Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Seconding Jan's Suggestions for TPM
Jan Knaus had these three suggestions for improving the new TPMCafe site. I just wanted to mention that I agree with all three:
1. Marking new posts as "new" so as not to waste time re-reading.
2. A way to review one's own posts to allow for a conversatoin.
3. A method to give support to a comment.
Josh did respond to Jan's blog post--but unfortunately the post has now been buried in the archives so many won't see Jan's suggestions or Josh's response. Good news for those who haven't seen the response (or similar responses to other complaints), Josh and Andrew are working at least on points 1 and 2.
I do think Jan's third suggestion (to have some kind of easy way to say I like or dislike a comment) is good. I never liked the idea of having "quality" ratings (which is what the old ratings were supposed to be), since it's against human nature for people to divorce their opinion about the content of the post from their opinion about the quality of expression or argument. A simpler approach which allows people to do what they want to do--say "I like this a lot" or "I disagree with it"--contributes significantly to the interaction between commentators, I think, and helps create a sense of community. I'd get rid of the "troll" ratings that allow some people's comments to be hidden and the "karma" ratings that give some people special status to see hidden comments. But a simple five point rating scale that measures degree of enthusiasm for a post adds to the "fun" of participating in the dialogue. And, yes, fun is important--I read this site for entertainment more than I read it for ideas . . . That's not to say the ideas aren't important, but if the site's not fun, I can find ideas elsewhere.
Comments (15)
We are working on 1 and 2 to make sure folks can track their discussions. And we're working on fixing the sign-in problems and a few other things folks have flagged for us.
On #3, rating comments, we'll discuss it. And I'd be happy to hear thoughts from others. That being said, the comment rating system at the old Cafe was very often abused to attack folks over disagreement instead of promote substantive disagreements and contributions.
Others thoughts?
February 18, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the comment ratings were abused but I think an "I agree!" or "I really don't!" option would be nice. Rather than rating the quality of the post, it'd provide a kind of instant scorecard and would provide what many of us used the old rating system for anyway -- as a quick pat on the back to a comment where we might have nothing to add.
February 18, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the old rating system for it's "flagging" effect - if loads of folks rated a comment 5 (especially a longer one), you'd read it. And as a reader, I'd put down a 5 rating for a comment that I liked and to which had nothing much to add.
What I particularly disliked was people who gave a low rating instead of responding to a post - surely one of the objectives here is that when you disagree with people you have a chance to set out the counter-argument.
So maybe a "good comment" or "agree" option, as well as a flag for abusive comments. But not a "bad comment" or "disagree" option - people who feel strongly enough should take it upon themselves to explain why.
February 18, 2008 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Link to Jan Knaus' post to which you refer.
Meta, meta...
The fact that one needs someone to link to a post where the managers of the site said things about changes in the site is indicative of the entire problem with the site. It's like a secret club to know about what's going on, and that's really ironic because elsewhere management and some posters have said that the old software was difficult to figure out how to use. They ended up "solving" that problem by making only "breaking" content accessible and management statements even more difficult to find.
It's almost like a grand metaphor for everything in da world these days: disposable everything, everyone has A.D.D., Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, news becoming old in one second. There's further irony in that in the solution chosen for dealing with the server issues (as was explained by Josh Marshall in one of the "hidden" posts) the gratification that so many find in the ability to get instantaneous posting on the internet was one of the things taken away: they have to wait to see their post but there is no added benefit of thoughtfulness because no editing is available.
Less lofty thoughts upon having to go to the archive to find the link....
A prediction and suggestion for management:
The set-up with a link to weekly archives at the bottom is simply going to train the smart people to game the system to wait to post at the beginning of the week so their post does not go to archive right away.
You need pagination of the the posts, in chronological order, not putting them into weekly archives, in order to avoid this. Same for the front page.
This will also aid in your Recommend system. Few are going to recommend things beyond a single page of Reader Blogs. That's because when they load the weekly archive that is the only way to see more, they first get repeats of everything they already looked at, and most will just close the page. If they simply got a page 2 of ten more Reader Blogs, they might bother with continuing.
February 18, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This past weekend saw roughly 60 comments per day, total, on either the main Cafe page or the "Recommended" reader blogs. Reduce that by the multiple comments from individual users and it looks like a handful of folks actually here. Recommended posts are typically on the list with four or five votes. Top one has 35, but next down is 12, and least is 3.
There seems little to say on anything other than the election, and that is the main action, but it's at Election Central, where posts are picking up comments in the hundred range.
Why keep the Cafe?
February 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really good question. They really aren't using the separate sites that they went to so much trouble to create, and then link together as a separate log-in, as separate sites.
Possibly it's that they still might have the desire of finding main page posters who are interested in other things than about the election?
If they wanted to transition back to that now, alternatively, they might think of asking the regular main-page contributors who, when they want to say something about election matters, to post that column on Election Central.
Currently the separate sites are really increasingly becoming just duplicates. TPMCafe has no distinctive brand anymore, it's just another page of the main site. Election Central is just another page of the main site, too. The main page seems to be becoming more and more a summary page or index to the other pages. That is like Page A1 of a newspaper, and I recall Josh saying he'd like to emulate that long ago. But in a newspaper, the different sections that are referred to on page A1 are really different sections: Style, Business, Arts & Leisure, not all the same thing.
February 18, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bug report:
Purple State's name as author is missing from the individual page for this post
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/02/seconding-jans-suggestions-for.php
though it it does appear on the Reader Blog page.
I have seen this happen--missing authors--on other posts, user Notrol is one I've seen it happen to, and there were others.
February 18, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's on our list, thanks.
February 18, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's time to bring back Classic Coke.
Draw a double line under this experiment and go back to the old system. Perhaps with some pruning.
It was a good try but the dogs aren't eating the dog food.
February 18, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, I think it is just a dream world fantasy to expect a ratings system to be totally objective as to the quality of the comment being rated. People just don't act that way. But, applauding is a normal action. So, I continue to believe that "ratings" should be a "thumbs up" vs "thumbs down" activity, with an absence of a rating by a reader being a "shrug".
I don't think a comment getting a preponderance of "thumbs down" ratings should be downgraded. I may utterly disagree with a comment, rate it "thumbs down", but still enjoy having read it, and even learn from what I read. The "good" comments would be those that arouse a reader to rate them either way.
And, let me take this opportunity to thank you and the staff at TPM for continuing to work to solve the many problems we are reporting here. I, and I hope others, will wait for the fixes to be in place before I decide if the "new TPM Cafe" fills a need for me or can be ignored.
February 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I usually "thumbs up" such comments, myself, but perhaps a third way is to have two ways of rating comments: (1) agree/neutral/disagree, (2) well said/acceptable/idiotic. Just as there are posts that I disagree with that are well said, there are posts I generally agree with that are idiotic. (E.g., I agree with the general sentiment but think either how it's said is unfortunate or a given example doesn't support that sentiment—Global warming is happening! I know it because of one unusually hot day!)
February 18, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another idea that has been bouncing around in my head: Originally TPM Cafe was where readers could interact with posters and other readers, but TPM was a place where Josh posted his comments with no on line responses allowed. That made TPM Cafe special. Today, we have the whole family of TPM sites which equally allow us to interact with each other and with the post author. That dimenishes the specialness of TPM Cafe. In fact I can't even clearly describe how TPM Cafe differs from Election Central, for example, other than by subject matter, to some extent.
So, I would find it better for TPM to remain as is, for Election Central and Muckraker to allow no on line comments, and for TPM Cafe to be where we go to engage in discussion/debate on the issues.
TPM Cafe also allows us to have our own blogs - I am probably a minority on this, but I wouldn't miss it if that function were omitted, as long as there was a "readers table" function where we can be posters of original content.
February 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A few quick thoughts on ratings:
My mother used to say "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." I can't say I follow that advice as often as I probably should, but I still think it's sound advice--and particularly good when it comes to ratings of internet posts. Negative ratings don't seem to accomplish anything worthwhile. Real trolls or abusers are only encouraged by negative ratings--they're looking to get a reaction and to cause strife. Giving them a zero or thumbs down only confirms that what they are doing is working and so they do more of it. If someone says something dumb but not offensive what good is achieved by rubbing the fact in their face?
For all of the above reasons, I think we should only have positive ratings (all carrot, no stick). If you don't like a post, just ignore it. If someone is being abusive, just ignore them.
It is helpful, however, to be able to say something nice when you like something someone wrote. It encourages them to write more--and it helps build friendships and general good feeling. So positive ratings are useful, I believe.
Here's what I would suggest. Three ratings:
-Recommend and agree (for posts you think are good and worth reading and with which you generally agree)
-Recommend but disagree (for posts you think are interesting to read, but that you don't agree with)
-Recommend (for other posts you think are interesting and worthwile to read but with which you don't want to express agreement or disagreement)
I wouldn't associate numbers with these ratings. Instead, I'd just list the total number of votes in each category like this:
Rec: 8 Rec/Agree: 10 Rec/Disagree: 2
This gives skimmers some idea whether posts are worth reading and also whether the opinions are popular or unpopular with readers--all interesting and useful information in my opinion. It also provides some guidance to the writer on how well the comment was received by readers.
Some might argue that we could simply get away with just a "recommend" feature, but I think it's nice to be able to express agreement. It's also hard to recommend something you disagree with, but the "recomend but disagree" option gives you a way to say "nice job" to someone whose opinions you think are wrong but whose writing is good and interesting. I frequently read things on this web site that I think are well argued and worth reading, but I'm reluctant to give them a high rating if their viewpoint is not mine because I fear people may misinterpret my high rating as an endorsement of an argument with which I disagree. Having the "recommend but disagree" option gives me a way to recognize good work by people with whom I respectfully--even very respectfully--disagree.
February 18, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just add that it was nice to be able to track who rated your post and how they rated it, as well as see how others rated various posts (both your own posts and others' posts). This helped you gain a better understanding of where your TPMCafe peers stood on particular issues and added to the sense of community.
February 18, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not allow user blogs addressing TPM issues to be posted in the House Brew section? I am a complete ignoramus when it comes to tech thingies so don't know if that would be possible...but it would help to keep things organized.
As for ratings et al, I was never a fan and only used the system once to (mistakenly as it turned out) to uprate a comment. However, I would appreciate being able to recommend posters' comments. On the negative side, I think a "thumbs down" option is counterproductive as it stifles conversation and is too easy to utilize in a fit of personal pique. Until this damn primary is over and done with, emotional responses are going to be more common, IMO.
Disclosure; I spent several years on a fractious political forum utilized neither ratings nor private messaging so am biased as a result of that experience. Sometime flame wars would break out until the site administrator took control and warned posters that banning/timeouts would be forthcoming if it continued. It worked once users understood he meant it and enforced the rules in a public manner.
One major complaint I have had about this site is that there are no guidlines for users when it comes to what behavior is deemed unacceptable and what are the consequences for serial abusers of the "rules". You guys are way overdue for taking the basic steps to lay out your redlines in that regard.
Several dozen former Cafe regulars have departed for Eric Stepp's Project Lucidity forum and although his rules of engagement are presented in a somewhat disorganized, personalized manner and some are too arbitrary, he makes clear what behaviors he will not tolerate.
(I'm posting the link to the forum rules to provide an example, not a blueprint.)
http://projectlucidity.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=a3eab6cb2cc6f3ed0774738a8d83bd76&topic=4.0
February 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment