Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Letters page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
LWN forums
Dear LWN editors,
(Log in to post comments)
LWN forums Posted Dec 7, 2006 8:24 UTC (Thu) by dion (subscriber, #2764) [Link] A simple killfile-like feature would be nice.
Plonked users should probably get an email telling them that: "You are now being ignored by $count users, please see the posting guidelines here: http://lwn.net/thisshouldnotbenecessary.html"
LWN forums Posted Dec 7, 2006 10:49 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] You'd probably want to send such an email exponentially less often as the number of people plonking you goes up, or do it only at the end of the day or something: otherwise a new troll will get mailbombed with vast numbers of notices of emplonking.
(It might be easier just to note the number of people plonking you on the account details...)
LWN forums Posted Dec 7, 2006 13:36 UTC (Thu) by gyles (guest, #1600) [Link] Maybe that was the idea ;)
LWN forums Posted Dec 7, 2006 18:51 UTC (Thu) by dion (subscriber, #2764) [Link] Quite.
Perhaps plonkination by more than n subscribers should mean revokation of all posts and the membership, if any.
open to abuse Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:50 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Very much so. That's open to trivial abuse, and also brings financialmatters into the picture (and thus legal liability).
I'd say don't do this. Revocation should be a last-ditch thing that only
LWN forums Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:54 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] A plonk file would be easy to circumvent by creating new accounts on a regular basis. All types of moderation systems I've seen have been either to weak to protect you or vulnerable to groupthink or some form systematic abuse.
I would be fine with simply removing posting rights for non-subscribers. If paying a few $ for a one month subsription is too much to ask, it is _highly_ unlikely that you put in enough time to think your opinion through in the first place.
LWN forums Posted Jan 1, 2007 14:33 UTC (Mon) by ms (subscriber, #41272) [Link] I don't think this is a bad idea. I've certainly been reading and non-account-holding for many years and in matter of about 1 month gone from getting an account to being a full subscriber.
Given the quality of the editorial and articles here, it would be a great shame for them to be spoilt by a minority. On the other hand, this is most definitely tarring the majority.
LWN forums Posted Dec 7, 2006 16:50 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] It would be nice to include a per-article and per-account option toignore either comments by "guests" or (sub)threads started by "guests". I also like the plonk idea though.
Just limit troll-to-troll communication Posted Dec 7, 2006 19:05 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] It was suggested for Slashdot but never implemented. Make it impossible for non-subscribers to see posts of other non-subscribers unless a subscriber has posted a reply. Trolling subscribers is not nearly as satisfying as trolling fellow freeloaders.A slightly softer version: make it impossible for a non-subscriber to reply to a comment by another non-subscriber until a subscriber has answered to that comment.
Just limit troll-to-troll communication Posted Dec 10, 2006 15:03 UTC (Sun) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] I like that idea.
Another simple way to cut noise is to limit users to one article post per 24 hour period. Often, the threads that get out of control are those where two people are yelling at each other every five minutes. Let's force people to stop, take a breath, and produce a thoughtful response.
Could be limited to non-subscribers, but I think it should be universal. Maybe subscribers get two posts per 24 hours (per article), or a post every 4 hours, or some similar limit.
First post Posted Dec 7, 2006 19:44 UTC (Thu) by mheily (guest, #27123) [Link] In Soviet Russia, message boards comment on you! Oh, and Natalie Portman just poured hot grits down my pants. :)
Seriously, the biggest problem is that people are *not* participating on the message boards for most of the articles. I would be happy with a lower signal-to-noise ratio if we could just breathe some more life into this place.
-Mark
First post Posted Dec 8, 2006 0:48 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] I'll take signal/noise over quantity any day. I read the LWN comments because actual developers who actually know what they are talking about write comments, opinions and corrections. I don't have the time or the inclination to wade through seven pages of astroturfs and posing to get that one good comment.
If you go for pure volume, may I suggest Slashdot?
Yes to subscriber-only comments Posted Dec 10, 2006 0:31 UTC (Sun) by ddaa (guest, #5338) [Link] When comments were introduced, I read them _all_ for _every_ _single_ _article_ that caught my attention. Now, I just skip if the comments link reports more than a dozen entries.
Subscriber-only comments sounds like a very good idea. Good comments come from people who are deeply invested in free software, most of which are already subscribed, either personally or through an organisation. And those who are not subscribed yet, _should_ be.
It might also bring in some more cash, which I cannot see as a bad thing.
No to subscriber-only comments Posted Dec 10, 2006 6:46 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] When St Petersburg Junior College got its first Usenet feed in 1983 (I spent 4 hours on the phone chasing down Gene Spafford, then at Georgia Tech -- I was motivated ;-), I read *every article in our feed* for almost a year... before the volume got away from me. I remember the day still.
Time marches on...
No to subscriber-only comments Posted Dec 10, 2006 14:06 UTC (Sun) by ddaa (guest, #5338) [Link] To quote a previous comment: "I'll take signal/noise over quantity any day.". Usenet is infamous for low signal/noise and high quantity. I very much hope that LWN comments will not go down this route.
Yes to subscriber-only comments Posted Dec 10, 2006 15:09 UTC (Sun) by kevinbsmith (guest, #4778) [Link] Presumably exceptions would be made for valued guests, so authors of an article, or principle developers of packages covered in an article, could post responses. I guess that would be more like a "one month complimentary subscription", and would work.
I am neutral on the whole idea of subscriber-only posts. I am a subscriber, but am not convinced that non-subscribers are a huge problem...yet?
It would be great if lwn could set up some kind of matching service, where folks who want to subscribe but can't due to finances could be matched with people who would love to contribute to lwn and Free Software by donating subscription fees for people in the first category. With a system like that in place, requiring a subscription would be less of a burden.
Decide based on the data Posted Dec 11, 2006 3:18 UTC (Mon) by mitchskin (subscriber, #32405) [Link] Before any decisions get made, I'd really like to see some data. How many comments are by non-subscribers? What are the ratios of subscribers replying to non-subscribers, non-subscribers to subscribers, non-subscribers to non-subscribers? I'm sure a lot of information could be gleaned from the comments database.
Also, it should be possible to collect data as things are implemented; if a plonking mechanism goes in, then it would be interesting to see what kinds of patterns exist in the plonks. That would help a lot in deciding where to go from there.
My own impression is that most of the disagreements are legitimate and not the result of trolling. Can anyone point me to a particularly bad example? I'm actually fairly happy with the status quo.
LWN forums Posted Dec 14, 2006 11:44 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link] I don't know... most of the suggestions made so far (by subscribers, naturally) unfairly seem to punish all non-subscribers for the perceived problems with a few. And since I'm not a subscriber myself, I naturally don't like that option - I rarely participate in discussions, but I'd dislike being told that because I'm just a pleb who can't afford a subscription, I'm not allowed to participate in discussions and the like, either.
Note that I said "perceived problems", too - people on here seem to be quite overeager at times to label other comments (or commentors) "troll". I suppose it's easier to do that and attack the messenger rather than the message when you very much disagree with the latter, but it's not good style, and the amount of *actual* troll comments I've seen (things along the lines of "linux sux, u should all use windows") has been pretty much zero.
In other words, I do not agree that there is a troll problem to speak of. People sometimes get angry, of course, but I haven't seen outright *flames* yet, either, and the "noise" and "immaturity" that Mr Cramer mentions are pretty subjective concepts, anyway.
What I'd actually like to see would be a system where users can ignore other users - so if user A ignores user B, A will not see any of B's comments anymore (instead, there'd just be a note saying "reply by ignored user B" or so). That way, everyone (including me) would be free to keep their own cognitive dissonance to a minimum and only listen to/talk to those that they already agree with for the most part, without imposing restrictions on anyone else.
LWN Forums: No Changes Required Posted Dec 14, 2006 13:15 UTC (Thu) by sphealey (guest, #1028) [Link] > Note that I said "perceived problems", too - people on here> seem to be quite overeager at times to label other comments > (or commentors) "troll". I suppose it's easier to do that > and attack the messenger rather than the message when you > very much disagree with the latter, but it's not good > style, and the amount of *actual* troll comments > I've seen (things along the lines of "linux sux, u > should all use windows") has been pretty much zero.
Agreed. The LWN comments section is one of the most polite and on-topic technology-focused message boards I have encountered in 25 years (ouch!) of participating in such.
sPh
LWN Forums: No Changes Required Posted Dec 14, 2006 15:28 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] Me three! =8^)
Seriously, tho, I've seen I think two articles recently where there was
As for guest vs subscriber posting, the problem isn't money here tho I'm
Yes, I understand all about priorities and the worry about publishing code
Thus, while I'd certainly find the money were things set right, not just
I even wrote Jon asking if there was a fund I could contribute the year's
So anyway, there are reasons other than lack of money or belief in its
Duncan
LWN forums Posted Dec 14, 2006 17:30 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Well said arcticwolf.
I don't understood people who will call troll and then respond (full disclosure: I did it once myself on LWN, in my young and impressionistic youth). I'm thinking a Godwin's equivalent is in order: if you call troll, discussion -- by definition -- is over. If someone is only trawling for a response then, for gosh sakes, don't respond!
Also, "troll" is becoming diluted to the point that it means, "I vehemently disagree with you and I'd like to poke you with a stick."
|
|
||||||||||||