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

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I once accidentally wandered into the Daily Mail readers comments section.

My sanity is yet to recover.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

From my not inextensive experience:

1) Allow commenting without registration, but do NOT allow anonymous commenting.

2) Be very very active as a moderator - you should respond to most comments yourself.

3) Try "be nice, guys" first if an argument looks like it's kicking off, or equivalent. De-escalate. There are excellent courses out there on how to do this.

4) PMs (personal messages) to people being dicks are also good.

5) Disemvoweling or editing messages is more effective than deleting, and interrupts the conversation less.

6) Do not be afraid to use the banhammer if you have to.

[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.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Also...it depends what comment you want, obviously.

4chan? /b/ is... /b/. But /ck/ (cooking) has some superbly interesting and insightful chatter.

Yeah, I know.

4chan is also deeply honest. There are no status games.

Plastic.com used to be where I went for political debate, but now I stick to Comment is Free for the most part. But even there, the tiny Guardian boxes cramp comment.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

a nice simple checklist for "How to manage the comments on your site if you want good discussion".

A smart person I know recently did just this - here you go:

1) There
2) Are
3) Of
4) Course
5) No
6) Such
7) Things

There's plenty of top tips (many of them with some evidence to suggest they help), but my experience (and I'm sort-of paid to know about this stuff) is that the comments you get are the product of the social context, not the technical system. The technical system can have an influence (sometimes profound), but the 'right' technical tool is neither necessary nor sufficient for good discussion. (Also, defining 'good discussion' really rigorously is bloody hard.)

[phillipalden.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. I'll have the time for that project sometime around 2050.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I seem not to have problems with my blood-pressure when reading those toxic comments, but do need to be careful lest it trigger an attack of Clinical Depression when contemplating the possibility that those writers may be, after all, typical human beings.

Anything on the InterNet can attract the occasional jerk, of course, but I find that topics with any whiff of Politics (including "Political Correctness", Racism/Sexism, & Economics subsets) or Religion tend to be worst, with others such as Gardening and Cooking being generally civil. (Not that no-one ever goes off on a wild tirade, but when it happens, often as not, the others (mostly Regulars) just give a "X is Ranting about that Pet Peeve again" shrug.)