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

[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.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, the unwillingness of moderators to tidy the comments up inevitably leads to disaster. Comments need to be dealt with quickly, otherwise situations deteriorate.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

It's HOW you deal with them, too. Personally my preferred approach would be something like:

Andrew, [Ad hominem deleted by moderator - be nice, guys, we're all on the same side here], but I agree that comments need to be tidied rapidly.

[andrewducker]

Hey, you can't say that about my mother!

I don't actually have the ability to do that on LJ, but I can freeze and delete comments, which seems to work reasonably well.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Those are important rules/principles, and probably all that are needed.

Personally, I rarely read Comments on anything but Making Light and a few trusted blogs done by people who pretty much follow your suggestions -- the Newspaper & other Mass Media sites' Comment threads I sampled all seemed to be inherently toxic.

[matgb]

This.

Any site, especially a mainstream news site, that allows freeform comments but offers no engagement will see the comments devolve horribly.

I suspect more succesful sites will eventually need to switch on 1), and all should, if OpenID was more userfriendly, be able to start insisting on at least OpenID (or similar, like Oauth or Facebook).

I think newspaper sites should, if they're going to allow comments, insist the journalist that wrote the article follow and respond to comments.

On CiF, the only threads worth reading are the ones where the post was written by a blogger who then engages properly in comments.

It's not the actual commenting system that matters (even LJ comments boxes can become sewers, especially on feeds). IT's the level of engagement and the sense of community.

Here, I know I can talk to pretty much any other commenter and get a decent discussion out of it. I can do that on some wordpress blogs, even some bloody blogger blogs. But on other LJs, even those of actual friends, commenting is rarely worth it, and replying to someone I don't know? Scary reactions are scary.

Atmosphere matters a lot, takes time to build up a decent comments box.

[skington.livejournal.com]

Otherwise known as: Do What Teresa Nielsen Hayden says.

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

Close, anyway. I disagree with TNH on a couple of points of community management, and think she's occasionally more aggressive than she needs to be, but yeah, in general, she Knows Her Shit.