Digg-style reply handling?

I know this is probably just a pipe dream, but after browsing sites like Digg and Reddit, I wondered... why hasn't anyone developed a message board that works the same way as their comment sections? The ability to vote replies up and down (and not display poorly-voted replies) seems like the best way to get rid of 'garbage'... members are encouraged to write constructive posts, lest their posts get hidden, and those browsing topics can easily skip over worthless posts.

I'm just throwing this out there, but I think this kind of rating system could be the next killer app for message boards.

It would turn commenting into a popularity contest.

I have no desire to vote on posts. :)

It's not like we have the comment volume those sites have anyway.

But a "Buzz" button next to comments/stories would be cool... right?

Buzzed!

While on my list of things to do eventually implement for the next forum version (it won't be there on launch of the new site), I'm also trying to get my head around its value. If you visit Digg, you know that a lot of, no, most, comments get negative votes because people don't agree with the comment. That doesn't indicate the value of the post, it indicates how popular the opinion is. That's of little value to anyone, because seeing only posts you agree with negates the point of debate and discussion in the first place. The "wisdom of crowds" at Digg is that they're not wise at all, and I don't trust them to decide which comments are worthy.

I don't know if the solution to that is something similar, but called something different. As a human element, I tend to delete noise posts that just say something stupid like "LOL" or whatever, but I only see a small fraction of posts (ditto for other mods).

Discuss. :)

Digg is a self moderated forum, the purpose of their comment handling is to bury the flames and off-topic comments and to allow the conversation to continue. Coasterbuzz has good mods who do it for us.

Just because an opinion isn't popular doesn't make it invalid. Or wrong. Or something that shouldn't be read.

Wayyyyyyy back in my URC days--before there was a 'Buzz--I remember a thread about a death at KCS-MOA. A kid got scared, jumped from a log flume boat, hit his head and died. Was it 100% rider error? Yep. Was the child of an age generally old enough to know better? Also true. But regardless of the mistakes he made? The child was DEAD now...and I asked everybody to back off a bit out of respect for the parents' loss.

Popular? Back then? Absolutely not. Correct? Most people these days would show a little more compassion. But each reader has the right to decide individually. Besides, half the threads wouldn't make sense if the posts were out of sequence...

-'Playa

Jeff is exactly right. While Digg takes an interesting approach to comments, many of their users are not capable of using it as intended. Perhaps that's the Digg audience, or perhaps that's one of the downsides to social networking. Probably a little of both. Rather than vote down noise, people vote down things they don't agree with. It ends up being a one-sided discussion with intelligent, well-thought-out posts hidden by default merely because they're not from the viewpoint of the majority.

Providing a means for discussion is a problem that a lot of social networking and community web sites have. Maybe we take the advantages of the Digg system and combine it with the advantages of the system in place here. Create a group of trusted users, larger than the moderator group, and allow them to rank posts by quality. All posts are shown, but posts that are thought highly of by that group are indicated as such. Enough votes, and it gets a different color. You could then use that data to highlight quality threads containing many good posts. Over time, certain users become noted as people who provide substance. Emphasis can be placed on quality, with good posts getting a bump, but poor posts not necessarily getting a knock. That way it's just an add-on to highlight good content, and doesn't overshadow the community itself. Otherwise, it could become a way for a small group of users to direct the conversation.

In replying, there needs to be something cleaner than a quote, but better than the awful ^ ^^ ^^^ system. Usenet style? No thanks. Sure, people should write their posts using enough English to make it clear who they are responding to, but that's not going to happen in the real world. Keep it linear, but automatically add a small footnote indicating if it is a direct response to someone else's post, or add nothing if it is just a new post in the thread?

I don't know if these ideas would work or not, but part of brainstorming is putting everything on the table.

I thought Photojojo came up with, at the very least, an interesting way to handle discussion. I haven't spent enough time there to determine if I like it, but at least it's something different to evaluate.

I think the way they handle replying directly to a comment is ok, where a tree is created, but again, you have to use it correctly for it to work. A lot of people will just reply to the last post, even if the post was off topic, allowing the conversation to lose its way.

Curious, what exactly is Photojojo doing differently?

I've often toyed with the idea of making a Digg for amusement ind. news, but the amount of PHP combined with DOM it would take... eh, maybe I'll try next summer.
As it is, I would like to see votes on posts, because not only does it tell me how many people agree with me, but it kinda helps people post better.

Photojojo isn't doing anything revolutionary, per se. They're just using a unique way to show which threads are most popular. The threads themselves are also very clean from a design point-of-view.

The funny thing about Digg ranking stories is that it's really no different from the number of replies to a story. Even though people may or may not be that prone to commenting, the number of comments is typically proportional to the number of digs, so it's essentially what forums have been doing for a decade.

---

eightdotthree said:
Digg is a self moderated forum, the purpose of their comment handling is to bury the flames and off-topic comments and to allow the conversation to continue.

---

That might be the purpose, but that's not what happens. Like I said, people vote down things they don't agree with, not noise.

Which makes me wonder if a compromise is to vote for posts as agree, disagree, or noise. The agree/disagree pretty much becomes throw away data, but still.

The problem with most ranking systems is that they're all based on quantities and have nothing to do with quality. Even Google's page rank works that way, looking at inbound links.

I wish there was some way to better address the replying situation, but I've yet to figure one out. True Usenet-style threading sucks because it's too cumbersome. It's like going down a hotel hallway and ducking in and out of each room to carry on conversations. I don't read the Digg comments anymore beyond the top level.

---

Jeff said:

Which makes me wonder if a compromise is to vote for posts as agree, disagree, or noise. The agree/disagree pretty much becomes throw away data, but still.

---

Now that is an idea I really like. Each post could simply have the total "votes" and percentages of each votes (agree or disagree), and a place to click to "vote." There would be no effect on ranking.

After a certain amount of "Noise" clicks from individual users, 10 or whatever, the mods can be automatically notified. After 25 "noise" clicks the post is automatically deleted.

That idea, or something similar, is something I would look at implementing.

*** Edited 7/18/2007 3:08:59 PM UTC by James K***