4 ms·

It's not just local news. Even the Washington Post's comments section is awful. Not just in terms of the content, but also the UI. For example: https://www.was

It's not just local news. Even the Washington Post's comments section is awful. Not just in terms of the content, but also the UI. For example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/coronavirus-stimulus-check-calculator/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/coronavirus... Who wants to scroll through 1k comments in a narrow, awkwardly-paginated column? They also allow posts from anyone with an email account (mitigated somewhat by the paywall on most articles) which results in a lot of high-emotion, low-information spam. By contrast, the Wall Street Journal limits comments only to people with a subscription. Perhaps as a result, the WSJ comments section is generally of higher quality with e.g. better spelling/grammar, less flamewar, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
Maybe (I've never tried to look at WaPo comments). I did find that the WSJ comments are much, much worse than the FT comments (angrier, less interesting). I wonder if this is driven by the different susbscription prices, or just the different audience.
wombatmobile 6y ago
> the WSJ comments section is generally of higher quality with e.g. better spelling/grammar, less flamewar, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio. How many WSJ comments sections have you actually read?
- neartheplain 6y ago
  That's what I'm saying, the Post's comments are even worse.
  - Symbiote 6y ago
    The gold standard for comments is Tim Dowling's articles in The Guardian. I don't dare look at the WP now. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/13/tim-dowling-middle-child-back-from-the-us-must-act-normal https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/13/tim-dow...
    - Tarsul 6y ago
      yeah I'm actually quite happy with the comments on the Guardian. They don't have them on a lot of articles but when they do they always have their Guardian Picks, meaning high quality comments that are highlighted. I don't know why the general comment section there is good but one point is definitely moderation. They even delete postings (spam or flame wars).

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

Maybe (I've never tried to look at WaPo comments). I did find that the WSJ comments are much, much worse than the FT comments (angrier, less interesting). I wonder if this is driven by the different susbscription prices, or just the different audience.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> the WSJ comments section is generally of higher quality with e.g. better spelling/grammar, less flamewar, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio. How many WSJ comments sections have you actually read?

neartheplain 6y ago
That's what I'm saying, the Post's comments are even worse.
- Symbiote 6y ago
  The gold standard for comments is Tim Dowling's articles in The Guardian. I don't dare look at the WP now. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/13/tim-dowling-middle-child-back-from-the-us-must-act-normal https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/13/tim-dow...
  - Tarsul 6y ago
    yeah I'm actually quite happy with the comments on the Guardian. They don't have them on a lot of articles but when they do they always have their Guardian Picks, meaning high quality comments that are highlighted. I don't know why the general comment section there is good but one point is definitely moderation. They even delete postings (spam or flame wars).