Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
A followup on comment policy
Last week, we posted a request
for comments on a proposed policy change which would limit comment
posting privileges to paying subscribers. One should not post an RFC if
one is not prepared to get comments; we got over 150 (at last count) of
them. As a result of our reading of these comments, the proposed policy
change will probably not go into effect.
While a wide variety of opinions was posted, there seems to be something close to a consensus on two points:
The overall sense we got from the posted comments is that silencing the non-subscribing commenters is an overreaction to a small problem and not warranted - or desirable - at this time. So we will not do it. There were various alternative ideas posted, some of which we will likely act upon in the relatively near future. These include:
There have been suggestions for active moderation of comments. Frankly, the editors of LWN have no time for, or interest in, running any sort of comment approval process. That process would be no fun at all, and there would be no way to do it without coming across as censors. Active moderation of comments can also increase the risk of legal hassles resulting from defamatory or infringing comments. Moderation by LWN's readers has also been raised as a possibility, though not everybody likes that idea. We could consider the introduction of a reader moderation or recommendation scheme, but that is likely to be further in the future. The programming requirements are higher, and our current server would be unlikely to handle the additional database load in any sort of graceful manner. Some other suggestions have been made. One was to publicly reveal the real-world identity of abusive posters. Problems with that approach are (1) we do not require readers to provide us with that information, and (2) even when we have it, revealing it would violate our privacy policy. We take that policy seriously, and will not be compromising it. Another idea was simply revoking comment privileges from abusive posters. The problem there is that, as long as LWN accounts are free, a blocked poster can simply create a new account and start over. This has been an interesting exercise, anyway. In the end, LWN exists for its readers; if we do not serve your needs, there is little point in our being here. So we greatly appreciate the time you all have taken to provide feedback on our ideas. Rest assured that this feedback has been heard, and that we will continue to work to make LWN the best that it can be. (Log in to post comments)
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:02 UTC (Mon) by barbara (subscriber, #3014) [Link] Requesting comment from your readers on a proposed change to your policyreflects the true spirit of LWN -- you value your readers' opinions (subscriber or not) and you want to provide them with the best possible Linux information site. Thanks, Jon, for taking the time to read all our comments and summarize them for us. The decision to keep the comment policy inclusive is good news.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:32 UTC (Mon) by a_hippie (subscriber, #34) [Link] I absolutely agree with the prior reply.
I like the idea of being able to see who is subscriber and who isn't. If I can filter this, great! I don't know if it would be possible to filter just a single abuser? It seems like there are only a tiny few who post that are really annoying.
Thank you Jonathan. It is great to support such a spirited site!
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 19:24 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Same here. Thanks everyone at LWN, keep up the good work!
A followup on commentpolicy Posted Nov 23, 2004 13:49 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] I too like the idea of marking subscriber/non-subscriber. There's thequestion of whether subscription level should be shown. I'd say no to that, keep it as egalitarian as possible, while still showing the minumum subscribed/non-subscribed status. That at least lets the reader know that some posters are willing to put their money where their mouth is, while not reflecting to badly on those who are just visiting or who can't or choose not to subscribe for whatever reason. I think that's a very reasonable step at this point. With that data available, if the issue comes up again, it'll allow us users to make a more informed decision. That, and it should be fairly easy to code. As with everyone else, I want to thank LWN/Corbet for handling it as he did -- an RFC is a good way to go. Then again, it was overwhelming feedback saying LWN needs to stay on the net, even if it means we pay for subscriptions, that kept LWN from closing altogether a couple years ago as well, and the site is literally reader funded thru those subscriptions, so we've demonstrated before and just proven again that LWN readers CAN make a difference. Therefore, thanks to all those readers, subscribers or not, as well! Duncan
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 23, 2004 9:45 UTC (Tue) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] I don't agree with the conclusion of this RFC but I do agree that it's nice to be asked and I'll go with the majority decision this time. I hope this issue will quickly be revisited should the problem get worse though.
Many thanks to the LWN crew for their openness and hard work.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 24, 2004 21:08 UTC (Wed) by a9db0 (subscriber, #2181) [Link] Barbara said it best.
Thanks Jon and everyone at LWN!
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:19 UTC (Mon) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] The problem of noise posts on LWN really is not all that bad. Not yet, at least. I guess "all that bad" can be defined arbitrarily. In my particular case I would say it is close to bad enough that I am less inclined to read, and thus pay for a subscription to, LWN. The overall sense we got from the posted comments is that silencing the non-subscribing commenters is an overreaction to a small problem. I would say that silencing non-subscribing commenters is a non-solution to any problem, including what I consider the significant problem of not providing any mechanism for subscribers to apply filters to the comments, for example filters based on ratings given to the comments by people who have read them. Larry
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 20:33 UTC (Mon) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link] > I guess "all that bad" can be defined arbitrarily. In my particular caseI would say it is close to bad enough that I am less inclined to read, and thus pay for a subscription to, LWN. There's always an option of not clicking on the "Comments" link and just reading the editorial content... :-)
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:31 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Thanks, Jonathan, for the update and for really listening to your readership. It has become painfully obvious, lately, that some "Linux" news sites do not.
And a big Thank You to the whole LWN.net staff for making this such a great site. You guys have integrity and class!
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:37 UTC (Mon) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link] Comment abuse hasn't been an extensive problem (yet anyway) and if things decline, the whole issue can be revisited if needed.
Some thoughts for the future (if needed):
I am glad that LWN hasn't gone to a moderated system. Also, I admit I thought the posting system would be disaster when introduced and I was wrong, it's been an asset overall. The one post many months ago about Caldera giving Alan Cox SMP hardware back in the mid '90s alone was a gem, and there's been others before and since.
The worst instance I've seen was some months back when a Mozilla-related story had all kinds of new usernames posting all kinds of worthless stuff, but again they pretty much came and went (or so it seemed at the time).
don't postpone Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:58 UTC (Mon) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] There is a steady stream of commentsby persons related to the article correcting or appending about the topic.
I don't think all of these are subscribers.
delaying these posts would IMHO cut heavily
G!
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 19:56 UTC (Mon) by phip (subscriber, #1715) [Link] I would like to thank Corbet & co. for continuing to allow non-subscribers to post comments (and for doing a great job with LWN in general).
I have a suggestion for a filtering system if it does eventually become necessary: (sorry if this has already been mentioned; I only made it through about the first 70 comments on the previous article)
Each comment should have a [Abuse?] button/link. Once 5 paying subscribers mark a comment as abusive, it would be hidden behind a click-through link. This would allow truely abusive comments to be hidden, without introducing censorship or a slashdot-like moderation system. It should also be easier on the servers than a full-blown moderation system. I don't think this approach would be too suceptible to abuse, since the paying subscribers are generally pretty well-behaved :-)
Anyway, it seems like a good idea to me.
Cheers,
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 24, 2004 10:28 UTC (Wed) by KotH (subscriber, #4660) [Link] I would not delay any post, as this is equal to censoring them. Who reads comments after a week ?
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:40 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "WHY IN THE HELL PEOPLE WANT TO CENSOR EVERYBODY, INSTEAD OF PUNNISHING ABUSERS ??"
No intention to yell, but for god sake wouldn't it be better to block acess only to those commentars that really abuse ??
OK, OK,... they could yet register under a new Login and continue to abuse... but the probability of that to happen can only be, for sure, very very low!.
Better!!... ocasional abusers could have a second change with the current registration model... no need to change logins... and if people that are sensible, and or only like to ear themselfs could still have the "subscrivers club" where the comments can be filtered, and presented to them separated from the rest,..., i mean not only the articles marked as subscrivers only, but all the articles could be filtered and present to subscrivers with comments posted only by subscrivers...
No need to get anti-democratic and censor the public because some can lack the right type of politeness(most of the times occasional),... , but yet make very positive and truthfull points!!!
And as a business model, censorship in high profile sites can only cause damage(LWN is read all over the world),..., i can bet with anyone,... and gone or trowned away readers are only recovered with a great deal of effort... if ever.
Marques
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:55 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] OK, OK,... they could yet register under a new Login and continue to abuse... but the probability of that to happen can only be, for sure, very very low! 100% probability does not look low to me. Why abusers will not do this ? Since they are honest ? If the were honest they'd not abuse comment system in first place. Yes, it's true that very few people are abusers. The problem is that these same people are quite ready to do almost anything to spoil expirience for the rest of us. You should never think that something will not be done by them since "this is just insane". They will bypass "robot registration" checks, they will even actually pay for subscription if it's the only way to sell you Viagra (LWN is not this bad yet, but it's just since it's not so big yet!).
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 19:13 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Keep the level of opinions, in a reasonable plain english language, on a high 'technical' territory, and all your problems are gone...
Our editor can't do nothing about that. Its up to the most talented posters to this site to keep it technicaly high, yet simple... our editor can only bring damage to himself and to the site, if some form of censorship 'moderation' is applied.
Filtering can be improved, yes... for those that want it, and or pay for it... and is only up to the editorial to trow good and technical relevant articles for comment... that moderation happens 'almost' by itself.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:47 UTC (Mon) by rcbixler (guest, #11917) [Link] First off, although I am not a subscriber, I come here occasionallyprecisely because of the fine selection of stories. The editorial comments on those stories is generally of a high quality as well. So I see it as icing on the cake that the reader comments can at times be good. Although low quality reader comments can be annoying, I find it easy enough to ignore those which don't contribute to the discussion. I agree with the editor's stance that moderating of comments isn't yet warranted and that moderation can be a slippery slope as well as generally being a tedious chore. The alternative ideas of displaying subscriber status and optionally filtering out non-subscriber comments (like this one) are reasonable ones. Of course, as they say, "your mileage may vary."
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 18:57 UTC (Mon) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] Thanks for making that decision. One thing that works against abusers on other sites is to store the IP of the authors.
That's probably too far, but one can keep that in mind?
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 19:10 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] I think the LWN staff has really demonstrated the value of this site and the dedication it has to its readership.
I just bumped my subscription level up a notch here:
I would encourage anyone who feels they can afford it, and appreciates LWN, to do the same.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 20:22 UTC (Mon) by ejones5 (guest, #8303) [Link] My original subscription had lapsed, and I was debating what to do when I saw the RFC article. Oh Noooo.. I said! Not LWN !?
Fortunately, things have turned around rapidly and today's news looks much brighter. So there's clearly just one thing left to do.. <click>
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 23, 2004 1:23 UTC (Tue) by csamuel (subscriber, #2624) [Link] > I just bumped my subscription level up a notchI can't do that, so I clicked on an advert instead. :-)
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 19:16 UTC (Mon) by mem-alt (guest, #26187) [Link] Away from my other account's cookies ... hmm... cookies...
Thank you for making this decision.
You could have a reputation system, like that of Perl Monks, and then offer the possibility to filter on reputation. Caveat emptor: Perl Monks' system is not Slashdot's. It's more like Advogato's AFAIUI. In PM the reputation of a person _and_ of an article (they are independent of each other) is uncapped. I've seen very good comments reach 50+ points in no time. I've seen rather helpful comments stay at 5.
Perl Monks has no trolling to speak of. None. I've never in five+ years seen a troll there. It has more to do with the community, granted.
Hereby I volunteer to code for such a system (only subject to the system being implemented in C, C++ or Perl).
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 19:35 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] I must admit I have never visited the site, but it sounds like one might not as easily trip over articles that lure the trolls out as on a more general news site like LWN. (See Marques' earlier comment.)It would be funny though to read trollish in Perl. ;-)
Identifying subscriber comments Posted Nov 22, 2004 20:03 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] The problem with web boards, compared to Usenet or mail, is that users can't filter by User-Agent.
In my experience, most of the noise in Linux fora on Usenet and in mail comes from people using non-Linux clients. While some fora just filter out non-Linux clients (with mind-boggling success) just identifying the client from which a post came and giving the reader the option of filtering could be a positive step.
Identifying subscriber comments Posted Nov 23, 2004 7:50 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] I wonder how many people read LWN from work accounts which are forced to use non-Linux clients?
I know I usually read the weekly edition on Thursday lunchtime, and all I have access to there is (ick) IE, so far.
Identifying subscriber comments Posted Nov 23, 2004 8:50 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Bingo. I could live without it though.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 22, 2004 20:07 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] I, too, appreciate the decision taken. I read a large percentage of the comments, frequently reading just the comments, because they're so informative. The current situation is that the few offensive ones truly take one aback, precisely due to their rarity. So far, so great---thanks, LWN folks!
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 23, 2004 2:07 UTC (Tue) by ninjaz (guest, #2083) [Link] The primary draw of lwn.net for me has always been the editorial content by the staff. I truly appreciate your long memories and considered coverage. In fact, I was worried when the comment system was put in place, because I feared it would become less of a real news source and more of yet another web forum.
However, one thing I don't want to see is lwn.net is for it to suffer the same fate as Mandrake. I signed up to MandrakeClub when it first became available (to support their ongoing efforts), but the only thing I really remember from the club discussions were ideas on how to close more things off and reserve them for Club members. I wanted to help the people making the free OS with a vibrant community, not to be part of a country club.
As you say, lwn.net exists for its readers. I would just hate to see it turn away from what made it great to try and pander to a few people waving dollars saying "or else!". Of course, opening the issue up to a larger discussion was the right thing to do, and I appreciate it.
All said, comments or no comments, or even a message board semi-divorced from the stories, I will continue to visit as long as you keep the stories and your editorial insight.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 23, 2004 6:02 UTC (Tue) by doogie (subscriber, #2445) [Link] Hmm. We've seen discussions about the code driving lwn. We've seen RFCs before, asking about new features that may or may not be implemented. But where is the code?
I'm certain that there are plenty of talented people willing to code whatever feature is desired. This would reduce the burden on the lwn editors as well.
Where is the code? Posted Nov 23, 2004 14:41 UTC (Tue) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] The problem remains what it always has been: releasing the code will require a substantial amount of work on our part. Over time that work may well be paid back, but, in the short term, we have to continue to keep LWN running, and simply have not found the time to do many things that we would like. One of things things, an important one, is releasing the code.There is currently an effort in progress which might just bring in some money to buy some contractor time to get this work done. Stay tuned.
Where is the code? Posted Nov 24, 2004 5:41 UTC (Wed) by doogie (subscriber, #2445) [Link] Just make a tarball of the entire tree. We in the community are capable of sorting it out.
Where is the code? Posted Nov 24, 2004 12:55 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] That's not a very realistic approach. A lot more has to be done to get (and keep) a project going than distributing a tarball.
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 23, 2004 13:17 UTC (Tue) by fdesloges (subscriber, #291) [Link] The problem there is that, as long as LWN accounts are free, a blocked poster can simply create a new account and start over.
A simple solution for this would be to filter this poster for everybody
but himself and unlogged readers.
"Stealth" blocking Posted Nov 23, 2004 15:09 UTC (Tue) by pspinler (subscriber, #2922) [Link]
This, I have to admit, is a _darn_ clever idea. I think it should be pursued.
If I understand correctly, the troller would see her/his own comments, plus everyone elses (non-troller) comments. However all the non-trollers would not see the troll comments.
Clever clever. The troller would be filtered, but with no way for him/her to tell.
-- Pat
"Stealth" blocking Posted Nov 23, 2004 20:14 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] And how does that differ from censorship?
"Stealth" blocking Posted Nov 24, 2004 6:50 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] That's not related to this -- brilliant! - solution, singling out offending posters is the first step. It's hardly censorship. If you start a fight in a bar, you get thrown out, right?
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 23, 2004 13:31 UTC (Tue) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] Could something like this work?
Non-subscriber posts start with a score of zero.
Any subscriber who wishes can click and subtract one from the score. Other subscribers can click to add one to the score or can add one to the score by replying to that comment or it's comments.
Registered users (perhaps just subscribers) can choose to see all comments or only non-negative comments.
Perhaps a non-subscriber with x or more negative points for the day can not post anymore for the day?
Problems:
Subscribers have to be bothered making these sorts of decisions.
Rogue subscribers could make a game of hiding useful comments from non-subscribers.
Others?
zotz
hopes to exceed 50,000 words in this year's nanowrimo today.
http://www.nanowrimo.org/userinfo.php?uid=47354
Mark new comments Posted Nov 23, 2004 14:37 UTC (Tue) by lmartelli (subscriber, #11755) [Link] This is a bit off-topic, but it would also be very nice to mark new comments for subscribers. It would make it easier to find the comments you haven't read already.
Mark new comments Posted Nov 24, 2004 10:18 UTC (Wed) by macc (subscriber, #510) [Link] What about some more flags?
Subscriber
New Comment
Author of Software or UpstreamArticle referenced
Another nice thing to do for subscribers... Posted Nov 23, 2004 23:33 UTC (Tue) by ssavitzky (subscriber, #2855) [Link] ... would be to allow them to upload user pictures. Not everyone will take advantage of it, of course, but for many it would be a nice incentive.
Another nice thing to do for subscribers... Posted Nov 24, 2004 3:17 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Please no. I don't need stupid little pictures all over yet another forum...
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 24, 2004 6:14 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] > One was to publicly reveal the real-world identity of abusive posters. Problems with that approach are (1) we do not require readers to provide us with that information, and (2) even when we have it, revealing it would violate our privacy policy.
I do not agree that anonymous public speech is a general privacy right or consideration, although that belief seems to have some how crept into our collective conciousness. Doing away with this "feature" would probably render the other issue mooot, and contrary to the oft-stated defense is unlikely to stifle debate or opinion sharing, at least not in this venue. To the contrary, I believe that both logic and observation indicate that eliminating anonymity generally improves both the substantive quality and civility of discussion.
Peter Yellman
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 24, 2004 14:35 UTC (Wed) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link] And how do we know you're the *real* Peter Yellman...?
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 24, 2004 19:42 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] > And how do we know you're the *real* Peter Yellman...?
"Anonymous public speech [on the internet] is a privacy right" is an entirely separate issue from "there is currently no way easy to use, widely accepted way to verify a person's online identity".
I think it is a safe prediction that sometime in the not-too-distant future a "digital identity" will become as commonplace a lifestyle tool as a credit card or telephone is today. Until then, yes, we must live with the reality that there is no easy and widely accepted method for quickly verifying identity (keep in mind that I'm talking here about something that is under the control of the individual, not the state or corporations). However, in the long run/historical sense I think (I hope) this state of affairs will will be looked back on as an interstitial period. While we're at this juncture, let us not allow the fact (that right now there's no alternative) morph into the notion that it (anonymous public speech) constitutes some kind of privacy right.
In my opinion, the easy anonymity afforded by the internet and www is its worst attribute and achilles heel and is contributing to the general coarsening of social behavior. I find it difficult to believe anything but that when a person who has been engaging in uncivil behavior online, protected by the internet's mask of anonymity, gets up from their computer/keyboard, that they don't take some of that behavior into the "real" world.
To be clear, I'm not saying that self-identification should be a requirement for using the internet, posting to any given forum, etc. However, I am saying that removing anonymity is quite simply the most effective way to raise the quality and tenor of almost any discussion (other than the inane or inconsequential). So, if I had my choice, I would not filter between subscribers/non-subscribers, members/non-members, etc., but I would much rather be able to filter out anonymous speakers.
Peter Yellman
A followup on comment policy Posted Nov 24, 2004 15:03 UTC (Wed) by arafel (subscriber, #18557) [Link]
I think those two should be enough for the time being. Maybe flag an account for review if more than 50% of subscribers have filtered it out...? The review (rather than autodumping) would let you see if it was someone actually being abusive, or just someone who didn't agree with the majority.
Regarding the source code - if you release a big tarball, you might find it comes back to you tidied up and suitable for re-releasing. ;-)
comment moderation by readers Posted Nov 24, 2004 16:31 UTC (Wed) by tjw.org (guest, #20716) [Link] We could consider the introduction of a reader moderation or recommendation scheme, but that is likely to be further in the future.At the risk of sounding like complete shill, you may want to evaluate discust for article comments. It plugs in easily to existing PHP code and has built-in reader moderation.
|
|||||||||||