3 ms·

>Comment sections on news sources are mostly a dumpster fire. Only because they are not moderated properly. Newspapers should simply have a staff member read a

>Comment sections on news sources are mostly a dumpster fire. Only because they are not moderated properly. Newspapers should simply have a staff member read and approve every post. It really doesn't take that long to read something and hit yes or no. Nobody said the comments have to be real time.

JdeBP 6y ago
Somebody said it on this very page at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26461659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26461659 . (-:
xkeysc0re 6y ago
This is how the NYT moderation works. They even have "Editor's Choice"-type badges to signify high quality comments
- muglug 6y ago
  Yeah, it works at NYT scale. They have a massive paying subscriber base, and they can afford to operate both automatic and manual moderation systems. But it’s not scalable downwards.
- rapnie 6y ago
  This is what the Guardian does too. Their frontend is open-source: https://github.com/guardian/frontend https://github.com/guardian/frontend
CydeWeys 6y ago
> Newspapers should simply have a staff member read and approve every post. You're talking about a lot of added cost for little added value. Newspapers aren't exactly swimming in money these days.
- birdsbirdsbirds 6y ago
  With comments, they could have become facebook. They still can become facebook by offering comments, letting their readers create profiles and expand from there. Newspapers aren't swimming in money because they don't go all in on online content. Moderating comments, choosing information for their readers, that's their core competence. Writing articles or printing is secondary.
  - muglug 6y ago
    They’re not swimming in money because a thousand small independent newsrooms across the country, working independently, were no match for the massive VC-backed attention-stealing ad-revenue-sucking social networks coming out of Silicon Valley.
Thorrez 6y ago
I think part of it is the commenters belonging to a community that has some sort of shared understanding. Whether that be a political leaning, or a desire for respectful comments (HN to some degree), or a view that flame wars and insults aren't a problem (4chan).

JdeBP 6y ago

Somebody said it on this very page at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26461659 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26461659 . (-:

xkeysc0re 6y ago

This is how the NYT moderation works. They even have "Editor's Choice"-type badges to signify high quality comments

muglug 6y ago
Yeah, it works at NYT scale. They have a massive paying subscriber base, and they can afford to operate both automatic and manual moderation systems. But it’s not scalable downwards.
rapnie 6y ago
This is what the Guardian does too. Their frontend is open-source: https://github.com/guardian/frontend https://github.com/guardian/frontend

CydeWeys 6y ago

> Newspapers should simply have a staff member read and approve every post. You're talking about a lot of added cost for little added value. Newspapers aren't exactly swimming in money these days.

birdsbirdsbirds 6y ago
With comments, they could have become facebook. They still can become facebook by offering comments, letting their readers create profiles and expand from there. Newspapers aren't swimming in money because they don't go all in on online content. Moderating comments, choosing information for their readers, that's their core competence. Writing articles or printing is secondary.
- muglug 6y ago
  They’re not swimming in money because a thousand small independent newsrooms across the country, working independently, were no match for the massive VC-backed attention-stealing ad-revenue-sucking social networks coming out of Silicon Valley.

Thorrez 6y ago

I think part of it is the commenters belonging to a community that has some sort of shared understanding. Whether that be a political leaning, or a desire for respectful comments (HN to some degree), or a view that flame wars and insults aren't a problem (4chan).