Can comments only be enabled once the links have been opened? September 6, 2002 10:10 AM Subscribe
I wonder if it wouldn't improve the discussions if the comment feature would only come up after the posted link was visited. Too often reactions are to the post and previous comments, rather than the issue posited in the link.
You'd only have to click one link in a multi-link post to enable the comments box. Sounds like it could be a lot of work to set it up, but I think Semmi's idea is worth talking about, at least. Maybe a warning could appear on preview if no link(s) have been visited yet? Or (bwahaha!) prefacing the comment with "This comment was posted before the user visited any of the above links."
Ok, just kidding about that last one.
posted by mediareport at 11:31 AM on September 6, 2002
Ok, just kidding about that last one.
posted by mediareport at 11:31 AM on September 6, 2002
Oh, and a pony.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:14 PM on September 6, 2002
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:14 PM on September 6, 2002
As Yerfatma mentioned: Previously discussed. And summarily shot down.
Basically, it would be little more than enforcement by annoyance. Clicking the link proves absolutely nothing like, say...having read the article/page/etc in question.
Would I have to click the link every time I visited MeFi? If not, then the system has to somehow keep track of every link visited by every user.
posted by Su at 1:04 PM on September 6, 2002
Basically, it would be little more than enforcement by annoyance. Clicking the link proves absolutely nothing like, say...having read the article/page/etc in question.
Would I have to click the link every time I visited MeFi? If not, then the system has to somehow keep track of every link visited by every user.
posted by Su at 1:04 PM on September 6, 2002
Mediareport, that made me laugh out loud. That would be so snarky to append that to comments. Might be a good feature, if just for the amusement factor.
posted by gametone at 1:50 PM on September 6, 2002
posted by gametone at 1:50 PM on September 6, 2002
Basically, it would be little more than enforcement by annoyance.
Which, of course, would be radically different from our current system.
posted by mediareport at 3:20 PM on September 6, 2002
Which, of course, would be radically different from our current system.
posted by mediareport at 3:20 PM on September 6, 2002
This is actually a regular topic over on Slashdot. Because Slashdot is so popular, and because posts are moderated on a points basis, people try to post something intelligent/funny within minutes of the post going up so that they get moderated up.
Unfortunately it often leads to them posting complete BS or just trolling ;-) This is known as one of the poorer forms of karma-whoring, a term that goes unused at MetaFilter as there is no points system.
posted by wackybrit at 2:26 AM on September 7, 2002
Unfortunately it often leads to them posting complete BS or just trolling ;-) This is known as one of the poorer forms of karma-whoring, a term that goes unused at MetaFilter as there is no points system.
posted by wackybrit at 2:26 AM on September 7, 2002
Mediareport: Which, of course, would be radically different from our current system.
Meaning what? The current system centers around public shaming. If someone says something stupid, someone else will generally ask whether they bothered to look at the linked page.
How does making the user interface annoying, and possibly the database unnecessarily large, equate to this?
posted by Su at 2:39 AM on September 7, 2002
Meaning what? The current system centers around public shaming. If someone says something stupid, someone else will generally ask whether they bothered to look at the linked page.
How does making the user interface annoying, and possibly the database unnecessarily large, equate to this?
posted by Su at 2:39 AM on September 7, 2002
Put a smiley at the end of my last one, Su. And you're right. Thanks for explaining it again.
posted by mediareport at 11:12 AM on September 7, 2002
posted by mediareport at 11:12 AM on September 7, 2002
Clearly something should be done about this. The problem isn't merely that not reading the articles results in a stupid comment. It's worse than that; not reading the comment usually results in you being the first person to make a comment, thus setting the tone for the entire thread with your stupid one-liner.
But the credo here seems to be not to solve behavioural problems with computer code, and I like that. The only solution is for people, including me of course, to develop some impulse control. It's not Matt's problem to deal with. He's got bigger things to worry about. For one thing, that crew of mob hitmen the Russians sent after him.
posted by Hildago at 4:41 PM on September 7, 2002
But the credo here seems to be not to solve behavioural problems with computer code, and I like that. The only solution is for people, including me of course, to develop some impulse control. It's not Matt's problem to deal with. He's got bigger things to worry about. For one thing, that crew of mob hitmen the Russians sent after him.
posted by Hildago at 4:41 PM on September 7, 2002
... Of course it's his own fault. Never should have turned state's evidence against Volkov.
posted by Hildago at 4:43 PM on September 7, 2002
posted by Hildago at 4:43 PM on September 7, 2002
MetaFilter is fine just the way it is... no code changes and new policy enforcements please.
It's worse than that; not reading the comment usually results in you being the first person to make a comment, thus setting the tone for the entire thread with your stupid one-liner.
Agreed... no doubt. In that case however, it should be the NEXT person to comment's {?} responsibility to ignore it (unless the whole FPP begs for it or something) and keep the thread on track. It just comes down to what people are willing to ignore and what they will follow along with.
In a system like MetaFilter (blogging in general), ignoring the obvious trolls, the stupid one-liners, the thread detracting examples that is, etc... is really the best thing you can do.
p.s. I'm can be guilty of it as well.
posted by Witty at 6:44 AM on September 8, 2002
It's worse than that; not reading the comment usually results in you being the first person to make a comment, thus setting the tone for the entire thread with your stupid one-liner.
Agreed... no doubt. In that case however, it should be the NEXT person to comment's {?} responsibility to ignore it (unless the whole FPP begs for it or something) and keep the thread on track. It just comes down to what people are willing to ignore and what they will follow along with.
In a system like MetaFilter (blogging in general), ignoring the obvious trolls, the stupid one-liners, the thread detracting examples that is, etc... is really the best thing you can do.
p.s. I'm can be guilty of it as well.
posted by Witty at 6:44 AM on September 8, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Also, even if they open the link it don't mean they read it.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 11:04 AM on September 6, 2002