Hide instead of delete

August 24, 2005 2:12 AM

Rather than deleting comments that are "bad" because they're considered trolls (or just not helpful in AskMe), I think that it would be better to hide them so that only the person who posted the comment can still see it.
posted by freshgroundpepper to Feature Requests at 2:12 AM (36 comments total)

That way, they believe that their comment is still out there to rile people up, but they get absolutely no reaction to it because others can’t see it. The negative behavior is put on extinction without any reinforcement. Matthowie and Jessamyn would have to deal with less people whining that their insightful posts have been censored, and the rest of us can benefit from a higher signal to noise ratio. I’m not sure how complicated this pony is, but I bet that there would be a payoff pretty quickly in the amount of time spent getting it going.

This could also be done with bad threads, so the people posting them don’t get any reward for crappy FPPs or questions on AskMe, just silence.
posted by freshgroundpepper at 2:12 AM on August 24, 2005

freshgroundpepper : "but they get absolutely no reaction to it because others can’t see it. "

Unless someone remarks about missing comments upon refreshing the page, or a flamefest has already commenced. And the hiding could be verified by logging out, or more easily, a proxy.
posted by Gyan at 2:34 AM on August 24, 2005

Sure, it could be verified, but I'd guess that in 90% of the cases that people would assume that their comment was just being ignored. In those cases where people actually check, chances are that their comment was so inflammatory that they were expecting it to have been deleted in the "old" system, so we aren't any worse off in those situations.
posted by freshgroundpepper at 2:39 AM on August 24, 2005

I'd guess that in 90% of the cases that people would assume that their comment was just being ignored.

You're assuming that a)mathowie and jessamyn are just sitting there all day monitoring & staring at the flag queue, waiting to extinguish trolls. It's not quick. I think they prune, maybe twice a day, and in the meanwhile, you believe that b)90% of the time the troll would be ignored. I'm highly doubtful. Your system would be effective if the a)comment isn't that inflammatory in the first place, b)from flag to deletion turnaround time is pretty quick.
posted by Gyan at 3:00 AM on August 24, 2005

this thread is rife with the stupid. i predict a closing. suggested reason: retarded idea.
posted by Hat Maui at 5:13 AM on August 24, 2005

Where this would fail badly is where one person trolls, another two people quote the troll and respond. What would happen is that all three comments would be 'deleted' but each user would have a different view of the thread. They would see their response but the original troll and other response would have vanished.

It wouldn't work.
posted by dodgygeezer at 5:28 AM on August 24, 2005

I'm intrigued by some bloggers who strikethrough offensive comments rather than deleting them. It seems much more belittling.
posted by cillit bang at 5:34 AM on August 24, 2005

It seems much more belittling.

We could use more of that around here.
posted by OmieWise at 5:59 AM on August 24, 2005

That sounds like it would take a lot of coding just to add a bit of passive-aggressive functionality stupidity to MeFi.
posted by sciurus at 6:03 AM on August 24, 2005

I wasn't trying to be (too) snarky above, I actually think the strikethrough is kind of a cool solution.
posted by OmieWise at 6:51 AM on August 24, 2005

Didn't freshgroundpepper used to have a post here?
posted by R. Mutt at 6:53 AM on August 24, 2005

I have a better idea, one which matt and jessamyn should seriously consider.

START CHARGING MONEY.

For each deleted troll, a bill would be incurred. (Five bucks to get in, five bucks to de-stink a thread.) Timeouts could incur a US $25 penalty. (Square deal, overall.) That would bring the overall tone and maturity up a bit, particularly if repeat offenders gained additional charges in $10 increments.
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:21 AM on August 24, 2005

Yah, we could court an entirely wealthier class of jerk.
posted by Wolfdog at 7:31 AM on August 24, 2005

True, but they'd be giving us extra bandwith for pennies on the dollar. ;)
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:34 AM on August 24, 2005

I don't think people expect much "applause" for witty comments in AskMe. It's a stretch to get your wisecrack to stick. You're not going to get five OMGLOL comments in AskMe. So I don't think people post their wisecracks so as to get a reaction. Trolls, maybe. I kinda like the idea in principle. Make the trolls invisible. Fuck with their brains. In practice I'm not sure how it would work out.
posted by scarabic at 8:58 AM on August 24, 2005

I think you're overestimating the problem with 'problem' comments.
posted by angry modem at 9:27 AM on August 24, 2005

Curious idea, but terribly bad feature.
posted by cortex at 9:29 AM on August 24, 2005

] This is a hidden comment. [
posted by mischief at 10:22 AM on August 24, 2005

<br> This is a hidden comment.<br>
posted by angry modem at 10:45 AM on August 24, 2005

It's a good idea to discourage people from posting when their comments don't meet our standards. We want them to know they were deleted.

This way, over time, we encourage conformity and create a sense in the membership of what we want to hear.

Otherwise we are forced to the conclusion that stupidity cannot be eliminated. That conversations intrinsically have more than one agenda, stupid ideas, "bad" comments, digressions, irritating and inflaming sidebars...

By deleting those who don't conform to intellectual goodness and non-trollish decency, we are creating a better world.
posted by ewkpates at 10:53 AM on August 24, 2005

Yeah, this is a bit mis-aimed. That sort of thing is an amusing way of banning a user who otherwise will keep creating sockpuppet after sockpuppet, though.

But if we don't want that poster completely gone, then there's probably not much benefit in playing tricks on them.
posted by mendel at 11:23 AM on August 24, 2005

I guess where I've heard this working before is more on moderated message boards where each post is approved before being shown to the general populace. The troll/misguided soul then thinks that their comment is out there right away, but never gets a response to it, so their behavior isn't rewarded with any sort of response (the trolls food)

That's obviously not a workable solution for a place like MeFi, and I guess that as others have pointed out above, once the post is available for the world to see, it's hard to stuff it back in the box and pretend it was never there.

(Note to self: don't post any "great" ideas that you think of at 2:00 AM, sleep on it first)
posted by freshgroundpepper at 12:05 PM on August 24, 2005

For each deleted troll, a bill would be incurred. (Five bucks to get in, five bucks to de-stink a thread.) Timeouts could incur a US $25 penalty. (Square deal, overall.) That would bring the overall tone and maturity up a bit, particularly if repeat offenders gained additional charges in $10 increments.
posted by mosch at 12:06 PM on August 24, 2005

The troll/misguided soul then thinks that their comment is out there right away, but never gets a response to it, so their behavior isn't rewarded with any sort of response (the trolls food)

I asked it in the 5FF thread below, but is the word troll or trawl? Trolls live under bridges, eat goats, are generally rude sorts. Trawls are drift nets, set out by trawlers to catch unsuspecting fish.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:25 PM on August 24, 2005

Its a decent idea in the abstract but there are alot of inherent problems with it that have already been noted.

The best thing to do with trolls and trollish behaviour is ignore it, I know its hard to do, but ignoring it does the same thing as making it invisible without all the hassle.
posted by fenriq at 1:54 PM on August 24, 2005

I'd already assumed that this was being done to some of my posts - what other reason could there be for the lack of response to my witty, sometimes urbane wonderings ...
posted by daveg at 2:02 PM on August 24, 2005

Welcome, daveg! Great first comment!
posted by wendell at 2:11 PM on August 24, 2005

I honestly don't mean for this to sound snarky, Pollomacho, but I suggest that you consult a dictionary. You will find that "troll" has many meanings, including dragging a line behind a boat to catch fish.
posted by anapestic at 2:47 PM on August 24, 2005

Unless, of course, you were trolling, in which case, well done.
posted by anapestic at 2:49 PM on August 24, 2005

Oh, and one of the definitions of "trawl" here is "to troll".

Shut up, you trawl.
posted by wendell at 3:01 PM on August 24, 2005

Pollomacho - it's actually trawl, as those seeking to raise the ire of others are essentially fishing for comments.

Troll is a homophone which gained acceptance over USENET and ultimately the web, much like hehe (hee-hee).
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:13 PM on August 24, 2005

Trawling and trolling are two distinctly different things; one uses a net, and the other uses a line. "Trawling" is a brute-force approach to catching many fish, while "trolling" involves the use of bait which the fish then go for.

As a secondary definition "trawl" does also mean "troll." However, if "troll" were a homophone that gained acceptance only in the Internet era, you'd expect to see "troll means trawl" in dictionaries rather than the other way 'round, which is what you actually see.

"Trawl" also has a completely different computer-related meaning: sifting through large volumes of data looking for something of interest.
posted by kindall at 3:29 PM on August 24, 2005

MetaFilter: sifting through large volumes of data looking for something of interest.
posted by loquacious at 4:39 PM on August 24, 2005

As an alternative to hiding trollish comments, I think that Matt and Jessamyn should create false "flypaper" threads designed to attract trolls (much like Bush's amazingly clever Iraq War has attracted all of the terrorists); these threads will only be seen by truly dedicated Trolls, like say peepee, and they will be tailored to meet their needs. For instance, they will be filled with fictional comments that respond instantly to every bit of their trollery, become shrill and upset at their trollish “arguments” and basically pay boatloads of attention to them, thereby filling their trollish little hearts with glee. Every day new threads are added so that the trolls are trapped forever (but happy!) in a perfect little troll world.

It’s actually kind of beautiful.

Meanwhile the rest of MetaFilter can enjoy more productive discussions without the hardcore trolls, but each user who decides to troll a thread will never know if the next day they have been magically transported to the world of Troll.
posted by sic at 2:57 AM on August 25, 2005

recipe for stagnation: mix 2 parts conformity with 1 part hearing only what we want to hear.

This way, over time, we encourage conformity and create a sense in the membership of what we want to hear.

i think the big solution would be to just put a big scarlet 'T' over the username for the remainder of the user account
posted by troybob at 8:32 AM on August 25, 2005

Does mefi.lofi show deleted comments? I know it shows deleted threads...

If not, then a switch that would allow users to decide whether or not to display deleted comments would be useful. By default, deleted comments would not be shown, but each user could override this.

I'm a big-boy now, and would rather not have others deciding what I should read. It would also help to alleviate "why was this comment deleted" complaints.
posted by jsonic at 11:34 AM on August 25, 2005