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!

Mozilla Working On a New Website Comment System

samzenpus posted about a month and a half ago | from the fight-the-trolls dept.

Mozilla 142

sfcrazy writes Mozilla is working on developing a content and commenting platform in collaboration with The New York Times and The Washington Post. The platform aims to be the next-generation commenting and content creation platform which will give more control to readers. Mozilla says in a blog post, “The community platform will allow news organizations to connect with audiences beyond the comments section, deepening opportunities for engagement. Through the platform, readers will be able to submit pictures, links and other media; track discussions, and manage their contributions and online identities. Publishers will then be able to collect and use this content for other forms of storytelling and spark ongoing discussions by providing readers with targeted content and notifications.” The project is being funded by Knights Foundation.

cancel ×

142 comments

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

Look no Furhter (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280345)

Slashdot BETA is the answer! All in favor?

Won't work. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280429)

They can't even get titles of posts right. Come on Dice, the maximum length of titles of original slashdot is bad enough. Now they are limited six words at most in Beta before they are silently truncated.

this is more than six words, does it work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47282561)

granted, they are short words.

Look no Furhter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280453)

Fuck Beta

Re:Look no Furhter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280769)

Slashdot BETA is the answer! All in favor?

New URL schema: nntp:// (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280351)

Maybe they can integrate a reader into their webbrowser, and while they're at it, add an email reader and a web editor too.

Re:New URL schema: nntp:// (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280521)

Shhhh! 1st rule of usenet, and all that.

WooShhhh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280995)

The OP is describing SeaMonkey.

A more vague description, there ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280359)

Through the platform, readers will be able to submit pictures, links and other media; track discussions, and manage their contributions and online identities. Publishers will then be able to collect and use this content for other forms of storytelling and spark ongoing discussions by providing readers with targeted content and notifications.”

So what does it do that we can't already do using 1: the web in general and 2: twitter in particular?

From the article:

what if we could build a commenting system that gives commenters a real sense of ownership? What if readers could manage their online identity and contributions across news sites under a single sign-in? What if they could contribute pictures, links, even their own stories? What if they could track discussions and form friendships with one another? Wouldn’t that system build a sense of community and lead to self-policing and civility?

So decentralisation of commenting, with a unified account?

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (1)

Wootery (1087023) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280361)

Oops, forgot to sign in.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281007)

If you had their system, you wouldn't have needed to sign in separately here.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281783)

...which is precisely why I don't (and won't) use such commenting systems. Single sign-on is a terrible idea.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280439)

So decentralisation of commenting, with a unified account?

Sounds a lot like Disqus to me, which most people thoroughly hate.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (2)

Tridus (79566) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280893)

It's the Internet. "People" hate everything.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281157)

It's the Internet. "People" hate everything.

But Disqus in particular.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281789)

This. Disqus is horrible. Even if it worked right, it would still be horrible.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281187)

If it didn't delay the content you were actually looking for by taking 10seconds to load comments you don't care about it wouldn't be so bad... no wait, it'd still be bad.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281617)

Disqus is disqusting

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281765)

So what does it do that we can't already do using 1: the web in general and 2: twitter in particular?

1: meh... It is the web... it's what people do on the web, make new things. 2: It's not twitter. There are a lot of people who would think that's a definite positive.

As long as it doesn't want access to all your personal information from any and all networks you might belong to, sure why not. But really, it's probably just a way for Mozilla and the others involved to cash in on data mining. It's interesting only in who is doing it.

Re:A more vague description, there ain't (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281959)

"So decentralisation of commenting, with a unified account?"

Never. People want their 8 dozen sockpuppets.

A return of Google's comment bar? (4, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280369)

Remember the comment bar plugin Google had for Firefox back before the Chrome days? It let you comment on ANY webpage? Anyone who had the plugin could see you comment. Side Wiki or something? I can't recall the name.

Yeah, this sounds a little like that.

Side Wiki or something? (1)

Ozoner (1406169) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281287)

Likewise I have been trying to find or remember this tool.

I though it a very interesting idea. What happened to it?

Re:A return of Google's comment bar? (3, Informative)

Ozoner (1406169) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281337)

Some further info on Side Wicki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]

"A good substitute could be the Google Chrome Extension: "Plus Comments" or "Site Comments":

Core competency (4, Funny)

LordLucless (582312) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280371)

Web browser maker decides to create a disqus competitor, instead of working on their web browser.

Re:Core competency (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280385)

Given how increasingly shite recent versions of firefox have been, that's probably a good thing.

Re:Core competency (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280535)

What's wrong with them?

I run often on a ---slow--- machine with a small screen (eee 900). The recent builds have seemed a bit better to me. And honestly the new style is butt ugly, but uses less screen space. With a nice, easy to find add on to restore a more classic look it's basically fine.

Re:Core competency (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280633)

It's change... some of the neckbears just don't like change...
Now, to return to our regularly scheduled "back in my day, I used lynx and you didn't hear me complain"... followed by "god damnit you kids, get off my lawn"

Re:Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280933)

we used computers made of stone with tin can and string net communications and we went to the moon!

kids these days...

Re:Core competency (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281169)

I guess you're happy with the layout of the icons. I'm not. The current version (29) has severely crippled customization compared to whatever I was using before.

But hey, rounded tabs!

Re:Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47282439)

Get the Classic Theme Restorer.

Re:Core competency (1)

Tridus (79566) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280445)

It's really something how they can't find time to make a 64 bit browser that isn't half-assed, but can find time for this instead.

Re:Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280497)

It's really something how they can't find time to make a 64 bit browser that isn't half-assed, but can find time for this instead.

How to get a 64-bit firefox: compile the source with your 64-bit gcc (or other favorite compiler) on your 64-bit system.

A source based distro will automate this for you. A binary distro will already provide the 64-bit compiled firefox if you are using the 64-bit version of the distro.

It is no more-assed or less-assed than compiling the source with a 32-bit gcc on a 32-bit system. Or installing the binary version on a 32-bit binary distro.

It really works out better if you understand what you're talking about prior to complaining.

Re:Core competency (2)

Tridus (79566) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280911)

Great, the Linux users are covered! That's going to guarantee Firefox 1% worldwide market share.

Re:Core competency (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281331)

Then shut the fuck up and use a decent OS before you complain.

Re:Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47282661)

Great, the Linux users are covered! That's going to guarantee Firefox 1% worldwide market share.

This may come as a complete and totally shocking surprise to you, but Windows has compilers too. Just like on Linux a 64-bit system with a 64-bit compiler is going to produce 64-bit code when you build Firefox from source. And really building it on Windows takes about as much effort as complaining about it seeing how the machine does all the work. Wouldn't you rather do something easy and constructive than do something easy and useless?

Re: Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280523)

This problem is resolving itself. Firefox's existing users are leaving it in droves for Chrome and even modern versions of IE. The stupid changes to Firefox's UI and the lack of performance and bug fixes are the reasons they're leaving. And nobody is adopting Mozilla's new products or services like Mozilla Persona, Firefox OS, or Firefox for Mobile, because they aren't very good. Over time, this means that Mozilla has fewer users, which means that they'll have less and less influence over the evolution of the web. Soon enough, if they continue down this path, they will make themselves irrelevant. But before this happens, we can only hope that enough people associated with Mozilla will clue in and reverse the situation. They can get Mozilla's priorities straight again, and put the organization back on the right path.

Re: Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281769)

Yes, they can, but they won't. The people running the project have their heads so far up their asses that they'll never fix the problem.
This is something that you'll see from corporations from time to time when they completely lose focus and run themselves into the ground. Kodak is a good example, they invented digital photography, but rather than developing it and trying to take advantage of it, they opted to try and kill it. These days Kodak is pretty much only making money from medical imaging.

Re: Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47282501)

+10 insightful.

Re: Core competency (2)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282675)

meanwhile people are leaving Google's Chome in droves because they fear it's used to violate their privacy. And nobody is adopting Google's new products - which is why Google keeps cancelling them.

See, its easy to make generalised statements about something. Firefox is a good thing, although it makes some people get all bothered about UI changes that are pretty inconsequential (hell, the last set of UI changes made it look *more* like Chrome, yet you say they leaving *for* Chrome....)

Anyway, I think a "standardised" discussion system could be a handy thing, any web site gets comments instead of the crappy commenting system they currently use. And if it means fewer people use twitter, the better!

Core competency (1)

nashv (1479253) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280463)

Well, the core of Firefox was written more than 10 years ago, and while it didn't necessarily have to be that way, the truth is that it has simply not kept up. Just getting Firefox to optimally use a modern multi-core processor is considered a massive effort. It is time for Mozilla to close down Firefox development (like they did with Thunderbird). Or at the very least, fork Chrome - it's been done before and it will give them instant parity with all modern web browsers.

Re:Core competency (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280533)

Well, the core of Firefox was written more than 10 years ago, and while it didn't necessarily have to be that way, the truth is that it has simply not kept up. Just getting Firefox to optimally use a modern multi-core processor is considered a massive effort.

My own (nontrivial) browsing is definitely not CPU-bound. I've never said "wow my browser keeps using 100% of a cpu, if only it could utilize the other cores too!" If that did happen I'd consider moving to a browser that's less bloated. And I use a couple of dozen add-ons, lots and lots of tabs, whitelisted Flash, etc...

Mozilla has made decisions I didn't like and won't support. But in this one instance, I think they haven't allocated lots of effort towards this because it's a complete non-issue.

Did some marketer with a featurelist tell you this was important or are you doing something that really makes you think this matters?

Re:Core competency (2)

Quantum gravity (2576857) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281855)

Tom's Hardware did a performance comparison of Chrome 25, Firefox 19, IE10 & 9 and some version of Opera. Firefox and Chrome were neck and neck, clearly ahead of the others.

Re:Core competency (2)

Warbothong (905464) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281323)

Mozilla wants an 'open Web'. Making an open source browser is a big part of that.

Protecting users from mass surveillance is another. Crippling third-party systems by default is a big part of that.

Unfortunately that kills some existing services, like unified commenting systems, which users want. Someone *could* come along with a unified commenting system which doesn't conduct mass surveillance, but that's an unlikely business model at the moment. Hence Mozilla's solving the chicken-and-egg problem themselves, by making a unified commenting system which (presumably) doesn't do mass surveillance.

If this works, it will go a long way towards making the third-party-crippling an effective default. Hence the Web becomes more 'open'.

Re:Core competency (1)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282569)

Web browser maker decides to create a disqus competitor, instead of working on their web browser.

It probably has something to do with the money:

"The two-year development project will be funded by a $3.89 million grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Miami-based philanthropic organization that specializes in media and the arts."

A thousand times no (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280375)

Single sign-on is a fine thing. But let's encourage people to run their own message bases, because I'm tired of having to figure out which domains I need to permit scripts from, and because I don't really want one company aggregating all my comments without even having to work for them.

The Slashdot comment system (3, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280391)

is probably the "least bad" one I've seen. It would be nice if multiple ratings could be applied to a post, ("+1 funny, +1 insightful, -1 Troll") but it is fairly good at reducing the trolls and flamage.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280411)

You've never clicked on a post's score have you?

Re:The Slashdot comment system (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280437)

The system is overrated because of the user composition.

If Slashdot was a forum about games, movies and cars we'd have posts from five year olds with +5 insightful and infantile internet memes with +5 funny.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (4, Funny)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280649)

How is that any different from Slashdot at any point over the past 15 years?

Re:In Sovjet Russia... (1)

zoefff (61970) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280891)

the System comments you! ... sorry... had to....

Re:The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280937)

You must be new here. Slashdot already has been that way for more than a decade.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281759)

> If Slashdot was a forum about games, movies and cars we'd have posts from five year olds with +5 insightful and infantile internet memes with +5 funny.

And if that was the nature of the forum than those moderations would be correct for that forum.

The one thing that the ./ system has that is better than all other comment systems is meta-moderation.
That is all there is to it, all the other differences are just noise. It is meta-moderation that allows the system to scale with only minor involvement by the website owners.

The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280457)

That's also because Slashdot is absolutely tiny. Any reasonable comment system would work well here.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280465)

... but it is fairly good at reducing the trolls and flamage.

Until you get dumped into Beta Slashdot.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280715)

... but it is fairly good at reducing the trolls and flamage.

Until you get dumped into Beta Slashdot.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280471)

Doesn't Malda work at the Washington Post now?

Re:The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280737)

Doesn't Malda work at the Washington Post now?

The Slashdot comment system (2)

nashv (1479253) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280473)

You've never been to reddit. That commenting system is close to perfect. It does it's job, and it's scaleable.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280625)

Too bad the users are atrocious.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (2, Insightful)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281613)

Some of the subreddits are very good.

However the rest of the site is full of emo redditards who downvote by group-think just because they "disagree" with the status quo.

Reddit is the 4chan of /.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281813)

I disagree. I HATE HATE HATE reddit's commenting system.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280817)

is probably the "least bad" one I've seen. It would be nice if multiple ratings could be applied to a post, ("+1 funny, +1 insightful, -1 Troll") but it is fairly good at reducing the trolls and flamage.

It's got its problems though...
When there's an article, there are some obvious things you can post and get high mod points for. You just have to be the first to post that particular comment.

Article: Something about patent trolls
Post: Patent trolls should be strung up by their thumbs!!!
+5 insightful

So basically, if you want higher mod points, you're just racing to make that post. That's dumb, and ensures the top 5 comments on any story are going to be very predictable and Slashdot comments have an obvious tendency to stay within a certain worldview and promote "group think" It'd be one thing if "insightful" meant something other than "I agree with you" but it doesn't. And I don't know how to fix that.

The problem with Discus... is basically everything. It's the worst system ever and is overwhelmed by trolls from news aggregators like DrugeReport. Any story about politics turns into a nightmare of who can post the most offensive left/right leaning viewpoint. Any post with post that actually has anything interesting to say gets dozens of highly offensive replys almost immediately. Though, if you enjoy correcting idiotic beliefs and infuriating people with IQs bellow 90, Discuss is heaven.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280957)

Article: Something about patent trolls
Post: Patent trolls should be strung up by their thumbs!!!
+5 insightful

Or make the "hilarious" joke about patenting the process of filing patents.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (4, Insightful)

Quirkz (1206400) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281727)

I've often wanted +0 "inciteful" - a combination of insightful and flamebait, for those posts that blend useful information with a barrage of unnecessary name-calling.

Re:The Slashdot comment system (1, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282743)

not to mention a -1 "just plain incorrect". for supposedly factual statements made that turn out to be misguided, common myth, or at worst deliberately intended to mislead.

Let's call it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280393)

Usenetzilla.

Re:Bring back Usenet! (1)

captjc (453680) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282601)

I would love to have more modern version of Usenet. A simple news and commenting protocol that can be implemented in a web browser or a dedicated client alike. Something that is ubiquitous as RSS feeds. I have a client that aggregates all the latest articles from my favorite sites and and then can go in and browse comments in a tree like structure. I would have the ability to mark individual stories and even sub-threads to follow or know what comments I have read or have yet to read. Hell, I doubt that something like that would really be that hard to hack into RSS or design from scratch in XML.

Personally, I miss the early days of the internet where everything had a tool, and there was a tool for everything. There were programs and protocols galore: HTTP, Gopher, Usenet, Email, FTP, IRC, Archie / Veronica, Telnet for BBSes. Most of them are dead or so niche to be included only for "legacy compatibility". Now there is just HTTP to rule them all and shit is boring.

plus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280397)

Will this be Firefox' version of Google+?

Not a bad idea at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280403)

The community platform will allow news organizations to connect with audiences beyond the comments section, deepening opportunities for engagement. Through the platform, readers will be able to submit pictures, links and other media; track discussions, and manage their contributions and online identities.

If they manage to pull this off successfully, that could be very useful platform.

Re:Not a bad idea at all (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280965)

Disqus already exists and it's terrible.

Sounds like they're reinventing Disqus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280415)

Sounds like they're reinventing Disqus

So... Disqus? (1)

Alarash (746254) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280423)

Such systems already exist. There is one from Facebook, another one from Disqus, and many more. They always use this to track users across websites (since it's usually some sort of iFrame, if you stay logged on, you can track users over different websites) and sell the information to third parties. I wonder if Mozilla wants to get into that system or not. I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if they did.

Re:So... Disqus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281725)

And the Mozilla people have already proven themselves to be about as trustworthy as Facebook and Google in that regard. Actually, less so.

Will it support moderation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280435)

Will this system support the moderation (a.k.a. censorship) of comments?

I can't see mainstream media corporations adopting it if it does not support the editing or removal of commentary they disagree with.

But does supporting such functionality conflict with Mozilla's mission and the Mozilla Manifesto? Can Mozilla really claim to stand for openness and freedom while simultaneously creating a system that supports overt and indisputable censorship?

Re:Will it support moderation? (1)

Tridus (79566) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280921)

Shockingly, most major websites don't want to have Goatse links showing up to their users, and thus want moderation tools.

I know, that's just crazy talk.

All this... (4, Interesting)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280451)

At a time when news organizations are shuttering their comment sections?

One news agency after another are realizing that comments actually *hurt* readership because there are enough asshole commenters out there posting crap, that it's actually turning off readers from their service entirely.

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280641)

No. Just no.

Gestapo "news organizations", like Ars Technica, want one message, one world.

Re:All this... (5, Funny)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280653)

Aww man, I started to read that in "Epic Movie Trailer Guy" voice.

"At a time when news organizations are shuttering their comment sections, one news agency took a chance to engage with it's readers. This summer watch how The Washington Post turns the tables on big media. Clint Eastwood reprises his role as the pilot of the Firefox (*cut to scene of him clicking on a hyperlink*). From the Director of Mozilla vs Mothrasoft. Commenting will never be the same."

Re:All this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281085)

If only I had mod points...

Re:All this... (3, Insightful)

bjdevil66 (583941) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281425)

At the same time, I have found that comments on news sites were actually some of the best information out there - just like here on Slashdot. Yes, there are ahole trolls and idiots, but there aren't as many as some make it out to be - and there are usually sides to a story that aren't being told by the story itself where commenters fill in the blanks.

To be fair, though, the quality of comments overall - including here at Slashdot - has declined, simply because people don't spend the time typing up large treatises anymore. More people want a Twitter-like soundbyte more than information, and won't read comments more than a few lines long. They have better thing to... squirrel!

Re:All this... (2)

theskipper (461997) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282095)

My local McClatchy-owned news site recently went to strictly Facebook login posting. Which whittled out the obvious trolls but as a byproduct, resulted in the same set of commenters on every article.

But what's interesting is that even with their full names, pictures and even employer names showing alongside the posts, they still submit inflamatory and trollish stuff. Especially politics and religion. Like one adjuster for Allstate recently went on a rampage about an unmarried female congressional candidate. Lots of religious invective and called her son illegitimate, etc. Not a joejob either, I actually know this person tangentially and it jives with her meatspace persona.

So I suspect you're right that comments will eventually have to die to maintain revenue generating subscribers. Because no matter how they try to reign in the trolls, there's always a constant flow of average joes who really haven't figured out the implications of exposing yourself through social media. And most likely never will until it hits home (i.e. getting fired).

Re:All this... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282805)

re facebook posters... I always thought this quote was particularly apt:

Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

But.. it turns out that they were just twats all along, which is depressing.

Re:All this... (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282351)

It's because nobody monitors them. They just install a shitty commenting system and never check the comments again, ever. If they actually policed the comment sections, it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

On the other hand, I have definitely learned something from commenters. Frequently, the news leaves out important context or outright lies due to its left-wing bias, and the commenters lay out the true story. Local corruption cases especially benefit from this extra information.

Best voting system evah! (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280601)

Will it look up your voting record by scavenging your computer? Will you automatically make electronic transfers to the charity of Mozilla's choice when you use it? Will the mob form up at your house if you haven't voted for ?

Back to the future (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280621)

All I want out of a commenting system is what Usenet has had for forever: a killfile. If I know that "John Doe <jdoe@example.com>" is generally a troll, I want to just not see posts by him.

As far as I'm aware, there are no web forums or commenting systems which incorporate this functionality. I haven't done an in-depth study, though, so I'd welcome correction.

Re:Back to the future (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280689)

Slashdot does. Mark someone as a foe. Gone.

Re:Back to the future (2)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280735)

Is that what that's for? Oops. Egg on my face, definitely! In my defense, while Slashdot definitely has its trolls, the signal-to-noise ration is much better here than on nearly every other site, so I've never been sufficiently irritated enough to want to plonk someone.

Re:Back to the future (2)

ais523 (1172701) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281669)

You can set a karma modifier for foes and for friends; if you set your foes to have -6 karma, then they're going to be at -1 forever to your view and thus not show up. I know there's at least one Slashdot user who sets their friends to +1 karma, and their foes to +6 so as to not mod them up by mistake, which strikes me as a pretty backwards way of doing things.

Re:Back to the future (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280975)

Most forums do have that. It's called an ignore list. They've had such a feature since forever ago.

Stick a fork in this already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280659)

Please will someone fork off Firefox and turn it back into a simple browser. One that doesn;t change it's interface every 5 minutes. One that isn't being designed and programmed by clueless hipsters who have no fricken clue.

Let's take back the web from retards.

Re:Stick a fork in this already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47281035)

Please will someone fork off Firefox and turn it back into a simple browser. One that doesn't change it's interface every 37 months.

Fixed that for you.

They changed the default appearance in 2011 with Firefox 4, and again recently with Firefox 29.

Single sign-in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280721)

From TFA:
 

What if readers could manage their online identity and contributions across news sites under a single sign-in?

What if I don't want to be tracked across different sites so I pick a different identity everywhere I log into (different emails, different names)? Single sign-in is convenient especially for whoever is tracking us.

They just overhauled the Times' comments (1)

swb (14022) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280787)

Within the past 18 months along with the whole web site. It's gotten really JS heavy and the comments section (which is only allowed to fill the right 1/3 of the browser window), which makes it really painful to use and browse the comments.

I liked the older system which had the comments on the bottom of the news story instead of on the side.

It's may not be practical, but it would almost be nice to see an IMDB style comments section for every story the way IMDB has one for every cast member and every film/show entry. If IMDB can make it scale to ~8.8 million personalities and titles I would think the NY Times could. At 500 stories/day it would take them 48 years to hit IMDB scale.

Probable major FU in TFS (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about a month and a half ago | (#47280805)

The Fine Summary states that the sponsor is the Knights Foundation. But the story makes reference to the Knight Foundation.

Knights Foundation: does good works with London juvies.

Knight Foundation: does good works with news organizations.

/. eds: Please review and fix or clarify.

What's wrong with Disqus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47280871)

Disqus works pretty well for me on my personal blog.

Re:What's wrong with Disqus? (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281901)

A number of things, but the three worst, in my view, are that it is very often extremely slow to load (and sometimes fails to load at all), it requires me to allow Disqus to run Javascript, and it involves a third party (Disqus) sitting between me and the blog -- which means that I have to allow myself to be tracked across multiple websites just so I can make a comment.

Sites that use Disqus are sites that don't allow comments as far as I'm concerned.

Re:What's wrong with Disqus? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a month and a half ago | (#47283079)

It also works horribly on mobile sites with nested comments basically being a huge vertical stacking of one word. And putting it into landscape mode does not make it scale to fit.

Just the facts (1)

roxteddy (1741462) | about a month and a half ago | (#47281535)

That's all I really want. The media seems to think that news is crowdsourcing common opinion. This will not add value to Firefox or the NYT.

Good (1)

tom229 (1640685) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282363)

Now I can flame them for abandoning their perfectly secure old sync method in favor of a "simpler" but much less secure username and password scheme.

To their credit, the move was widely praised on "tech sites"(1) as a welcome change.

(1): "tech sites" - Websites created or managed by hipsters with iPads that know what a partition is and wear NERD t-shirts. They also reformat their mom's computer from time to time. See: slashdot, arstechnica

This Could be Fun... (1)

Capt.Albatross (1301561) | about a month and a half ago | (#47282637)

"The most ambitious aim of the project is to create a feature that would efficiently highlight the most relevant and pertinent reader comments on an article, perhaps through word-recognition software."

The object of the game is to get a complete load of bollocks accepted as the most relevant and pertinent reader comment on as many articles as possible. Extra points for the front page and headline articles.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>