Re:Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com
by disgruntledphd2 on Monday March 15, 2021 @03:42AM
(#26463431)
Maybe (I've never tried to look at WaPo comments). I did find that the WSJ comments are much, much worse than the FT comments (angrier, less interesting).
I wonder if this is driven by the different susbscription prices, or just the different audience.
Re:Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com
by wombatmobile on Monday March 15, 2021 @05:38AM
(#26464018)
> the WSJ comments section is generally of higher quality with e.g. better spelling/grammar, less flamewar, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio.
How many WSJ comments sections have you actually read?
Re:Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com
by neartheplain on Monday March 15, 2021 @05:47AM
(#26464055)
That's what I'm saying, the Post's comments are even worse.
Re:Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com
by Symbiote on Monday March 15, 2021 @06:17AM
(#26464225)
The gold standard for comments is Tim Dowling's articles in The Guardian.
I don't dare look at the WP now.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/mar/13/tim-dow...
Re:Why we’re removing comments on most of Inquirer.com
by Tarsul on Monday March 15, 2021 @07:01AM
(#26464465)
yeah I'm actually quite happy with the comments on the Guardian. They don't have them on a lot of articles but when they do they always have their Guardian Picks, meaning high quality comments that are highlighted. I don't know why the general comment section there is good but one point is definitely moderation. They even delete postings (spam or flame wars).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/coronavirus...
Who wants to scroll through 1k comments in a narrow, awkwardly-paginated column? They also allow posts from anyone with an email account (mitigated somewhat by the paywall on most articles) which results in a lot of high-emotion, low-information spam. By contrast, the Wall Street Journal limits comments only to people with a subscription. Perhaps as a result, the WSJ comments section is generally of higher quality with e.g. better spelling/grammar, less flamewar, and a higher signal-to-noise ratio.