| |||||||||||||
On comment abuseOn comment abusePosted Nov 20, 2003 3:30 UTC (Thu) by gjmarter (subscriber, #5777)Parent article: On comment abuse 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||