#44924875)

Not in this thread (unless things have changed since I last had mod points), that's another good thing about user-moderation. You can prevent people from using them as a weapon in discussions they themselves have posted in.

Re:I've got 14 mod points (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924979)

You can prevent people from using them as a weapon in discussions they themselves have posted in.

Bah, no competent Slashtroll has less than 4 accounts to cycle. One to post, two to upmod, a fourth to badly argue against the initial post, and two anonymous comments mocking everyone.

Re:I've got 14 mod points (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44925125)

You can prevent people from using them as a weapon in discussions they themselves have posted in.

Bah, no competent Slashtroll has less than 4 accounts to cycle. One to post, two to upmod, a fourth to badly argue against the initial post, and two anonymous comments mocking everyone.

I've thought about setting up a second, sock-puppet account with which to argue with myself, but haven't yet, either due to laziness or a general lack of self-interest; not sure which, and really don't care enough to bother with it.

PS yes, that sounded as insane in my head as it does on the screen. Fuck it, it's Monday - posting anyway :)

Re:I've got 14 mod points (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#44925395)

I've thought about setting up a second, sock-puppet account with which to argue with myself...

So, sort of like an Aron Sorkin screenplay?

Re:I've got 14 mod points (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925419)

Or one of Socrates's dialogues?

Re:I've got 14 mod points (5, Funny)

knarfling (735361) | about a year ago | (#44925367)

I tried having multiple accounts, but the arguments between accounts quickly got out of hand.

At first, it was just the other account made way too many stupid arguments, but it soon escalated to threats of physical violence. I had to keep a close watch on myself to keep me from slashing my own tires. (I tried hiding, but I quickly learned that I knew where I lived and where I liked to hide.)

After two or three "unfortunate incidents" I decided to close all but one of the accounts. Things settled down for a while, but I still have to keep a close eye on me in case I go back and login to one of the "closed" accounts.

---
Only two of my personalities have delusions, but one of them is paranoid and the other is out to get him.

The most valuable part of some sites (5, Insightful)

iampiti (1059688) | about a year ago | (#44924655)

It's obvious that comments are what make some websites attractive. This is one of them.
In Slashdot I usually find very interesting what other people think about the news. Sometimes, there're some jewels: Comments about people who really know what the news is about and offer their perspective. I same those comments as bookmarks. I wonder why there's not a "favorite" option to save them.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44924737)

And the rest of the time, we're subjected to people shouting how much they disagree with the parent, usually in the most uninteresting manner possible, usually focusing on a tangential piece of the parent post, really beating the drum on how wrong it is. This post is almost certainly no exception, because while I agree with the premise of your post, I find that it misses the massive amount of chaff(that gets modded up, no less) that hides the wheat.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924909)

Why, your post is an excellent example of the very thing you complain about!

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44924947)

And I acknowledged that directly in a way that would be utterly transparent to anyone reading it. Your post was so helpful drawing attention to something that was already clearly stated.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (-1, Offtopic)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44925029)

You have some kind of mental issues.

I think it can be diagnosed as nerd-defensiveness: the clear need to point out that other people are wrong.........about something.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44925099)

When the whole point of a post is to attack me on the grounds of something I specifically acknowledged, that goes above and beyond objecting to someone being wrong about something minor, but about re-justifying something I already said in the face of absolute evidence someone didn't get it. I do not like to miscommunicate.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (-1, Offtopic)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44925171)

I do not like to miscommunicate.

No, this is obvious. What you do like is to prove people wrong.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44925279)

Certainly not, I like to be right, or I like to be wrong and know it, and learn from my misunderstandings, and the ideas of others. That is not the same as wanting others to be wrong. People who raise facile objections can still be instigated into providing deeper understanding.

But thanks for jumping to conclusions about a stranger on the internet. It will totally change my mind for you to tell me what I'm thinking.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44925423)

Certainly not,

See what I mean? :)

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925435)

lol. l@@k at you arguiing with some one over a bunch of words nobody will ever read on the internet.
A+++ would lol @ u again

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44925141)

You have some kind of mental issues.

FWIW, I'm thoroughly convinced that statement applies to the human race in general.

Not that I'm defending anyone's comments, it's just... well, we're all mad here.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44925197)

Very true. "All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer".

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925065)

Why, your post is an excellent example of the very thing you complain about!

i kan reed can read. Can you?

This post is almost certainly no exception, because while I agree with the premise of your post, I find that it misses the massive amount of chaff(that gets modded up, no less) that hides the wheat.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (2)

iampiti (1059688) | about a year ago | (#44924939)

Of course there's a lot of horrible comments, but that's a given on any site and there's not much you can do about it. In addition, moderation is no silver bullet and can both easily miss good comments and bury good ones because they don't coincide with the majority opinion. My point still stands: There're some great comments and opinions here.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44924963)

That is quite occasionally true.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (2)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#44924969)

You misspeled a word. Therefore your wrong.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44924997)

You would not believe how often I am wrong.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925311)

If it's less than 100% of the time, I would indeed not believe it.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year ago | (#44925369)

Thanks for the paradox, asshole.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (5, Interesting)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a year ago | (#44924789)

I same those comments as bookmarks. I wonder why there's not a "favorite" option to save them.

Everyone should have a single "Supermod" point once per month that would work as a normal mod point except it would allow going past +5.

So after the holidays we could quickly read the articles with only the very few +6+ posts.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44924993)

"It's obvious that comments are what make some websites attractive. This is one of them."

It's sure as hell not the unique, timely stories with well-edited summaries that keeps people coming back to Slashdot.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925231)

I disagree, I decommissioned my account yesterday, changed the email to a 10 minute one, deleted my password. This is the last post I'm making here.

The site 5 or 6 years ago wasn't so bad, but now it's full of Libertarian morons spouting off about the free market. And the site operators can't be bothered to require long posts to be manually opened.

Even the trolling now is barely worth coming here for. It used to be at least mildly clever, now it's mostly just random long posts about hosts files and similar bullshit. Not even the "clever" how to care for your nigger stuff, that was at least offensive.

Re:The most valuable part of some sites (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44925343)

It's obvious that comments are what make some websites attractive. This is one of them.
 
Not a bad comment, but come on, hardly enough to make this website attractive.

kinja (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924661)

Good to see Gawker making a positive contribution to the world in which they exist.

Re:kinja (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44925083)

Well, it is kind of difficult to contribute to a world in which you don't exist.

"only a few"? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about a year ago | (#44924673)

>> Only a few [high-traffic sites] seem to have tried user-moderation systems

Haven't been to YouTube lately, have you?

Re:"only a few"? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#44924927)

YouTube doesn't go far enough. I'd like to see better features for screening out the "noise" like dupes (har har) some click whore reposted as well as those annoying videos that have been flagged down, yet continue to pull in users based on misleading titles, descriptions, etc.

Re:"only a few"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925097)

Don't worry, the next video you click claiming to will actually have a boobie in it.

Re:"only a few"? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44925251)

This:

MartinJrMakesPoopVideos: hi everybody i just started my onw chanel, its really awsome even tho their arn't any videos on it, click on my name and check it out cuz as a looser i base my personal validation on how many people look at my channel! I only subscribned to this sooper popular chanel so i could solicit my own garbace in the commnts

Seriously, can we do something about these kids? Like, send Tonya Harding over to break their shins? I hear she could use the money.

Hai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924675)

First

Sorry, didn't read TFA.... (4, Funny)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44924685)

Sorry, didn't read TFA, what are we talking about again? Ah, comments.

lol first (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924687)

Hurray for comment spam!

Yes, but (1)

djupedal (584558) | about a year ago | (#44924691)

Kinja is one thing . . . Gawker's aberration with fake video play buttons, cross-linked unrelated topics and animated gifs is another. Please don't relate the two if you care for either.

The more moderated, the less honest (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#44924703)

The more you moderate a forum, or prevent users from posting anonymously, the less honest it will be. If you really must moderate, do like Slashdot and let the users do it.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924791)

The more you moderate a forum, or prevent users from posting anonymously, the less honest it will be. If you really must moderate, do like Slashdot and let the users do it.

How is moderation by site-users more honest than moderation by site-operators? You get biases either way.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (4, Informative)

barista (587936) | about a year ago | (#44925061)

How is moderation by site-users more honest than moderation by site-operators? You get biases either way.

Slashdot's system only lets users mod a comment one point at a time, they can't mod a comment higher than 5, they can't use all their mod point on one comment, they can't mod their own comments, and enough people are given mod points at any one time that the biases should reflect those of the users.

You can also read the FAQ [slashdot.org] .

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925109)

Your response doesn't answer the question. How are user-biases better than operator-biases?

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (3, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year ago | (#44925177)

And yet it still doesn't work very well. Take a look at any story involving, say, US politics or copyright issues and you will find that any post that strongly disagrees with the groupthink of the majority gets modded as Troll or Flamebait even when it is clearly not.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (3, Interesting)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44925225)

How is moderation by site-users more honest than moderation by site-operators? You get biases either way.

A blessed and approved site admin has ultimate authority to delete viewpoints that disagree with his. It's won't have a community feel - it is simply an opinion portal for the admin. And frankly, most people have so many biases that they're unable to pull it off and keep their site both interesting and relevant. The internet's history is littered with these kinds of failures; see kuro5hin for a dramatic example.

By contrast, on Slashdot each user is given very few mod points, and then only when they participate positively, and is further prevented from moderating in a thread where they've posted. It limits one person's ability to really sway a discussion. Instead, you get a general overall idea of which comments are worth more according to the entire community. (There's also the flag mechanism for notifying an admin of true spam and racist copy pasta trolls, but the admins still have to answer to each other for wielding that weapon.)

Sure, you could probably farm a bunch of sock puppets and mod-bomb people you disagree with, but there's no payoff. You get no personal benefit or gain out of out-trolling someone, certainly not enough to make it worth the effort.

It's an elegant solution to a really, really hard problem.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#44924815)

The more you moderate a forum, or prevent users from posting anonymously, the less honest it will be.

And dishonest too - it clips both ends of the curve.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (2)

blue trane (110704) | about a year ago | (#44924837)

I have a lifetime ban on moderating, because I up-voted "The First Slashdot Troll Post Investigation"!

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#44925247)

Me too. I like to think of it as a kind of "get-out-of-jury-duty-for-life" benefit!

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (5, Insightful)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#44924917)

More moderated = more groupthink.

That is not a good thing.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#44925129)

However, without moderation, the noise often overtakes the signal and you're left without any discussion, debate, or sharing of useful information whatsoever. Also not a good thing.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#44925317)

With excessive moderation you're left without any discussion or debate because dissension gets modded down.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (1)

StrangeBrew (769203) | about a year ago | (#44925139)

Absolutely. I always turn all comments to 'visible' because the 'mod police' go after anyone with an opinion counter to their own. Unfortunately, comments even get deleted here, based on the commenter's name. The arrogance of the group-think modders will continue to prevent them from seeing the damage their bullying and censorship do to the causes they zealously defend.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924951)

Moderation works well on some stories but not others.

On topics where people feel the need to be advocates for one side or the other (copyright is a good example, also the NSA), usually it seems that on Slashdot most of the posters and moderators are on one side. For stories on those topics, all the featured posts (modded up and fully visible when opening the article for the first time) will be on the side favored by the majority. (Sometimes there will be one contrarian post that's modded up, as sort of a token). Those subscribing to the other side will be buried. My question here is, then why even open discussion at all on these types of stories if everyone's minds have already been made up?

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924977)

Poop dildo ass.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925209)

The more you moderate a forum, or prevent users from posting anonymously, the less honest it will be. If you really must moderate, do like Slashdot and let the users do it.

Honesty is not always what is desirable. There are people who are honestly interested in all sorts of immoral and socially disruptive behavior. For example, advertisers have and honest desire to advertise their products. But they should be modded to oblivion and banned if they spam a site with off-topic garbage. And I don't care who does that. What makes comments useful is not honesty, but open discussion. There is plenty of honesty in the words "STFU". But it does not contribute much to dialog.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (1)

fermion (181285) | about a year ago | (#44925385)

I find it is the type of site. I find I can be quite honest on /.. The comments have been modded up or down pretty reliably.

The exception is, of course, companies that can afford to monitor comments. So anything I write about goggle that doesn't imply they are g-d will be modded down. OTOH, such comments will often be modded up by others. I have seen up to 10 mod points being used to argue over my Google comments. Not to isolate google. MS and Åpple also appear to have a contingent

Which comes to a real issue that mod systems have. Too many points are used to mod down, and not enough people participate in bringing the interesting content to the top, as opposed to what they agree. I am guilty of not using my mod points. I think one solution would be if people who used more than 2 out of 10 mod points to degrade would lose all other. If new users posted at zero for their first several comments, then we would not have to make all the offensive stuff off-topic.

Re:The more moderated, the less honest (1)

travdaddy (527149) | about a year ago | (#44925429)

The less you moderate, the more spam and trolls you get, which are the last things that come to mind when I think about "honest."

'the comments are where the real America is.' (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924729)

Horribly depressing.

Re:'the comments are where the real America is.' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925169)

Yeah, no kidding. Whenever I go to the local newspaper's website, the comment sections are always filled with racists and bigots.

yo dawg (4, Funny)

Mini-Geek (915324) | about a year ago | (#44924757)

Yo dawg, I heard you like comments, so I made a comment on your story about comments on comments, so you can comment while you comment.

Re:yo dawg (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44924845)

Yo dawg, I heard you like comments, so I made a comment on your story about commenting on comments, so you can comment on comments while you comment on comments.

FTFY... or I just gave Xhibit a stroke.

Meh, either way...

Lame, incomplete article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924767)

Nothing about First Posts? Natalie Portman? Hot grits? How can you leave out the ever-popular goatse redirect?

There's an old (by internet standards) expression, (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year ago | (#44924797)

'Never look at the bottom half of the internet.'

Moderation became like jury duty, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924829)

When it got to this part they lost me completely. While I would agree with how /. allows users to moderate comments, the problem becomes some comments never get voted on and or they get modded down because someones beliefs or theories, which would be about 80-85% percent of /. users. Therein lies a problem just like juries they do not have open minds, they use poor judgement when deliberating a verdict.

AKA no one follows something if it fails to make sense in there minds , or if it is actually thoughtful. This is where we see similar behavior between politicians and the users of internet. Unless a comment or way of thinking is similar to there's you are the "oddball"!

In all fairness there is the option to read all comments but when you get to a certain number 200+ it gets a little cumbersome..

Re: Moderation became like jury duty, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925269)

Locally we also have skewed weight on assigning a one-word label/pseudonym to what will still be a faceless and nameless identity.

Actually, no, "identity" is a bit imprecise, it's just a connection session's single comment.

But hey, whatever floats your boat:
-Falos

God help us! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924861)

'the comments are where the real America is.'

There was this article recently on Yahoo! Finance about people giving Liberty to prevent a financial melt down.

Anyway, the article and many commentors parroted the argument that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the financial meltdown. Many commentators and pundits have "reasoned" that the law caused the meltdown because it "forced" banks to lend to poor people who couldn't afford the loans. Did they have data to back up what they said?

Fuck no! Rush, Hannity, O'Rielly and all their clones pulled it out of their ass.

Here is what some economists found out [minneapolisfed.org]

...the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.

tl;dr; Most of "Real America" just mindlessly parrots what they see and hear in the media.

Re:God help us! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925183)

'the comments are where the real America is.'

tl;dr; Most of "Real America" just mindlessly parrots what they see and hear in the media.

True; however, the 'real' America is also the overwhelming influence of well-brainwashed political staff astroturfing the comment threads with much more time and vigor than the casual participant.

Re:God help us! (3, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#44925325)

I fucking pray that Yahoo comments are not "where the real America is," because if they are, we are sooooooooooooooooooo fucked.

Nothing but a bunch of idiotic, xenophobic racists over there, man, I swear. Hell, I'll go to Yahoo and stick a comment or two of pure factual information, with references, just to balance out the stupid... comments which then get modded into oblivion because I don't follow their groupthink of "Muslims bad, liberty bad, police state and genocide good."

To reiterate, I really, really fucking hope Yahoo comments are not representative of the pulse of the nation.

Slashdot needs https (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924921)

At the very least we should be able to post via a https page here on Slashdot, and via Tor. Yet the exit nodes are blocked by default.

I wonder how many insights into the current NSA scandal we'd see if Slashdot allowed true a/c posting. Currently I'm totally aware that my comment is tracked and de-anonymized by the NSA and I censor accordingly.

How many others are doing so out of critical necessity?

Re:Slashdot needs https (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44925043)

Yet the exit nodes are blocked by default.

That's Tor's problem. It doesn't disguise itself very well. An intentional 'flaw', maybe?

I am commenting about comments on comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924957)

I have been a member of three usenet newsgroups that devolved into pure spam, bullying, libel and overtaling any valuable posts. One was rmr.

There is a model used by MacRumors of upvoting and a view of those posts ranked by upvote that is a pretty good way to sift out the noise. They only use it on the listview. It concatenates informative and funny and insightful into a single category unlike Slashdot, but it seems to work. More of their forums should be made sortable by upvote. Also by poster, as some tend to be more interesting than opthers.

That is a web based comment forum.

JJ

Re:I am commenting about comments on comments (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | about a year ago | (#44925377)

Also by poster, as some tend to be more interesting than opthers.

It's a shame Slashdot hasn't done anything to make its moderation system more dynamic. The +1 bonus doesn't really do much to separate from the noise when just about everyone gets to use it. It would be nice if karma could be used promote top posters even higher. Something like a +2 or +3 bonus if you've had three 5's (possibly excluding +5 funny) in the past month.

IP shadowbans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924959)

(Some) of the world has semi-permanent IP addresses. I think many cable modems do. What happened to the idea of shadowbanning IP addresses?

A few downsides; one is I suppose is swinging the scythe too widely for public IP hotspots, but if it's critical that your voice must be heard, there's alternatives. Two, I don't think this would work on mobile devices.

Mod Me Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44924967)

End Of Message

This is beyond stupid. . . . (4, Interesting)

sgt_doom (655561) | about a year ago | (#44925021)

. . . . because of the existence of chatbots, trollbots, etc., since at least the late 1990s (automated software agents programmed to seek and respond in specific patterns), and since contracts have been publicly announced in the last few years (meaning they've been effectively working on them the previous decade!!!) to program "ConsensusBots" --- automated software to "persuade" (i.e., misinform and disinform) large numbers at popular newsy sites and social networking sites --- many, if not most, comments today are highly suspect!

Comments about comments about comments (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#44925025)

Comments to an article which comments about comments means our comments about the article are comments about comments about comments. And if someone replies to my post then the site may hit a stack overflow due to excessive recursion.

4chan moderation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44925059)

Coincidentally, 4chan is trying to make its moderation more transparent. They've created a page (https://www.4chan.org/bans) that samples recent moderator actions. It's informative about how users of a fairly permissive cesspool still break rules.

Yo Dawg We Heard You Like Comments (1)

Calsar (1166209) | about a year ago | (#44925113)

So we added comments to your comments, so now you can comment on your comments.

It's hard to get comment systems right . . . (1)

greenreaper (205818) | about a year ago | (#44925427)

. . . especially when the needs vary with each site. I run Flayrah [flayrah.com] (a furry news/features site) and implemented a comment moderation system based on weighted ratings and user karma across comments and posts that fades and folds comments as their rating decreases. It works pretty well for us, but it took a lot of time to balance, as well as technical expertise which most site-runners don't have. Sometimes people complain about the "rule of the majority", but in practice they tend to do quite well. The alternative was more heavy-handed moderation by selected moderators, who have their own biases.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?