7 ms·

If comments "seem worse," then in what way are they worse? That may help find an answer. My general hypothesis is that you can improve comment quality by givin

by javert 16y ago

If comments "seem worse," then in what way are they worse? That may help find an answer. My general hypothesis is that you can improve comment quality by giving users more metrics than just an upvote or downvote. For example, consider the following: Some people are saying there's a lot more negativity around here. I think that's true. Also, I've found that if someone is negative towards me in a way that seems personal, I get defensive and have to work hard to not respond in kind (and sometimes I respond in a mean way anyways). Sometimes these kinds of arguments get a lot of upvotes, because lots of people take one side or the other, and new people get drawn in. One way to deal with this particular problem would be to treat comments that are "mean" differently from comments that just aren't interesting or insightful or correct. For example, you could just cut off, or gray out, any comment thread that becomes "mean," thus diverting attention from it; people already involved would be able to continue if they want, knowing nobody else will probably look at it, and new people won't get drawn in. How you detect when a thread becomes "mean" is not easy, but maybe you could have a "mean" button/flag. A person clicks the "mean" flag to vote the thread as mean, but their vote's power is weighted against their karma, and then there is a threshhold that, if reached, actually designates the thread as "mean" and greys it out or whatnot. Now, the point of this comment is not actually the specific "meanness" example, but the hypothesis I laid out at the beginning of the comment. I mean, hell, you could try a bunch of different metrics. Just create a little "metrics bar" that allows users to vote on various things (like "meanness," etc.) and rotate a few different options through over time just to see which ones help or give interesting data. Keep the normal voting much more prominent, though, and make this metrics bar less prominent, so that it can be ignored and doesn't impact the UX much for those not interested.

pg 16y ago
Unfortunately, I think the biggest problem is that there are a huge number of mediocre comments. The increase in meanness is just one of the more visible aspects of that. (Meanness is moral mediocrity.) Although maybe I shouldn't say "unfortunately," because that problem may be easy to cure. E.g. it might work simply to add a karma cost of for commenting, an idea I'm seriously considering trying out.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  This really bugs me. What defines mediocre to you? We're defining the problem in relatives. I mean, look at the exchange that just happened: > Comments are getting worse. >> What is worse? > Comments are overwhelmingly mediocre. So, I ask, what is mediocre? Comments are the thoughts of human beings using your system, and there's no technological or psychological means to have any semblance of control over them. Their perceived quality is a direct reflection of the community you have. Any attempt to "fix" perceived quality is going to divide your community, and any disruption or improvement to the community is going to indirectly adjust perceived quality. Just like none of us writes like Thomas Jefferson these days and a number of words have fallen out of favor, so has your community evolved and a new definition of "average comment" must be found. This is all a relative game, anyway; a comment that you call mediocre I might find to be a golden nugget of awesome, and why should my opinion matter any less? As an aside, I wish I had a dollar for every suggested technological fix to the declining-comment problem. Based on how this thread is shaping up, I'd be doing better than my 401(k).
  - brendano 16y ago
    It's very reasonable to recognize quality. I can distinctly remember several times the comments on an article were written by absolute experts in the material, full of insight and interesting content. I could believe comments like those have become rarer.
    - jedsmith 16y ago
      That's your definition of quality, and I'm glad you shared it, but disheartened that you consider it the one true quality. Reading your second sentence strictly, we can infer that to you, quality means (a) expert-level familiarity with a linked article, (b) insightful -- difficult to generalize because insight is different for different people, or (c) full of interesting content. Of the three of those points, only one of them isn't dependent on the perspective, knowledge level, or interests of the reader. What is insightful to me might be common knowledge to you. What is insightful to you might be tediously stupid to me. What is interesting to you might be boring to me. On, and on, and on.

by javert 16y ago

pg 16y ago

Unfortunately, I think the biggest problem is that there are a huge number of mediocre comments. The increase in meanness is just one of the more visible aspects of that. (Meanness is moral mediocrity.) Although maybe I shouldn't say "unfortunately," because that problem may be easy to cure. E.g. it might work simply to add a karma cost of for commenting, an idea I'm seriously considering trying out.

jedsmith 16y ago
This really bugs me. What defines mediocre to you? We're defining the problem in relatives. I mean, look at the exchange that just happened: > Comments are getting worse. >> What is worse? > Comments are overwhelmingly mediocre. So, I ask, what is mediocre? Comments are the thoughts of human beings using your system, and there's no technological or psychological means to have any semblance of control over them. Their perceived quality is a direct reflection of the community you have. Any attempt to "fix" perceived quality is going to divide your community, and any disruption or improvement to the community is going to indirectly adjust perceived quality. Just like none of us writes like Thomas Jefferson these days and a number of words have fallen out of favor, so has your community evolved and a new definition of "average comment" must be found. This is all a relative game, anyway; a comment that you call mediocre I might find to be a golden nugget of awesome, and why should my opinion matter any less? As an aside, I wish I had a dollar for every suggested technological fix to the declining-comment problem. Based on how this thread is shaping up, I'd be doing better than my 401(k).
- brendano 16y ago
  It's very reasonable to recognize quality. I can distinctly remember several times the comments on an article were written by absolute experts in the material, full of insight and interesting content. I could believe comments like those have become rarer.
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    That's your definition of quality, and I'm glad you shared it, but disheartened that you consider it the one true quality. Reading your second sentence strictly, we can infer that to you, quality means (a) expert-level familiarity with a linked article, (b) insightful -- difficult to generalize because insight is different for different people, or (c) full of interesting content. Of the three of those points, only one of them isn't dependent on the perspective, knowledge level, or interests of the reader. What is insightful to me might be common knowledge to you. What is insightful to you might be tediously stupid to me. What is interesting to you might be boring to me. On, and on, and on.