4 ms·

Notably and non-obviously, the 99 cents is a one-time fee, so once you've paid it you're entitled to make as many comments as you want. But what sort of person

by hugh3 16y ago

Notably and non-obviously, the 99 cents is a one-time fee, so once you've paid it you're entitled to make as many comments as you want. But what sort of person is willing to pay to make comments on a local newspaper? My prediction: the comments section of the Attleboro Sun-Chronicle will henceforth be limited to a very small number of retired cranks with too much time on their hands and very large bees in their bonnet about something or other. Expect to see the same damn thread under every article as the four usual suspects duke it out over whether the problems of the world are all due to (a) George Bush, (b) Barack Obama, (c) the Federal Reserve or (d) the aliens.

DilipJ 16y ago
Actually, I think this is likely the best way to deal with trolls. Having someone input their credit card gets rid (at least in their mind) of the anonymity that trolls thrive on. The majority of the anonymous-posting news sites I have visited have been filled with trollish, often misspelled comments (on a side note: I think there must be a direct relationship between how poor a speller one is and their political leanings..). The NYTimes is the only major news source where I have found the majority of the online comments to have been written in a legible manner. If HN grows too big or unruly to manage, I fully expect pg to implement credit card registration as well...
- hugh3 16y ago
  Oh, it'll get rid of trolls alright. Trolls post stupid and insane comments which they don't really believe. Instead it'll just get filled up people who post stupid and insane comments which they really do believe. A victory for those whose job it is to police the comments, but not really a victory for sensible discourse. I've said it before and I'll say it again: what I really want is a browser plugin which blocks comments. I never want to see another comment again, on any site. That'd be a pretty sweet internet.
  - ams6110 16y ago
    Well nobody forces you to read the comments, do they?
  - mmacaulay 16y ago
    Except for HN I guess?
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Well, He said didn't want to read comments. That doesn't mean he won't make comments...
philwelch 16y ago
I don't know how many local newspapers you've read, but this is exactly what the "Letters to the Editor" section is in my hometown local newspaper.
timmaah 16y ago
That is no different from the comments on most local papers now. I'm amazed that a company that wants to be taken as a professional source for journalism allows those kinds of comments on their site. It just looks terrible to their image and adds nothing to the story.
- vog 16y ago
  > It just looks terrible to their image Comments are from "ordinary people", so why would anyone measure the quality of an article by the quality of the comments? Does an article become less true or less readable just because it is followed by some bad comments? In contrast, not publishing comments would lead to the impression of being unable to take criticism. By publishing even the dumbest comments, they show that they are able to handle criticism, and that they don't suppress anyone's opinion. > and adds nothing to the story Comments serve a completely different purpose. While the article reflects the facts, the comments reflect the sentiment of the people. That's what they add to the story. In some rare cases comments even add some interesting facts.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Comments serve a completely different purpose. While the article reflects the facts, the comments reflect the sentiment of the people. That's what they add to the story Except they don't reflect the sentiment of "the people", only the small subset with the time and inclination to comment. This usually winds up being folks with some kind of extreme opinion or other kind of bonnet-dwelling bee.
  - lhnz 16y ago
    > Does an article become less true or less readable just because it is followed by some bad comments? I see what you're saying, but remember than many people judge a news organisation by the calibre of its viewers and readers.
lsc 16y ago
the trick of the credit card/ one identity per user trick is that you must not only charge; that's just a way to make bans meaningful... you must also ban users who are not contributing. The hard part is crafting a policy such that there is a clear way of dealing with earnest cranks (or people willing to be seen as earnest cranks.) But even if you don't solve that problem, you can get rid of the obvious trolls by implementing some 'one identity per human' plus banning. Heck, if you raise the price of identities enough, you could make bans meaningful without limiting each person to only one identity (though, I suspect, in that case you have to charge more than a buck.)
joe_the_user 16y ago
Don't forget the local used car lot owner.
nickluft 16y ago
Brevity magazine is thinking about charging $2 to $3 dollars to submit articles to its editors for consideration. It is a not-for-profit magazine. I think this topic is similar to the post about a newspaper charging for comments. Publishing is in crisis. I know many web types don't really worry too much about these inky-fingered paper dinosaurs, but it worries me. For whatever reasons, the web gurus of the late 90s told everyone to win eyeballs, and now we have free content, free comments and free submissions. Not even the price of postage is a barrier any more. We seem to be suffering now from an internet that is burdened by too many contributors, too much information, too much noise and not enough signal. And what the publishers will tell you, too few readers. So perhaps a paywall will help to balance this out. In the past submitting a letter or an article or a book to a publisher was the "entry barrier" to participation. Now it is easier to do via a website or email and the price disguised within the ISP fee. And if publishers do not charge for submission, how else do we reduce the overwhelming deluge of poor quality submissions? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1518265 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1518265

by hugh3 16y ago

DilipJ 16y ago

Actually, I think this is likely the best way to deal with trolls. Having someone input their credit card gets rid (at least in their mind) of the anonymity that trolls thrive on. The majority of the anonymous-posting news sites I have visited have been filled with trollish, often misspelled comments (on a side note: I think there must be a direct relationship between how poor a speller one is and their political leanings..). The NYTimes is the only major news source where I have found the majority of the online comments to have been written in a legible manner. If HN grows too big or unruly to manage, I fully expect pg to implement credit card registration as well...

hugh3 16y ago
Oh, it'll get rid of trolls alright. Trolls post stupid and insane comments which they don't really believe. Instead it'll just get filled up people who post stupid and insane comments which they really do believe. A victory for those whose job it is to police the comments, but not really a victory for sensible discourse. I've said it before and I'll say it again: what I really want is a browser plugin which blocks comments. I never want to see another comment again, on any site. That'd be a pretty sweet internet.
- ams6110 16y ago
  Well nobody forces you to read the comments, do they?
- mmacaulay 16y ago
  Except for HN I guess?
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Well, He said didn't want to read comments. That doesn't mean he won't make comments...

philwelch 16y ago

I don't know how many local newspapers you've read, but this is exactly what the "Letters to the Editor" section is in my hometown local newspaper.

timmaah 16y ago

That is no different from the comments on most local papers now. I'm amazed that a company that wants to be taken as a professional source for journalism allows those kinds of comments on their site. It just looks terrible to their image and adds nothing to the story.

vog 16y ago
> It just looks terrible to their image Comments are from "ordinary people", so why would anyone measure the quality of an article by the quality of the comments? Does an article become less true or less readable just because it is followed by some bad comments? In contrast, not publishing comments would lead to the impression of being unable to take criticism. By publishing even the dumbest comments, they show that they are able to handle criticism, and that they don't suppress anyone's opinion. > and adds nothing to the story Comments serve a completely different purpose. While the article reflects the facts, the comments reflect the sentiment of the people. That's what they add to the story. In some rare cases comments even add some interesting facts.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Comments serve a completely different purpose. While the article reflects the facts, the comments reflect the sentiment of the people. That's what they add to the story Except they don't reflect the sentiment of "the people", only the small subset with the time and inclination to comment. This usually winds up being folks with some kind of extreme opinion or other kind of bonnet-dwelling bee.
- lhnz 16y ago
  > Does an article become less true or less readable just because it is followed by some bad comments? I see what you're saying, but remember than many people judge a news organisation by the calibre of its viewers and readers.

lsc 16y ago

the trick of the credit card/ one identity per user trick is that you must not only charge; that's just a way to make bans meaningful... you must also ban users who are not contributing. The hard part is crafting a policy such that there is a clear way of dealing with earnest cranks (or people willing to be seen as earnest cranks.) But even if you don't solve that problem, you can get rid of the obvious trolls by implementing some 'one identity per human' plus banning. Heck, if you raise the price of identities enough, you could make bans meaningful without limiting each person to only one identity (though, I suspect, in that case you have to charge more than a buck.)

joe_the_user 16y ago

Don't forget the local used car lot owner.

nickluft 16y ago

Brevity magazine is thinking about charging $2 to $3 dollars to submit articles to its editors for consideration. It is a not-for-profit magazine. I think this topic is similar to the post about a newspaper charging for comments. Publishing is in crisis. I know many web types don't really worry too much about these inky-fingered paper dinosaurs, but it worries me. For whatever reasons, the web gurus of the late 90s told everyone to win eyeballs, and now we have free content, free comments and free submissions. Not even the price of postage is a barrier any more. We seem to be suffering now from an internet that is burdened by too many contributors, too much information, too much noise and not enough signal. And what the publishers will tell you, too few readers. So perhaps a paywall will help to balance this out. In the past submitting a letter or an article or a book to a publisher was the "entry barrier" to participation. Now it is easier to do via a website or email and the price disguised within the ISP fee. And if publishers do not charge for submission, how else do we reduce the overwhelming deluge of poor quality submissions? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1518265 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1518265