6 ms·

I don't 'do' Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, so those contact options are out. Your editorial email address will be swamped for a while until people get bored w

I don't 'do' Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, so those contact options are out. Your editorial email address will be swamped for a while until people get bored with the lack of near-realtime debate. "...our readers are best served by dedicating our resources to doing more reporting than attempting to police a comments section...". That's why you appoint trusted moderators. Anyway, your 'resources' are now going to be split between processing email, visiting Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn... We'll see.

reitoei 11y ago
> people get bored with the lack of near-realtime debate You're making the assumption that people want this. They don't.
- RegW 11y ago
  Agreed. 16 people post the same comment 45 seconds after the article goes online (without reading it properly). 8 people post more thoughtful but identical comments 15 minutes later. I wake up 16 hours after the article goes online and post my tuppence worth into a rely to whatever is at the top. (without bothering to read the other 362 comments). [Updated to fix rubbish formatting]
- dspillett 11y ago
  > > people get bored with the lack of near-realtime debate > You're making the assumption that people want this. That might actually be a useful filter. The people out to cause trouble who seem to get off on the reaction to poor comments are more likely to be put off by the lack of immediacy than those who are more interested in a proper debate and take their time writing something well thought out and coherent.
onion2k 11y ago
I don't 'do' Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, so those contact options are out. They are, but only for you. They're still options for the author and everyone who hasn't opted out. That's what opting out means - your choice not to use a communication tool only affects you. The impact of your choice will be that you can't discuss something with the article's author directly. If the editorial email address is swamped then they'll close it, or make it harder to find. That's all.
- oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
  The trouble is, opting out of facebook used to mean just that: opting out of facebook. Increasingly, however, it means opting out of engaging with a host of other sites. I think it's pretty poor form of a site to segregate its users by locking out those who don't happen to have an account on a separate third-party site.
  - onion2k 11y ago
    Building on third party services is a brilliant, if not essential, part of the innovation process. The fact that people choose not to use the most third party service among content websites is their choice (and it's an understandable one), but they should learn to live with the consequences of that decision, which will include not being able to use some services they might want to. Saying "It'd be better if content sites didn't use FB!" is something that would have a detrimental impact on the web experience of more than a billion other people who have chosen not to opt out. That's something that you have to consider when you suggest an alternative solution.
    - talmand 11y ago
      Essential? No one innovates on their own anymore? They have to rely on third-parties to be able to innovate?
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        Generally you want to focus your "innovation" on your core competencies. For other things, you kinda want to use 3rd party things
        talmand 11y ago
        I agree. But "essential"? As in the innovation can't happen unless you use these essential services?
        11y ago
HLRoku 11y ago
Honestly, I think that this introduces a new barrier that trolls and abrasive people won't go through the bother of doing -- but people genuinely interested won't really find this much of an issue. It also might serve as a place where people can think more about their responses knowing they will be given more credence and visibility instead of trying to respond with canned thoughts and knee-jerk reactions without really giving the conversation and their position much thought. ...Or, it can just turn out dead. Honestly, in this new age of more information and data than we can deal with, I personally have come to realize the value of curators, and although this might be a slippery slope in terms of hive-mind in that regard [one person deciding what's worth viewing for everyone] I think done well it can be pretty amazing.

reitoei 11y ago

> people get bored with the lack of near-realtime debate You're making the assumption that people want this. They don't.

RegW 11y ago
Agreed. 16 people post the same comment 45 seconds after the article goes online (without reading it properly). 8 people post more thoughtful but identical comments 15 minutes later. I wake up 16 hours after the article goes online and post my tuppence worth into a rely to whatever is at the top. (without bothering to read the other 362 comments). [Updated to fix rubbish formatting]
dspillett 11y ago
> > people get bored with the lack of near-realtime debate > You're making the assumption that people want this. That might actually be a useful filter. The people out to cause trouble who seem to get off on the reaction to poor comments are more likely to be put off by the lack of immediacy than those who are more interested in a proper debate and take their time writing something well thought out and coherent.

onion2k 11y ago

I don't 'do' Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, so those contact options are out. They are, but only for you. They're still options for the author and everyone who hasn't opted out. That's what opting out means - your choice not to use a communication tool only affects you. The impact of your choice will be that you can't discuss something with the article's author directly. If the editorial email address is swamped then they'll close it, or make it harder to find. That's all.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
The trouble is, opting out of facebook used to mean just that: opting out of facebook. Increasingly, however, it means opting out of engaging with a host of other sites. I think it's pretty poor form of a site to segregate its users by locking out those who don't happen to have an account on a separate third-party site.
- onion2k 11y ago
  Building on third party services is a brilliant, if not essential, part of the innovation process. The fact that people choose not to use the most third party service among content websites is their choice (and it's an understandable one), but they should learn to live with the consequences of that decision, which will include not being able to use some services they might want to. Saying "It'd be better if content sites didn't use FB!" is something that would have a detrimental impact on the web experience of more than a billion other people who have chosen not to opt out. That's something that you have to consider when you suggest an alternative solution.
  - talmand 11y ago
    Essential? No one innovates on their own anymore? They have to rely on third-parties to be able to innovate?
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      Generally you want to focus your "innovation" on your core competencies. For other things, you kinda want to use 3rd party things
      - talmand 11y ago
        I agree. But "essential"? As in the innovation can't happen unless you use these essential services?
        11y ago

HLRoku 11y ago

Honestly, I think that this introduces a new barrier that trolls and abrasive people won't go through the bother of doing -- but people genuinely interested won't really find this much of an issue. It also might serve as a place where people can think more about their responses knowing they will be given more credence and visibility instead of trying to respond with canned thoughts and knee-jerk reactions without really giving the conversation and their position much thought. ...Or, it can just turn out dead. Honestly, in this new age of more information and data than we can deal with, I personally have come to realize the value of curators, and although this might be a slippery slope in terms of hive-mind in that regard [one person deciding what's worth viewing for everyone] I think done well it can be pretty amazing.