Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
On comment abuse
We resisted the idea of allowing reader comments on the site for years out
of concern that some people would post things which detracted from the
quality of LWN. A year and a half ago, we decided that we could trust our
readers to do the right thing, and our experience since then has largely
verified that decision. More recently, however, we have begun to have
problems with comment spammers and trolls. The problem is small, for now,
and a bit of carefully targeted firewalling appears to have slowed the latest troll
down considerably. We have been on the net for long enough to know,
however, that problems of this sort rarely get better by themselves.
Instead, they tend to get steadily worse until the signal is drowned out by
the noise. We do not intend to let that happen to LWN.
So we are going to have to do something; it's just a matter of figuring out what. There are a few options under consideration; we would appreciate feedback from our readers on which idea seems best.
The decision we make here will affect the feel of LWN.net into the future; we want to do the right thing. If you have any thoughts on the matter, we encourage you to post them as a comment to this article (no trolls or spam please). (Log in to post comments)
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 2:50 UTC (Thu) by jamienk (subscriber, #1144) [Link] I pay for LWN. Why? Because it is good and almost everything else of its kind is bad. I read /. at +4 now and a large part of those comments are the same old junk, often with a pro-MS bent. OS News comments, Newsforge comments, etc, are a gaggle of repetitious one-liners. There are good discussions happening on mailing lists, and the weekly summarizers of those are good (eg kt.zork.net, KDE CVS etc.), but the lists themselves are too cluttered unless you are participating in or following something very specific.Be draconian. Let the non-subscribers comment elsewhere. Also allow us to filter out bad commenting subscribers with a "never show me this person's comments again" link.
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 3:30 UTC (Thu) by djfoobarmatt (guest, #6446) [Link] What he said except you could allow comments from non-subscribers but filter the spam with bogofilter (call for trusted volunteers to train it though).
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 5:50 UTC (Thu) by firasha (subscriber, #4230) [Link] I'd like to second jamienk's filtering proposal. Having a "killfile" link won't do anything to keep spammers and trolls from posting, of course, but this way you'd only have to see it once. It also has the benefit of allowing non-subscribers to continue posting, which I feel is important (note: I subscribe to lwn). Not everyone who has something of value to say can afford to subscribe, and we as lwn readers are diminished if their voices are silenced.
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 7:17 UTC (Thu) by euvitudo (subscriber, #98) [Link] One avenue for making comments is certainly still open: Letters to the Editor. For lack of a better (read: less restrictive) policy, I agree with a policy for allowing only subscribers to comment. If what non-subscribers have to say is so important, and their circumstances do not permit subscription, they can still send a letter.
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:20 UTC (Thu) by chalsall (guest, #400) [Link] I'd like to second euvitudo's suggestion.Having subscriber-only comments avoids, for all but the most extreme cases, any issues wrt censorship. Letters to the editor is always available to get communications into LWN, and in fact, it might revive the LttE page which has suffered greatly since comments were introduced. And, lastly, this policy might help, in a small way, the number of LWN subscribers. Never a bad thing... 8-)
Subscibers vs Non-subcribers Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:54 UTC (Thu) by mceesay (guest, #2806) [Link] I agree with the parent post.Reserve comments for subscribers-only. Non-subscribers can write a Letter to the Editor to express their views.
Subscibers vs Non-subcribers Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:21 UTC (Thu) by yohan555 (guest, #4253) [Link] I definitely second that. This would be an additional incentive tosubscribe as well... J. Weiss
Subscibers vs Non-subcribers Posted Nov 25, 2003 17:37 UTC (Tue) by cthulhu (guest, #4776) [Link] I definitely agree with the reserving comments to subscribers, withletters to the editor if the non-subs really want to get through. I paid for quality content; I'd like to keep it that way. If the non-subs want to comment so badly (with their insightful comments), they should become a subscriber anyway. Obviously, commenting is important to such a reader, so they should help us keep LWN going by subscribing.
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:48 UTC (Thu) by smeg4brains (subscriber, #207) [Link] What about a sort of combo.. Maybe give non-subscribers the chance to post, but it doesn't go up until a subscriber either approves or rejects it.I'm sure the subscribers will probably work their way through the queues of messages from non-subscribers pretty consistently. The non-subscribers get to be heard.... probably... if they want to make sure they're heard, then get a subscription. This would work IMO until some idiot decides to automate/script his troll posts, but that's getting closer to an outright attack, and something can probably be done when that happens.. If not though, oh well.
checkbox: view subscriber content
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:50 UTC (Thu) by smeg4brains (subscriber, #207) [Link] oh yeah.. one more checkbox:
checkbox: view subscriber rejected posts
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:55 UTC (Thu) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] The first two options in the article are just Slashdot by another name. If any form of censorship or moderation is required then something is wrong at a more fundamental level: the community of people posting. Just look at Slashdot which has effectivley been destroyed by its own community.I agree with the parent poster. If we wish for LWN to retain its value then only subscribers should be allowed to post. With luck this should also increase the number of subscribers which can only be a good thing. Non-subscribers get a lot of quality information from this site for free and restricting posting to subscribers only will increase the quality of this information. See the logic? Banning non-subscribers from posting will improve the quality of the site that they get to view for free. Good luck with what ever you choose.
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:03 UTC (Thu) by leonid (subscriber, #4891) [Link] Be draconian. Let the non-subscribers comment elsewhere. Also allow us to filter out bad commenting subscribers with a "never show me this person's comments again" link.I'd like to second that. And I'd also like a t-shirt saying "I am subscribed to LWN.". Of course, I'll pay for that too. :)
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 16:10 UTC (Thu) by a9db0 (subscriber, #2181) [Link] I'll third this. I pay for LWN, and have since the subscription service started. If non-subscribers have a point to make, they can email a letter, or perhaps subscribe.I know this won't solve the problem, so perhaps some form of moderation or abuse reporting will be necessary. Hopefully nothing as cumbersome as /.'s implementation. Oh, and I'd like my shirt in XL. Dave
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:38 UTC (Thu) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] I think, overall, I agree with this stance the most: be draconian. Subscriber-onlyposting is fine. It's not like LWN is expensive, and as others have pointed out, by the time the non-subscribers can comment on the important topics, the subscribers aren't reading it anymore anyway. I like the comments here because they are so thoughtful and interesting. Restricting the pool of people who can post (to those who have recognized that the site is worth paying for) seems like a good way to preserve that. Implementing a complaint button might be a good idea, for the off chance that a troll decides to subscribe. And this would help delay the hardware upgrade; the longer you delay on these things, the better, since hardware is always cheaper or faster the longer you wait. This discussion, itself, is subscriber-only content, and look how good it is. As someone pointed out, however, it might be smart to put it where non-subscribers can chime in.... the last defense of the accused. -) Finally, to the user who said that limiting to subscribers may create a knitting circle effect.... that can happen in self-selecting groups, where existing members ar the ones who choose new ones, but the subscription method is very democratic. Anyone who wants to pony up the $10/mo is in. That should prevent feedback problems.
Paid comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 23:35 UTC (Thu) by acristianb (guest, #1702) [Link] I subscribe to the draconian rules. This will get out the message. LWN was doing fine w/o user comments at all so I think it will do fine even if you filter out some potential honest readers that are not subscribed.I would try a scheme where as more subscribed users vouch for another subscribed user he/she would get a higher rank which would allow him to post directly w/o any restriction and the novice subscribed users would be allowed to post only by peer moderation and maybe editor moderation. This will get out the idea that he/she are part of a group and LWN is not a wall where pseudo anonymous people can make graffiti. And then in, say, two weeks an avid reader would reach the 'ok' rank. If he is spamming or trolling you know what to do... back to you...
Paid comments Posted Nov 21, 2003 15:04 UTC (Fri) by gregwilkins (subscriber, #515) [Link] +1 on Subscriber comments only.We all know that LWN operates on thin margins so anything that keeps
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 3:30 UTC (Thu) by gjmarter (subscriber, #5777) [Link] The cases of comment abuse I have seen have mainly been in the form of long chains of replys. I have often wondered if it would help to limit comments to a maximum depth of 4 for non-subscribers and 6 for subscribers.The beauty of those numbers is that if a non-subscriber gets trumped on the last word by a subscriber that posts 5 deep, then they can still pay up and post one more reply.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 4:08 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I don't think there should be any limitations on the depth, especially for subscribers. Long threads are not always abuse of the system. Sometimes really interesting thoughts appear deep in the thread. Maybe we could limit non-subscribers to 3 comments a day to encourage more subscriptions, but don't consider it an anti-troll measure - trolls will use multiple accounts.Generally speaking, to protect from trolls we should either prevent them from posting or prevent their posts from reaching the intended audience. I believe the later is much easier because you don't need to identify the authors - you merely need to identify the posts. Many sites tried both, and we should learn from their experience before trying to invent something new.
long threads Posted Nov 20, 2003 4:16 UTC (Thu) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Actually, one of the things I like about LWN is that it is the Linux week *thoughtfully* distilled. Fully realizing the irony of taking part in a discussion right now, I would prefer to keep *all* discussion relegated to the back pages or a comment board somewhere. If I want long back-and-forth, there's Slashdot. Same goes for cheerleading and for witty jibes. There's a place for that in the world, but my preference would be for LWN comments to be only corrections or substantial additions.
long threads Posted Nov 20, 2003 7:25 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Unfortunately, Slashdot has become inadequate for serious discussion. It encourages quick comments. It doesn't protect good posters from abuse and doesn't let others protect good posters. It doesn't encourage moderators who want to spend more time on moderation. It doesn't really discourage stupid posters. It does not make enough to improve signal to noise ratio. And finally, Slashdot stories don't cover Linux in depth (if at all), like LWN does.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 3:55 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I believe user moderation and sorting comments by score would encourage more good comments. If a story has 40 comments, few people will read comment number 30. This could discourage some users to post when there are already many comments. But if the best comments were brought to the forefront by the moderators, users would be more inclined to post something they think is more interesting that the previous comments.Of course, preserving threads while sorting by score is a tricky business. But there are solutions that work. I'd like editors to look how Kuro5hin does it. Maybe LWN could convert to Scoop but without story moderation?
moderation Posted Nov 20, 2003 4:14 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (subscriber, #421) [Link] If a story has 40 comments, few people will read comment number 30. [...] But if the best comments were brought to the forefront by the moderators... Except that if you look at Slashdot, that's exactly the opposite of what a moderation system often does. The first comments that have even a sliver of information or thought, and responses thereto, are invariably the highest moderated. This encourages people to quickly post superficially thoughtful comments and thereby worsens the problem. I don't have a good solution, but adding the ability to filter non-subscriber posts would be an interesting experiment.
moderation Posted Nov 20, 2003 7:15 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Slashdot has a problem of deficit moderation. Moderation points are rare, so "smart" moderators try to use them wisely. Moderating a comment up makes more difference than moderating a comment down, especially if the comment has a high score. If I was to choose between moving some stupid comment from 5 to 4 and moving a good comment from 2 to 3, I'd choose the later. That's why most comments are moderated up, not down.Of course, no all moderators are good. Some spend their points on the first comments. That's why relatively good comments in the beginning are moderated up. Also, the first comments are judged against the background of really stupid trolls and "first posts", something that can be significantly reduced if anonymous posts are not allowed. I believe Slashdot is a bad example. It's a site designed to attract crowds of zealots, so it encourages quick posts. It the goal was meaningful discussion, the system would have been changed. Kuro5hin actually changed its moderation system recently to prevent certain kinds of abuse. That site cares about quality of comments and thus protects the best comment authors from harassment.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 4:23 UTC (Thu) by LetterRip (guest, #6816) [Link] I'd prefer option 4, since the trolls are not noxious enough for me to be worth filtering outbut the option to do so in the future might be nice. However, I would encourage you to do whatever is the least hassle for you to implement and least future headaches. The user comments are not central to what makes this place worthwhile (unlike other sites such as slashdot), instead it is the excellent content.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 16:43 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] LWN produces some of the best Linux-related content on the web, in many respects. I could even live without the comments. But, some discussions are really quite nice, and I feel most posters do add something to the already excellent articles.I think I'd go with option 2. Of course, Jon, if you need help I would be happy to do what I can. (Coding, my financial situaion does not allow me to purchase a shiny new server. ;-)
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 5:06 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] one other problem with the existing comment structure is that if I go through and read the comments when there are 30 of them and then come back the next day and notice that there are now 35 (assuming I notice the number is different) it's really hard to find the new comments, I basicly have to re-read all the comments again.This makes the trolls even more of a problem becouse I have to deal with their posts repeatedly. the LWN subscription rates are low enough that I don't think it should be a problem to limit posts to subscribers (I will also note that since this thread can't be read by non-subscribers for a week it's going to be pretty heavily biased this way, and most subscribers will not come back to this topic next week to discuss theings with non-subscribers) although if you are still having any problems with forign subscription payments you should keep it open to non-subscribers. I really don't like the idea of open member moderation, it really doesn't work well on /. instead you should look at 'staff' moderation (I put staff in quotes as it may include unpaid staff that you trust) along the lines of the firewalls-wizards mailing list. set some ground rules about what is allowed and amke sure those rules specificly say that things are not moderated based on points of view, but just filter out messages that are out of line. Make it so that when a post is rejected it's sent back to the poster via e-mail along with a explination on why it's being rejected, that way people can alter the message and try again.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 22, 2003 6:27 UTC (Sat) by lotzmana (subscriber, #3052) [Link] "one other problem with the existing comment structure is that if I go through and read the comments when there are 30 of them and then come back the next day and notice that there are now 35 (assuming I notice the number is different) it's really hard to find the new comments, I basicly have to re-read all the comments again."I would be happy to see NNTP access to LWN, available for subscribers only. This is the most flexible way to post and keep track of threads.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 5:52 UTC (Thu) by torsten (guest, #4137) [Link] I have a simpler solution. Some websites implement a "Report this comment" button. That would allow reporting of poor comments. The advantages are that you don't have to read all the comments to filter the nonsense, and it acts as a buffer to the Slashdot popularity contest (where well thought out, unpopular opinions may be mod'ed down).
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 8:20 UTC (Thu) by jwharmanny (guest, #971) [Link] Give each comment an 'abuse score'. Each time a reader clicks on the 'report abuse' link, this score is ++'ed for the comment. When ten readers or so have clicked the link, an LWN editor is notified about the comment. This score would be invisible for readers, but would spare much time for the editors. Also, spammers often troll in old articles, hoping that the editors don't notice them but search engines do. Therefore, it might be a good idea to block comments on articles older then n weeks.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:10 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] Good idea -- but do it by "number of subscribers" only. We don't want a whole load of trolls attempting denial of service (through overloading the LWN staff) by jumping up and down on the "report abuse" button on every comment. If you limit it to "one report per account", you'll just get them creating fifteen or so accounts, and the LWN staff have to play "whack-an-account", as well as "whack-a-post". If you limit it to "one report per subscriber", the only way a troll could abuse it is to pay up to subscribe to LWN multiple times. And if they do go that far, the system could disable the button and delete all existing reports for a troll account on a quick clickety-click, and LWN would get an extra revenue stream... It would also be possible for the site to automatically gather statistics on which subscribers report abuse, and how often the LWN staff agree with them. Ultimately, LWN could give the best regulars the abililty to mark or remove comments without prior review by LWN staff. If you recruited regulars from around the world, you could get 24 hour coverage of abuse... Besides, the people who care enough about the site to want to moderate should be subscribers, anyway. Other variations could include making it clearer that comments and the "report abuse" button can be removed for accounts that abuse them. (Currently it looks as though the "right" to post comments is part of the package you buy with a subscription, potentially making it legally dodgy to ban subscribers from posting. But IANAL.)
James
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 11:40 UTC (Thu) by gyles (subscriber, #1600) [Link] That sounds like about the best suggestion so far.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 14:01 UTC (Thu) by phip (subscriber, #1715) [Link] I second that motion. I think allowing subscribers to report abuse is better than restricting who can post comments.Thanks for the great work on LWN.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:30 UTC (Thu) by taruntius (guest, #1140) [Link] James' suggestion is indeed just about the best I've read so far. But as for this part: (Currently it looks as though the "right" to post comments is part of the package you buy with a subscription, potentially making it legally dodgy to ban subscribers from posting. But IANAL.)I don't think there's any problem with that at all. It's just a matter of the language used when the subscription is bought. As long as LWN's subscription policy includes a clause stating that posting comments is a privelege, not a right, and that said privelege may be suspended at LWN's discretion if the subscriber abuses that privelege, then there should be no problem. Consider a similar case: you may well have paid ten thousand dollars for a membership in the local country club, which entitles you to use the club's facilities. But if you always show up there stinking drunk and make a habit out of hitting on all the other members' wives, then the club would be well advised to suspend your priveleges. This situation seems to me similar to the classic "tragedy of the commons", but with one difference: because you have to pay to get access to the commons, you have an even stronger obligation not to befoul the commons precisely because other people are paying for access to it too.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:50 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] Quite. Make sure the right language is there, and there's no problem. It's too long since I signed up: I don't remember any legalese, and I don't know what's there now for new subscribers.
James
potential solutions to comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:56 UTC (Thu) by grunch (subscriber, #16603) [Link] I also concur with James' suggestion. A throttled reader-based rating system is certain to be a more effective and less burdensome system than a moderated system.I've only recently subscribed to LWN, and believe I have already received my money's worth for the year. Thanks!
On comment abuse Posted Nov 22, 2003 2:02 UTC (Sat) by crankydave (guest, #4835) [Link] I'd also like to throw my support behind James' "one report per subscriber" scheme."...give the best regulars the ability to mark or remove comments without prior review by LWN staff. If you recruited regulars from around the world, you could get 24 hour coverage of abuse... Besides, the people who care enough about the site to want to moderate should be subscribers, anyway." Limiting subscribers' privileges by limiting their posts won't encourage new (or renewed) subscriptions. And I don't believe it's in the best interest of the weekly to incur significant expense in terms of server upgrades and the editors time spent to manually moderate comments to safeguard the comments of non-subscribers. "Currently about 1/3 of the comments on the site are posted by non-subscribers, and almost none of those are abusive." --LWN Perhaps the number of trolls/ spam are small now but you reported the problem is growing and requires a long term solution to preserve the integrity of the publication. Prevention is crucial, don't allow them to get a foothold. Eric points out that "Limiting posting to subscribers would probably just create a knitting circle, a bunch of people talking all with (nearly) the exact same viewpoint." I'm concerned about an insular community, as well a the loss of peoples contributions who have significant expertise in a particular area, willingness to share, but no subscription. These people would still be allowed to comment while trolls and spammers could be quickly removed by a sufficient number of volunteers with minimal intervention needed by editors. One caveat, volunteers shouldn't be allowed to remove comments from other subscribers- That could get ugly. I'm assuming that very few (if any) trolls would pay for a subscription and since one of LWN solutions was to limit comments to subscribers, that isn't where the problem is originating. I don't like the idea of a full blown ratings system or Carma. Just simple removal of the offending comments. -Dave
On comment abuse Posted Nov 27, 2003 23:12 UTC (Thu) by alext (guest, #7589) [Link] I think James has it right. Allow subscribers (of which I'm not one) to click a button on troll posts. When it hits a limit it is chucked into the posting bin where the interested can still go and browse if they wish but no one is likely to bother.If you want it slightly more complicated turn it into a threshold troll limited thing so you only ditch trolls if it gets enough troll votes. You might even leave a little note in place of it saying comment moved to troll bin with 99 votes from subscribers. That must be as complicated as you get. The other concerns from /. readers are all valid.
Post this topic on the main page Posted Nov 20, 2003 6:53 UTC (Thu) by mcisely (subscriber, #2860) [Link] This discussion really isn't fair to non-subscribers. As pointed out earlier, they won't get a chance to comment on this - or even know it's being discussed - until a week later.Would it not be wiser to take this article out of the weekly edition and put it up now on the main page as free content? I think this is too important to limit the discussion right now to subscribers. -Mike
Post this topic on the main page Posted Nov 20, 2003 11:17 UTC (Thu) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] I think this is a decision that the editors must make with feedback from the subscribers only. I'm not sure that I believe that nonsubscribers make up a very valuable part of the LWN community. Subscriptions are very cheap.
Subscriber vs. non-subscriber comments Posted Nov 20, 2003 13:23 UTC (Thu) by utoddl (subscriber, #1232) [Link] Only marginally related to the question at hand, but would it make sense to somehow differentiate comments posted by subscribers from those of non-subscribers? Maybe a different color on the comment subject line, or by text saying(Posted such-n-such date by subscriber userid1)vs. (Posted such-n-such date by guest userid2)I'm more likely to listen to a borderline troll if he's at least helped me pay for the service. And it might just encourage the good-hearted procrastinators out there to get around to subscribing before posting. I don't see how it would directly help with the trolling problem, though.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 7:38 UTC (Thu) by Klavs (subscriber, #10563) [Link] I'm a subscriber to LWN too - and I also read LWN for the content - not the comments. Sometimes they can be good to read - sometimes they are just something I don't want to bother with.My biggest problem with the comments, is that I can't subscribe to my own threads, and get emailed if someone replys. This mean I can't make any serious discussions here, as I can't possibly go in and remember every article I commented and check for updates often enough. And also, I know the ones who reply can't either thus making it possible to have almost any sort of back-and-forth discussion. IMHO you should implement a seperate forum for comments - with a "forum/channel" for each article. This is what many does. And do use Open Source. There are a lot of good forum software, that has already done some work to help the forum owners to prevent trolls etc. and they also support things like subscribing to forums og threads. This way improvements done by you, to decrease trolls - could be given back and the users of the same forum software would benefit. STOP developing your own stuff - reinventing the wheel is just plain dumb! Thanks for a great LWN.
limited number of comments per account/time Posted Nov 20, 2003 7:55 UTC (Thu) by noxxi (subscriber, #4994) [Link] How about limiting the number of comments per account withina specific timeframe (e.g. no more than 7 per week or so) and prohibiting new accounts from posting comments for a while. I don't think that limiting the number of comments is such a big restriction, this way one probably thinks first before posting. One might still abuse it by opening a lot of accounts , so this could only be a first step.
limited number of comments per account/time Posted Nov 20, 2003 8:04 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] limiting the number of posts allowed can be a significant problem in some cases.there have been a couple articles recently when one person who the article was strongly related to posted a dozen or more times in a few hour (Bruce Perns in the comments about his new desktop linux plans is a perfect example) these exchanges are some of the most valuble and shutting someone up quickly becouse they had already make comments elsewhere is a bad idea. my initial reaction to the proposal was to think it's a good thing, especially if coupled with subscriber-only comments on the basis that the trolls could still post from multiple accounts, but they would at least have to pay more to do so, but the senerio above looks like a bigger drawback then the advantage it would provide.
limited number of comments per account/time Posted Nov 20, 2003 11:19 UTC (Thu) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] This is not a good idea. Firstly, trolls and others can set up as many accounts as they like so this does not help at all. Secondly, you're limiting the freedom of paying customers to post as much as they like which is not fair.
Delay before new accounts can post. Posted Nov 21, 2003 16:59 UTC (Fri) by Wout (subscriber, #8750) [Link] I agree in part with noxxi's post. If registration is required for posting, then setting a delay of one day or even a week before new accounts can post would stop most abusive posts. If a user posts abusive messages after the initial delay has passed, simply remove the ability to post from his/her account for ever.Registration of bogus accounts could be made (slightly) harder by requiring a valid email address. Limit accounts to one per email address and verify the address by sending the account password to it.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 8:00 UTC (Thu) by danielpf (subscriber, #4723) [Link] The problem is not to discriminate between subscribers and non-subscribers, but between relevant posts and trolls. Indeed a subscriber can be in charge, as professional activity, to post trolls.Therefore I would see a filtering system as follows: A troll is easily spotted and would be marked as such by a few selected volunteers. They would have the permission to mark trolls and their decision would be public. Subsequently only the troll title would be visible, but would remain accessible as a link. Any reader would still be allowed to make comments within the link.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 8:52 UTC (Thu) by stuart (subscriber, #623) [Link] Sounds good to me.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 16:05 UTC (Thu) by minichaz (subscriber, #630) [Link] That's just Slashdot and we've all seen how well that works. Moderation is not the answer. As I've said before: any community that needs moderation is fundamentally broken.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:15 UTC (Thu) by sveinrn (subscriber, #2827) [Link] First of all, as a paying subscriber I think we are important enough for the future of LWN that we shoul be allowed to discuss this without lots of non-subscribers whining.I also think that LWN has reached the "critical mass" where restricting postings to subscribers only will not have a big impact on the number of quality posts. Abusing the system is of course a lot more difficult when you have to pay, because each time your account is locked due to spamming, you have to pay to open a new one under a new name. And finaly I think this solution is good for the number of subscribers, which will give more money to the editors and ultimatly even better quality to us readers. So I think restricting postings to subscribers only is a simple and good way of doing this!
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:38 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Newsforge was a fairly okay forum until they recently introduced slashdot style moderation. Now discussion is impossible because threads just end up disjointed etc. So it's important not to accidentally spoil LWN in the same way.In the last two weeks, the problem of trolls has decreased to a very acceptable level, probably due to your firewalling. With this, I'd say it's okay to wait a while to see if other action is still really neccessary. If we do need a better solution, maybe a 7 day delay before non-subscriber accounts can post comments would be good. It would prevent trolls from signing up for new accounts every time people realise they are trolls. Also, a "troll button" at the subject of each comment could allow people to flag a troll. Could a system be set up to mail the LWN editors every time a comment is flagged more than, say, 10 times, and that comment could be hidden? (not removed, just replaced with a link to see the full comment, and the word "troll" beside it).
Scaling Problems Posted Nov 22, 2003 6:22 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] Also, a "troll button" at the subject of each comment could allow people to flag a troll. Could a system be set up to mail the LWN editors every time a comment is flagged more than, say, 10 times, and that comment could be hidden? A troll button that could be pressed by trolls would be pressed by trolls. LWN editors would be flooded with mail and many innocent comments would be hidden. Limiting the troll button to subscribers would improve the situation quite a lot but still suffers from scaling problems. An effective long-term solution must be relatively autonomous, at least from the perspective of the LWN editors. After all, they are a scarce resource.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 10:51 UTC (Thu) by ewen (subscriber, #4772) [Link] Another possibility you might want to consider: poster validation. For subscribers (that are logged in) the fact that they've subscribed is probably sufficent. For non-subscribers the comment could be held until some "click on this link to verify it" (which was emailed out) was taken.FWIW, I'd prefer that LWN didn't go down the slashdot extensive comment moderation route if possible. It seems to turn sites into CMS/blog style discussion site, rather than the "magazine" style site that I've always liked LWN for. I'd actually prefer that LWN had no commenting system to a slashdot-style commenting and moderation system: the letters-to-the-editor worked just fine for the first several years. IMHO of course. Ewen
Automated account reputation, spam removal and posting rights Posted Nov 20, 2003 12:02 UTC (Thu) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] I suggest LWN combine allowing almost unrestricted commenting by subscribers with the need for non-subscribers to do a Turing test (e.g. recognise a number in a graphic) and be filtered based on account reputation. Subscribers could be enabled to rate a limited number of all posts per day on a scale between 1=spam, 2=troll and 10=profound. 3 hits on the spam button should be enough to have the post automatically removed and reported to the editor - subscribers who in the opinion of the editors use ratings very unfairly, post spams or more than one or 2 trolls could have their ratings and/or posts silently ignored.Perhaps an easy way for a non-subscribing account to build an acceptable reputation to be allowed occasional posts is simply for it to exist and be used regularly for a period of time. If someone is paying attention, the chances are that what they have to say is more likely to be worth saying, than if they have just created an account, or not used it regularly for any length of time before attempting to post. I think this, together with letters to the editor, could be all that is needed in the short to medium term, but if this doesn't work well enough, e.g. because trollers are using automated means to create accounts and build reputation scores on these based on usage then either more regular use of Turing tests or some kind of IP firewalling might be needed.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 12:35 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] I liked the copsewood's idea about a Turing test. That's easy to implement yet would be practically 100%-effective defence against automatic posts.As to non-automatic trolls, it seems to me these became mainly noticable when the troll was the first comment to an article. So I suggest to allow non-subscribers to comment other comments only, but not the LWN contents itself. In other words, only subscribers would have the priviledge to _start_ a discussion, while anyone (including non-subscribers) could _participate_.
How about a vote? Posted Nov 20, 2003 14:28 UTC (Thu) by rovfrukt (guest, #6353) [Link] Would it be possible to set up a subscribers-only poll? That way the Editors could get a true view of how people would like to have it.For my part, I'd prefer the comments to be subscribers-only.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 14:28 UTC (Thu) by port0 (subscriber, #6114) [Link] How about a baysian comment filter. It could be trained by running slashdot commentsthrough it.
Require an account for non-subscribers Posted Nov 20, 2003 14:40 UTC (Thu) by bshowalter (guest, #538) [Link] Another option would be to require that non-subscribers create an account before they're allowed to post comments. Account properties would include an e-mail address and a comment posting flag. New accounts would require a reply to a validation e-mail before being fully activated. If the account ends up being used for trolling or spamming, then turn off the comment posting flag to block comments from being submitted. If the troll tries to set up another account using an e-mail address that matches an existing account with the comment posting flag turned off, then either turn off the posting flag on the new account as well or just block it from being created in the first place.While this would not prevent a troll from using a different e-mail address to set up a new account to troll from, hopefully the hassle of going through all these steps would at least discourage such activity.
Require an account for non-subscribers Posted Nov 20, 2003 14:52 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] ...but we do require an account before you can post comments; anonymous posting has never been allowed. We have tried to avoid forcing people to disclose an email address if they don't want to - lots of people don't. That might have to come to an end, though, if we were to adopt an approach like this. Limiting posts to subscribers and, instead, requiring the disclosure of a credit card number seems easier :).
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:09 UTC (Thu) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] After reading the thread, I suppose the only really effective defense against trolls is "subscriber only" + "hand-picked account suspension" in cases that seem very extreme.I was originally intrigued by coriordan's suggestion to block new non-subscriber accounts from commenting for 7 days - but hey, then anyone can set up a new account a day, and after an initial seven days, post new spam every day from a new account. Hm. There is also the "Turing filter" idea. This will work against automated trolls, indeed. However: I was not under the impression that the present problem was automated trolling - or is it? In general, I am not fond restrictions such as "subscriber only", and was originally against - but if it's supposed to work, then this is the way. One may hope that, with a "subscriber only" commenting policy, non-subscribers would still be sufficiently attracted to lwn by its high-quality content (which brought everyone here in the first place).
Automated posts Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:13 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] The problem is definitely not automated posts. The LWN site could certainly be scriptable in that way, but it is a unique site and, so far, I doubt the trollers have the ability to do that.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:13 UTC (Thu) by fdesloges (subscriber, #291) [Link] Two ideas to contribute:1) I think that the main source of troll food is the subject of stories that are published. It is much more difficult for a troll to be inspired by "Stable kernel prepatch 2.4.23-rc2 released" than by "Thomas Bushnell is no longer Hurd maintainer". Keeping _any_ form of "religion" out of scope is may be the best way of starving the trolls. I however often appreciated in the past the way Jonathan Corbet is able to write about delicate subjects (like RMS, Microsoft) with civility, which almost always discourage subsequent trolling. But this is not the case for the two-lines-news. So I suggest that "troll subjects" be only reported in the famous high-quality original content published by lwn. Or in a "higher troll risk" filterable section of daily posts. After all, it has been said again and again that it is the original content of this site that is most valued by paying subscribers not the raw daily news post. 2) If the starved trolls still need to be identifed in some way, provide a simple system to allow trusted subscriber/staff to filter _down_ noise. (Not filter up signal, since good signal can vary from people to people, whereas I think the subscribers community has a pretty commun notion of what a troll is). If the data says most unsubscriber post valuable comments, is it really wise to deprived the subscribers from this ressource?
I consider that posts in slashdot-like sites fall in 3 pretty clear-cut categories. The second is the "supported opinion or additionnal information", which is the only one valuable from my point of view. A "supported opinion" is one with exposed rationale behind it, typically based on analysis, or insider information. The third one is the "unsupported opinion". It includes "this is bad/good because I like this flavor of thing". It includes the funny comments, that are, well, funny. It is a great way to feel like having a voice in a community, and is an even greater way of transforming a news site in an unreliable polling system. These posts are somehow as worthless for the information-seeking reader as the troll/offtopic posts, but much less easy to identify and thus more time-consuming. Creating a category for them in a moderation system is also difficult without hurting some posters feelings. And it is difficult to be impartial, since these "unsupported opinions" could be a delightfull, entertaining and insightfull topic when they come from high profile leaders like Linus, Perens etc.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:18 UTC (Thu) by vondo (guest, #256) [Link] I'd like to see the last option, being able to filter out if needed. I'd also like to see a flag next the person's name stating if they are a subscriber or not.Limiting posting to subscribers would probably just create a knitting circle, a bunch of people talking all with (nearly) the exact same viewpoint. Eric
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:26 UTC (Thu) by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029) [Link] I've seen a number of suggestions which I think merit some comment. The point about folks like Bruce Perens commenting a large number of times in a single day, and the value of those comments, is significant. We certainly don't want to lose that sort of input. Further, if comment posting is restricted to subscribers only we might lose feedback from valued individuals who aren't subscribers. I don't know what the subscription list looks like, but anything that prevents comments from Linus, Bruce, ESR, RMS, or any other prominent member of the FLOSS community would be detrimental.Turing tests for posting have a certain appeal, but they also have a very real drawback. Distinguishing a character in a graphic is impossible for someone who can't see, just as picking out a word in audio is impossible for someone who can't hear. Pretty much any scheme you can think of is likely to have some problem of this sort. I like the notion of per-subscriber abuse reports, though if LWN becomes flooded with trolls that does introduce a DoS against the editors, as was pointed out. Something that doesn't require any manual intervention would be ideal. Whether that's possible or not is another matter. Since I've been mostly negative so far, I should probably make a suggestion of my own. I like option 4 the best, but I think it could be done without a preference flag (which benefits those without an account and might encourage them to subscribe). With a little bit of scripting, comments from non-subscribers could be present but collapsed, possibly with date and poster shown. A toggle could switch between subscriber-only comments and all comments, possibly on a thread-by-thread or whole-article basis. This would, of course, have to display all of the comments in browsers without scripting, but if most people have scripting enabled then the trolls won't get fed.
Suggestion: new account comment moderation Posted Nov 20, 2003 15:57 UTC (Thu) by pspinler (subscriber, #2922) [Link] How about a scheme whereby postings from new accounts are moderated (say for 2 weeks, or a month, or whatever), after which posting is essentially open. Note that the moderation period should began with the first attempted posting, rather than from account creation. If a particular commenter is found to be abusive, that account can be re-enabled for another month of moderation. Oh, and moderation should be by the community, rather than by the editors. Key points of this idea: 1) It protects to some extent against auto-spambots 2) It gives you, LWN, less liability if comments are moderated by people other than the editors 3) It doesn't restrict postings by valued non-subscribers Your thoughts ?
Suggestion: new account comment moderation Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:15 UTC (Thu) by hingo (subscriber, #14792) [Link] This is what is possible with many email-lists. Moderate n first posts for each user, after that, let them post unmoderated. Subscribers could be unmoderated from the beginning, I can't see that anyone would actually pay for the pleasure of posting a troll.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 16:30 UTC (Thu) by zone (guest, #3633) [Link] My thoughts:1) If it is necessary to take severe action to correct a problem with the comment system, then please do take that action. It is much better to step on a few toes then to lose yet another comment system (and the best one in terms of signal to noise). 2) A "Good LWN Citizen" should never have to read a troll or spam posting, unless it has just been posted. 3) By and large, everyone reading LWN comments should see the same comments as everyone else, in the same order. This is essential to maintain the coherency of the threads and the spirit of LWN. Personal filtering, sorting, and killfiles might seem like a good idea at first, but I really think it will diminish the continuity of the comment system. 4) Speaking as someone with staff experience with a large community site, I can say this: Staff moderation works. You know what a troll is, we know what a troll is. You know what spam is, we know what spam is. Giving readers even the _option_ of marking a poster's comment as a troll or spam introduces a whole new mentality to the comment system, and it's one you want to avoid if at all possible. Given LWN's track record as a trustworthy publication, I believe most readers would be willing to allow the staff (and trusted users) to rule the comment system with an iron fist. The benefit of maintaining a high quality comment system to go along with the high quality content, as well as removing the psychological pitfall of community moderation, is huge. And of course, all removed comments could be available on a separate page on the LWN site for periodic review by the readers. That said, if you do opt for a system that allows for reader input on comments, I would hope for it to be as simple as possible. As described by james above, a single link to mark a comment as a troll or spam, which would hide the comment after a certain numbers of subscribers give their input, would go a long way to fixing the problem. I think, however, that subscribers' posts should not be subject to this system, to avoid the potential factioning and polarization among members that is so common on other community sites. And thanks for taking comments on this issue; it's good to know the editors are concerned with getting reader input and doing the right thing.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:45 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] I envisage a system just aimed at spam and obvious trolls. If a troll isn't "obvious", then it isn't worth taking it off the site. Face it, few trolls are going to bother to put even a semi-coherent argument together. Those that can manage coherency are arguably a productive part of the discussion, even if they don't believe what they're posting. If there are groups of subscribers reporting each other, then there's something seriously wrong, and my prefered answer is to silently reject all their abuse reports. There's all sorts of possibilities to do that automatically based on their previous "scores" (how many posts they've reported as unacceptable that the LWN staff or trusted delegates have considered acceptable).
James There's a very poor joke in here about an early Un*xoid on Intel. I'm not making it.
Keep it simple Posted Nov 20, 2003 17:44 UTC (Thu) by bjn (guest, #2179) [Link] Please, whatever you decide to do, don't go down the slashdot road and end up withmoderation, scoring, karma, ... Keep it simple. My vote is the last option, a flag that allows subscribers to hide non-subscriber comments.
Re: On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 18:18 UTC (Thu) by X-Nc (guest, #1661) [Link] I would rather see LWN with no comment system but, of the choices given, comment posting privileges should be restricted to subscribers.I have not been a big fan of the comments from the beginning. I don't hate them but I feel it diminishes the usefullness of LWN, for the same reason the Linux Gazette people bailed when LJ implimented a CMS. The reason I don't like the comments is that there's never any time to wade through them. If something worth while is posted it's not likely to be seen. Whereas if it was sent in as a letter to the editor then it will be seen and read. Using a CMS on a weekly publication defeats the purpose of having a weekly publication and turns it into something like Newsforge. Now, I like Newsforge, but it's no LWN. Unfortunately LWN is becoming less like LWN, too.
"Less like LWN" Posted Nov 20, 2003 18:21 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] "Unfortunately LWN is becoming less like LWN, too."How so? Could you fill that out a bit? Is it just the presence of the comment system, or something else? If you really don't like the comments, remember that there is a configuration option that lets you pretend they don't exist.
"Less like LWN" Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:47 UTC (Thu) by ksmathers (subscriber, #2353) [Link] What is most enjoyable and useful about LWN is the quality of the editorial work. If by reading the weekly news I could get what Jonathan thinks are the most relevant five or six comments on a particular subject (in addition to the story itself), then that would be far more valuable to me than what the original poster thought would be witty, insightful, or informative, and quite a bit more valuable even than what other readers thought.Just as you summarize the Kernel mailing list each week for those of us who don't have time to read it (and even do the research needed to help us understand some of the topics you summarize), in the comment system more isn't better. Better is better. Of itself, more is worse.
Attack of the Comments? Posted Nov 22, 2003 6:34 UTC (Sat) by GreyWizard (subscriber, #1026) [Link] What is most enjoyable and useful about LWN is the quality of the editorial work. [...]in the comment system more isn't better. While a better comment system is certainly to be wished for, I don't understand why people object to the *existance* of comments. No one forces anyone to read them. Why can't you just visit once per week for the editorial content, ignore the unobtrusive notice at the end of each item and stop posting comments about how terrible it is to have comments?
"Less like LWN" Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:56 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link] I think the problem is that to much useful data is showing up only in the comments. Yes I could just ignore the comments, but then I would permanently loose this datapre-comments all info was in the articles or in letters to the editor (including e-mail to lwn.net) the staff acted as moderators and if the message was useful enough it became a new article. it was very easy to find the new info. with comments on a daily (or more frequent) basis you need to not only check the new headlines, you need to pull up the last several weeks weekly edition to look through it to find if there are any new comments on interesting topics. I will say that I don't see any comments from non-subscribers on any subscriber-only comment becouse I don't bother to try and go back a week and re-read the comments once non-subscribers are allowed to post to them. even for things in the weekly edition I seldom bother going back more then a couple times to try and see if there are more comments, and I useually only go back more then once if there was a _really_ significant topic to deal with
Re: On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 21:53 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (subscriber, #774) [Link] > I have not been a big fan of the comments from the beginning.I was rather sceptical about it in the beginning, too. But now my view changed. Surprisingly, the average quality of LWN comments is very high. Please keep this facility! Of course, something has to be done to block inflammatory "comments" as those that were posted in numbers one-two weeks ago.
Control comments but KISS Posted Nov 20, 2003 20:37 UTC (Thu) by crp (guest, #9175) [Link] I'm a subscriber who mostly reads just the news content, howeverI have increasingly started reading comments on topics that I find particularly interesting to see "other perspectives" or extra bits of information. Concentrating dispersed information and "wisdom" this way is extremely powerful -- just as free software concentrates distributed skills and knowledge. Just like free software, however, having this process produce a useful result for a general audience requires a certain amount of filtering and distillation. Some patches are bad and some comments are bad for the community that you are trying to build. I'm generally in favor of strong editorial control to create useful communities. I think that allowing antisocial elements to hijack this useful aspect of LWN would be dereliction of your responsibility as an editor and a leading force in the LWN "community". Whatever editorial controls you decide to implement I urge you
Enact your Privacy Statement ASAP!!!! Posted Nov 20, 2003 21:13 UTC (Thu) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] Everything is rather moot if the Privacy Statement is actually used :-)The Privacy statement states that subscribers can "post comments on the site"! Therefore, by exclusion (but not explicity stated), non-subscribers are not allowed to post comments! So the part about who can comment is thus moot. Thus,currently you are (in my opinion) violating the LWN Privacy statement by allowing non-subscribers to post comments. The Privacy statement also states that "we have no control over information you post in comments". So the part about what the comment is about is also moot. Until the LWN Privacy Statement changes, only subscribers can comment (you can say it is one of the benefits) and they can comment on anything they like. (Further, at least the first part must be said before someone signs up for an account.)
On comment abuse Posted Nov 20, 2003 22:01 UTC (Thu) by ordonnateur (subscriber, #6652) [Link] What is wrong with letters to the editor? I am a subscriber, I read LWN for the high qualityeditorial such as the summaries of kernel development, news of distributions. I value the comments which augment that content, but I would be quite happy if it were all edited down to a summary of comments, with verbatim quotes if appropriate,
On comment abuse Posted Nov 21, 2003 2:59 UTC (Fri) by rompel (subscriber, #4512) [Link] My only concern about eliminating non-subscribers' posting privileges is that I recall a lot of folks outside the US without credit cards complaining that they didn't have any reasonable way of subscribing even if they wanted to. I don't know if this issue was ever resolved.Other than that, I have no problem with silencing non-subscribers. It's been my experience with online forums that the higher the barrier to entry, the better the discussion. And I think that it would probably prompt a few more people to subscribe, which would be a good thing. I would also love to have some sort of "killfile" capability. There are 3 frequent posters I'd plonk in a heartbeat. Alas, I suspect that it would be resource-intensive to implement. Finally, I am against a slashdot-style moderation scheme for all the reasons mentioned by others.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 21, 2003 5:53 UTC (Fri) by twiens (subscriber, #12274) [Link] The simplest solution is the best most of the time. Comments should be for subscribers only. All other solutions are a lot of work without sufficient return to justify the effort. Yes some good content will be lost. That is too bad. LWN is a great site and is great value for the money. Hopefully most of these individuals who care enough to take the time to post intelligent comments will care enough to help support an excellent resource.If subscribers are to blame for crap being posted, then it would be appropriate to have some monitoring and if after a couple of polite reprimands these individuals can not behave in a civilized manner they should be ejected from the LWN community. I'm sure we are all busy and value LWN for being a site that delivers good content in a manner that processed relatively quickly. Let's keep LWN great.
Subscribers by default and others by special approval Posted Nov 21, 2003 23:17 UTC (Fri) by tmorizot (subscriber, #1593) [Link] In general, I'm inclined to agree that, by default, comments should be restricted to subscribers. However, it occurs to me that a separate flag allowing comments could be added to all accounts. The flag would automatically be turned on for subscribers.If we assume the subscribers are a generally trusted group, it should be possible then to provide a mechanism whereby any subscriber could approve comment rights for any non-subscriber they know and believe should be able to post. (Record which subscriber did so, of course.) It then becomes a reputation thing. I doubt anyone would want to be known as the bozo who approved a spammer or troll. Don't moderate posts. Moderate people. Allow posting only by those who subscribe or are specifically voucher for by someone who does. That would probably be pretty easy to implement and should eliminate the problem while still providing an avenue for non-subscribers to contribute. All they have to do is find a subscriber willing to vouch for them. An idea anyway. Scott
On comment abuse Posted Nov 22, 2003 15:56 UTC (Sat) by meffie (subscriber, #3120) [Link] As a long time subscriber, I feel comments should be asubscriber only privilege. Let's keep LWN a quality site for the years to come.
On comment abuse Posted Nov 22, 2003 16:15 UTC (Sat) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link] Perhaps the privilege could be extended to non-subscribers on request,on proof of identity comparable to that required for subscribers, on provision of a valid reason ("Credit cards are illegal in my country", or some such), and on the condition that the guest not troll. This would alleviate the one worry I have about subscriber-only posting, which is that it could exclude categories of people who _can't_ subscribe. --
Now it's available to non-subscribers ... Posted Nov 27, 2003 14:13 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] As a non-subscriber, I would go for the toggle that says "view subscriber-only / all comments".And if you do stop non-subscribers posting, PLEASE don't make the letters page subscriber only! What you need to watch out for here is that you may drive non-subscribers away. You need to attract them and persuade them to subscribe, not drive them away so that your "fringe" readership declines, and your core declines with it ... Cheers,
Now it's available to non-subscribers ... Posted Nov 27, 2003 19:02 UTC (Thu) by iksrazal (guest, #5184) [Link] "What you need to watch out for here is that you may drive non-subscribers away. You need to attract them and persuade them to subscribe, not drive them away so that your "fringe" readership declines, and your core declines with it ..."Unfortunately, I doubt very many people who feel passionately about eliminating non-subscriber comments actually will read that. LWN is a great service - I've read it for about 4 years - and I'm happy that they have found a way to be healthy. However, I live in brazil - a third world country. It happens to have excellent programmers - many who contribute or even maintain the kernel. Yet the currency Real is about 3 to 1 dollar at the moment, making it 3 times more of a committment to support LWN. I understand trolls are a problem here and everywhere. Also, I rarely post. But LWN would be yet another place lost in an increasingly commercial linux landscape - forgetting some who helped get us to where we are. That hasn't happened here - yet. A suggestion: a several week waiting period before non-subscibers could post after getting a login. It might deter those who require an instant gratification to create problems. iksrazal
Use only as directed. Posted Nov 28, 2003 4:01 UTC (Fri) by Tashlan (guest, #17277) [Link] I truly value LWN and would hate to see it degraded by trolls OR poorly implemented troll-prevention measures.Perhaps the best solution is to let the readers decide... for themselves, individually. Add a checkbox to each post-block that reads "block this poster." Another advantage for this model is that it avoids the liability issue for LWN.
Let the subscribers decide whats worthwhile _automatically_ Posted Nov 28, 2003 16:32 UTC (Fri) by ahoh (guest, #17291) [Link] After going through 85 comments I miss the following idea:Hide branches of a thread behind a seperate link _until_ a subscriber posts an answer or a staff member recognises it as generally interesting. That should be an easy way to hide most noise and supports the golden rule: "never reply to a troll - disregard will be punished publicly". This is ment to be used in combination with the other suggestions and yes I oppose the idea of only a subscriber may post ... one should be able to answer a public accusation in public without having to pay first (of course one can raise his voice by subscribing ;-) ).
Let the subscribers decide whats worthwhile _automatically_ Posted Dec 7, 2003 0:10 UTC (Sun) by rhkramer (guest, #15212) [Link] I have a hamm^H^H^H^H wiki, so ...I use wikis a lot, and can't help but add wiki to the discussion. I'm not strongly advocating a wiki, but it may be something to think about. (In general, I do advocate wikis over email discussion lists and similar "time based" discussions, in a desire to turn them into "timeless" discussions that are always useful.) And, I'd point out that (some) wikis are very flexible, so the following is only one potential way of using a wiki: Start (reserve) a wiki page for each article. (With or without the text of the article on that or a parent page of the wiki, maybe add the article a week or two later to help the page be a "timeless" discussion of the topic. An "unwritten rule" (should be written ;-) is to limit the scope of the discussion to the scope of the original article (to avoid the case where an article on SCO provokes a discussion on every possible aspect of the SCO case or the countersuits). For the first week, only subsribers are allowed to post. (TWiki, among others (presumably), has means to limit who can edit a page.) Encourage those posters to work in (one of) the wiki way(s), that is, to perpetually leave the page in a "document mode" vs. "thread mode" state. Perhaps minimize the attribution of comments — in TWiki all comments are recorded in RCS with the author's name, so someone can always track down the author. And/or, maintain a contributor's section at the bottom of the page and anyone who contributes to the discussion adds themselves to the list of contributors. In special cases (determined by the contributor but vetted by subsequent contributors / editors) it might be appropriate to show their comments in italics and add a less conspicuous comment marker (usually their initials) near their comments. (I am not sure under what circumstances this would be appropriate, in my view it would be less to claim ownership of comments than to denote controversial or uncertain comments that would be very appropriate to refactor and to keep separate from any thought that it constitutes part of a general consensus. As additional people edit the page, it either gets vetted for correctness and incorporated appropriately, or gets refactored into a pro or con section (see below).) Aside: One other of the "wiki ways" is the approach to controversial topics. Rather than have a wiki page slanted pro or con a particular topic, a "master wiki refactorer" strives to maintain neutrality and balance. One approach to that might be pro and con sections, with an intro something like: "There is no consensus on this topic, people who favor the topic (or better wording) make these points: <:a bulletted list>, people opposed make these points <another bulleted list>." Aside: TWiki also has a comment plugin. Perhaps non-subscribers wouild be allowed only to make comments, but subscribers would have "full" TWiki editing access. There is also a voting plugin (that I've never tried). Whether the text of the article is included on the page or not, the published date of (and a link to) the original article is included at the top of the page to somewhat "lock" the discussion in time. (So, I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth, advocating both timeless and time based discussions.) Just some food for thought...
On comment abuse Posted Nov 29, 2003 15:03 UTC (Sat) by paulmfoster (subscriber, #17313) [Link] My vote: Anyone can post a comment. Only member comments show on the site. This way LWN is not cut off from getting the information, but trolls don't bother readers. (I assume you're more comfortable with trolls bothering you than readers.)
|
|||||||||||