Some research I'd like someone else to do

[andrewducker]

I'd like someone to look at all the different commenting systems out there, and work out why some of them have a decent proportion of interesting discussion, while some of them are full of pond scum.

And then write up the findings, along with a nice simple checklist for "How to manage the comments on your site if you want good discussion".

Because, frankly, on 95% of the sites out there I avoid reading the comments, because I know it's just not good for my blood pressure.

Comments

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Gawker - where you have to audition to become a regular commentator. When you first comment it shows up by has to be approved by either a member of the staff or a "gold star" commentator before he or she can bid again.

When you are first approved you are a regular level commentator and users can flag their comments if considered inappropriate. Over time if the commentator proves him or herself they get a gold star and can not be flagged but get the right to flag non gold star users and approve newbie commentators.

[andrewducker]

Similar with Hacker News (see above).