5 ms·

> despite algorithms that can correct for low value comments (e.g. upvoting/downvoting) I'm not sure that's universally true. I often see comments lacking sub

by colmvp 12y ago

> despite algorithms that can correct for low value comments (e.g. upvoting/downvoting) I'm not sure that's universally true. I often see comments lacking substance get highly upvoted largely because people who might have a different opinion would be participating and conversing on a different platform instead of the source website. And so, bias voting can skew what rises to the top.

minimaxir 12y ago
That is a fair counterpoint, especially on sites with hyperlow-quality content such as BuzzFeed and Yahoo. There isn't a perfect algorithm to combat the concept of the hive-mind, but there are still simple options (e.g. preventing anonymous comments on articles that may be politically charged) that doesn't excuse Reuters from just giving up.
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  Doesn't excuse them? They're under obligation to provide you a voice on their Web site now? Your insight is so invaluable that sites are obligated to provide a commentary mechanism? Just look at the comments on this announcement. "State run media." You need someone full time to delete drivel like that, and you're saying they're obligated to do so and have no excuse not to? I'm tired of this opinion that one deserves a chance to speak in a comments section. While I understand the irony of my saying this here: I have never once in my entire life found value from an Internet comment on some random site. Some discussion communities, a few on Reddit and barely this one, sure, but the comments on CNN? Fox News? Joe's blog? Even your beloved TechCrunch? If you have something to say, develop an audience using your own resources. Personally, I'm tired of every site on the Internet having a comment form because they are always a cesspool of spam, idiocy, and a waste of pixels. I've come close several times to extending my browser to remove Disqus and other comment systems. (Also I find it really odd that your claim to fame, as you say, is TechCrunch comments. Is that some kind of badge of honor for you?)
  - minimaxir 12y ago
    I never said they were obligated to provide a comments section, but I would have strongly preferred if Reuters was more honest about the decision with a explanation of "we no longer have a comments section because we can't devote the manpower to supporting it." > (Also I find it really odd that your claim to fame, as you say, is TechCrunch comments. Is that some kind of badge of honor for you?) Yes.
- adnzzzzZ 12y ago
  >There isn't a perfect algorithm to combat the concept of the hive-mind, but there are still simple options (e.g. preventing anonymous comments on articles that may be politically charged) How does one follow from the other? Anonymous people are more likely to share opinions that don't conform to the opinions of the hive-mind in politically charged subjects because there are no repercussions to them doing so. Anonymity is a direct solution to combating hive-minds and upvoting/downvoting is something that further enables hive-mind-like behavior. Why are you saying that preventing anonymity helps with hive-minds? You're conflating two different issues: quality control and hive-minds. You can have high quality posts that don't challenge anyone's mindsets, this is high quality and high hive-mind. You can have low quality and low hive-mind. And ideally you want high quality and low hive-mind. Anonymity lowers your hive-mind but often lowers your quality. Upvoting/downvoting increases your quality but also increases your hive-mind.

by colmvp 12y ago

minimaxir 12y ago

That is a fair counterpoint, especially on sites with hyperlow-quality content such as BuzzFeed and Yahoo. There isn't a perfect algorithm to combat the concept of the hive-mind, but there are still simple options (e.g. preventing anonymous comments on articles that may be politically charged) that doesn't excuse Reuters from just giving up.

jsmthrowaway 12y ago
Doesn't excuse them? They're under obligation to provide you a voice on their Web site now? Your insight is so invaluable that sites are obligated to provide a commentary mechanism? Just look at the comments on this announcement. "State run media." You need someone full time to delete drivel like that, and you're saying they're obligated to do so and have no excuse not to? I'm tired of this opinion that one deserves a chance to speak in a comments section. While I understand the irony of my saying this here: I have never once in my entire life found value from an Internet comment on some random site. Some discussion communities, a few on Reddit and barely this one, sure, but the comments on CNN? Fox News? Joe's blog? Even your beloved TechCrunch? If you have something to say, develop an audience using your own resources. Personally, I'm tired of every site on the Internet having a comment form because they are always a cesspool of spam, idiocy, and a waste of pixels. I've come close several times to extending my browser to remove Disqus and other comment systems. (Also I find it really odd that your claim to fame, as you say, is TechCrunch comments. Is that some kind of badge of honor for you?)
- minimaxir 12y ago
  I never said they were obligated to provide a comments section, but I would have strongly preferred if Reuters was more honest about the decision with a explanation of "we no longer have a comments section because we can't devote the manpower to supporting it." > (Also I find it really odd that your claim to fame, as you say, is TechCrunch comments. Is that some kind of badge of honor for you?) Yes.
adnzzzzZ 12y ago
>There isn't a perfect algorithm to combat the concept of the hive-mind, but there are still simple options (e.g. preventing anonymous comments on articles that may be politically charged) How does one follow from the other? Anonymous people are more likely to share opinions that don't conform to the opinions of the hive-mind in politically charged subjects because there are no repercussions to them doing so. Anonymity is a direct solution to combating hive-minds and upvoting/downvoting is something that further enables hive-mind-like behavior. Why are you saying that preventing anonymity helps with hive-minds? You're conflating two different issues: quality control and hive-minds. You can have high quality posts that don't challenge anyone's mindsets, this is high quality and high hive-mind. You can have low quality and low hive-mind. And ideally you want high quality and low hive-mind. Anonymity lowers your hive-mind but often lowers your quality. Upvoting/downvoting increases your quality but also increases your hive-mind.