4 ms·

Good site also to check out is our Guides [1]. We've collected research on user engagement into a format that should be easy for newsrooms to adopt to create be

Good site also to check out is our Guides [1]. We've collected research on user engagement into a format that should be easy for newsrooms to adopt to create better discussion. [1]: http://guides.coralproject.net http://guides.coralproject.net

unescape 9y ago
The feature I want is, as a site user, to apply my own set of filtering and moderation criteria. E.g. "I don't want to see comments posted by user XYZ, or containing regexp W. Any comments by user ABC, or upvoted by ABC, or containing regexp D, go to the top. I trust the moderation of site trollblocker.com" I don't see these kinds of ideas represented in the user engagement research.
- wyattjoh 9y ago
  One of the features offered by Talk is the ability to ignore comments from a specific user [1]. It is designed just as you described it here. As mentioned in a previous comment, our server api's should be sufficient for you as a site administrator, to write a plugin that would allow users to do exactly what you described. The idea with Talk is that we hand control to the newsroom, so they can enable or create the plugins that they like. [1]: See a demo GIF on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/wp/2017/09/06/changes-to-washington-post-comments-early-september-update/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/wp/2017/09/...
  - unescape 9y ago
    This is a step in the right direction, but why hand control to the newsroom as opposed to the user?
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      It is the newsroom's site.
      - unescape 9y ago
        Then this is evidence that comments should not be on the site. It's not the place of the newsroom to control discussion.
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Then don't comment on their site? I mean if you're looking for discussion online, there are thousands of places to go. But this is specifically about the comment sections they provide. It seems entirely reasonable that a room they provide should be subject to their rules, and one violating those rules should be shown the door.
        unescape 9y ago
        My observation is that Mozilla Talk does nothing to advance the decentralized Web, so why is it a good thing?
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Just because something doesn't advance your pet cause doesn't mean it's not good. The decentralized web does nothing to advance universal health care, so why is it a good thing?
        unescape 9y ago
        I'm just going to point out that Mozilla and the NSF recently offered $2M for ideas to decentralize the web. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/21/2-million-prize-decentralize-web-apply-today/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/21/2-million-prize-dec...
        TwelveNights 9y ago
        They never said that Talk was aimed at moving that goal further along, however. They're trying to use it instead to allow better curation tools to make comments manageable.

unescape 9y ago

The feature I want is, as a site user, to apply my own set of filtering and moderation criteria. E.g. "I don't want to see comments posted by user XYZ, or containing regexp W. Any comments by user ABC, or upvoted by ABC, or containing regexp D, go to the top. I trust the moderation of site trollblocker.com" I don't see these kinds of ideas represented in the user engagement research.

wyattjoh 9y ago
One of the features offered by Talk is the ability to ignore comments from a specific user [1]. It is designed just as you described it here. As mentioned in a previous comment, our server api's should be sufficient for you as a site administrator, to write a plugin that would allow users to do exactly what you described. The idea with Talk is that we hand control to the newsroom, so they can enable or create the plugins that they like. [1]: See a demo GIF on https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/wp/2017/09/06/changes-to-washington-post-comments-early-september-update/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-post/wp/2017/09/...
- unescape 9y ago
  This is a step in the right direction, but why hand control to the newsroom as opposed to the user?
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    It is the newsroom's site.
    - unescape 9y ago
      Then this is evidence that comments should not be on the site. It's not the place of the newsroom to control discussion.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        Then don't comment on their site? I mean if you're looking for discussion online, there are thousands of places to go. But this is specifically about the comment sections they provide. It seems entirely reasonable that a room they provide should be subject to their rules, and one violating those rules should be shown the door.
        unescape 9y ago
        My observation is that Mozilla Talk does nothing to advance the decentralized Web, so why is it a good thing?
        s73ver_ 9y ago
        Just because something doesn't advance your pet cause doesn't mean it's not good. The decentralized web does nothing to advance universal health care, so why is it a good thing?
        unescape 9y ago
        I'm just going to point out that Mozilla and the NSF recently offered $2M for ideas to decentralize the web. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/21/2-million-prize-decentralize-web-apply-today/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/21/2-million-prize-dec...
        TwelveNights 9y ago
        They never said that Talk was aimed at moving that goal further along, however. They're trying to use it instead to allow better curation tools to make comments manageable.