3 ms·
Great concept - the more available approaches the better. It also works fairly well for Something Awful. My problem with the site is that my intuitive malware/
by kmfrk 16y ago
Great concept - the more available approaches the better. It also works fairly well for Something Awful.
My problem with the site is that my intuitive malware/scam heuristics would get a false positive on the site, if you hadn't vouched for it here on Hacker News. If you changed the design, it might help a little, but you obviously still need to figure out the market for the service.
On the positive side, companies are starting to realize that they aren't handling comment systems very well.
- zecho 16y agoSomething Awful is also heavily, heavily moderated and it's a group of fairly like-minded people, especially in the subforums outside GBS. If I remember right, I think the $10 charge was more to recoup costs of running the site. Keeping out crazies is a side effect.
- kmfrk 16y agoIt's not very heavily moderated, but it does have moderators that can be summoned with the report buttons. One of the first things you learn on SA is to "grow a thicker skin", because there aren't enough moderators with sufficient time to stop users from ganging up on some people and giving them a hard time. And as a result, moderators also allow a harsher tone. The moderators are vital, but I wouldn't say that they are moderating heavily. It does show the relevance of communities like SA versus random gatherings of visitors that most comment systems on websites constitute.
- samengland 16y agoI think heavy, but not overly up-front moderation is the key to building a good discussion - this simply means clearing out comments which are superfluous - thereby creating richer, more readable content.