Mozilla Working On a New Website Comment System 142
sfcrazy writes Mozilla is working on developing a content and commenting platform in collaboration with The New York Times and The Washington Post. The platform aims to be the next-generation commenting and content creation platform which will give more control to readers. Mozilla says in a blog post, “The community platform will allow news organizations to connect with audiences beyond the comments section, deepening opportunities for engagement. Through the platform, readers will be able to submit pictures, links and other media; track discussions, and manage their contributions and online identities. Publishers will then be able to collect and use this content for other forms of storytelling and spark ongoing discussions by providing readers with targeted content and notifications.” The project is being funded by Knights Foundation.
Re: (Score:1)
Slashdot Beta is not the answer. It is regression to the failing standard of the average blog post as set by Google and Facebook and all those sites the OP is suggesting needs improvement. As long as it is the site owners who want to be in control of discussions, we may not progress very far, but if they are really interesting is sparking discussion then they must introduce features of older discussion forums and features of USENET, meaning user-settable topics, context quoting, and forking of subthreads.
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhh! 1st rule of usenet, and all that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, forgot to sign in.
Re: (Score:2)
...which is precisely why I don't (and won't) use such commenting systems. Single sign-on is a terrible idea.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So decentralisation of commenting, with a unified account?
Sounds a lot like Disqus to me, which most people thoroughly hate.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the Internet. "People" hate everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, people 'hate' everything. But Disqus doesn't have much going for it, other than being cross-site. Only one level of thread indentation, the frequent downtime, how it ties in with Twitter and Facebook is both a positive and a negative, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
This. Disqus is horrible. Even if it worked right, it would still be horrible.
No, *de*centralisation (Score:2)
No. It's the exact opposite. With Disqus, all discussion is stored centrally, on the Disqus servers.
Re: (Score:2)
1: meh... It is the web... it's what people do on the web, make new things. 2: It's not twitter. There are a lot of people who would think that's a definite positive.
As long as it doesn't want access to all your personal information from any and all networks you might belong to, sure why not. But really, it's probably just a way for Mozilla and the others involved to cash in on data mining. It's inte
Re: (Score:2)
Got anything to back up that cynicism?
I'm not convinced Mozilla are sellouts.
Re: (Score:2)
"So decentralisation of commenting, with a unified account?"
Never. People want their 8 dozen sockpuppets.
A return of Google's comment bar? (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the comment bar plugin Google had for Firefox back before the Chrome days? It let you comment on ANY webpage? Anyone who had the plugin could see you comment. Side Wiki or something? I can't recall the name.
Yeah, this sounds a little like that.
Side Wiki or something? (Score:2)
Likewise I have been trying to find or remember this tool.
I though it a very interesting idea. What happened to it?
Re:A return of Google's comment bar? (Score:4, Informative)
Some further info on Side Wicki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org]
"A good substitute could be the Google Chrome Extension: "Plus Comments" or "Site Comments":
Re: (Score:2)
Sortof. SideWiki had the advantage that the website operators could not easily censor and control the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
How many times, though, so people complain about a Youtubs vid or a BBC article having comments disabled? I like the idea of a "fuck you, we're discussing this anyway" service.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you here.
By all means keep the official on-site discussion. I like to think of this as the kids in the back of the room discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
What I want to know is why it's fine for me to make my own, but it's not okay for Google, or in this case Firefox? It's not like it was on by default, you had to download it from Google Labs. I really don't care if it exist or not, I thought it was interesting, I installed it, but I wound up ignoring it like I do most bells and whistles.
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly see people mad that they aren't getting a financial cut and people mad because someone other than them is regulating speach on their page. It amazes me how many people want to regulate speach.
If it's nothing but a vandal wall people will ignore it. If it's something great people will use it. Low tollerance people will cry to regulate it, I'm a little tired of people crying until they get regulations on things they don't like. If someone wants to side Wiki let them, I don't care if they're huge
Re: (Score:2)
I was just thinking about that, but I couldn't remember who created or much about it all really. Because it sucked.
Core competency (Score:5, Funny)
Web browser maker decides to create a disqus competitor, instead of working on their web browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given how increasingly shite recent versions of firefox have been, that's probably a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with them?
I run often on a ---slow--- machine with a small screen (eee 900). The recent builds have seemed a bit better to me. And honestly the new style is butt ugly, but uses less screen space. With a nice, easy to find add on to restore a more classic look it's basically fine.
Re: (Score:1)
It's change... some of the neckbears just don't like change...
Now, to return to our regularly scheduled "back in my day, I used lynx and you didn't hear me complain"... followed by "god damnit you kids, get off my lawn"
Re: (Score:3)
It's change... some of the neckbears just don't like change...
Now, to return to our regularly scheduled "back in my day, I used lynx and you didn't hear me complain"... followed by "god damnit you kids, get off my lawn"
Not a neckbeard, but in general, change for change's sake is not a good thing.
If you throw out the good as well when getting rid of the bad, you'll just keep coming up with mediocre products (firefox, gnome, etc).
I liked some of the more stable Firefox builds before they went on their arms race with Chrome. But now, I find hideous Firefox memory leaks, removal/hiding of long-established and very useful features, and a poorer interface. This is not progress.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're happy with the layout of the icons. I'm not. The current version (29) has severely crippled customization compared to whatever I was using before.
But hey, rounded tabs!
Re: (Score:3)
Why the hell should I need to install some plugin (that'll probably steal my passwords or poison my cat) to unfuck-down something that shouldn't have been fucked-up in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
In 2050 Firefox will be a wood-pulp mill in Finland.
Re: (Score:2)
On this machine I'm running 26.4, which is more or less OK. My other machine has 29 which is a fucking trainwreck.
Somewhere between was the one which would always try to restore all your tabs despite telling it not to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really something how they can't find time to make a 64 bit browser that isn't half-assed, but can find time for this instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Great, the Linux users are covered! That's going to guarantee Firefox 1% worldwide market share.
Re: (Score:2)
And really building it on Windows takes about as much effort as complaining about it seeing how the machine does all the work.
Is there a tool to automatically set up the build prerequisites on Windows [mozilla.org], including downloading and installing Visual Studio Express and the Windows SDK? And how many GB of your monthly Internet cap would that consume?
Re: (Score:3)
meanwhile people are leaving Google's Chome in droves because they fear it's used to violate their privacy. And nobody is adopting Google's new products - which is why Google keeps cancelling them.
See, its easy to make generalised statements about something. Firefox is a good thing, although it makes some people get all bothered about UI changes that are pretty inconsequential (hell, the last set of UI changes made it look *more* like Chrome, yet you say they leaving *for* Chrome....)
Anyway, I think a "stan
Core competency (Score:2)
Well, the core of Firefox was written more than 10 years ago, and while it didn't necessarily have to be that way, the truth is that it has simply not kept up. Just getting Firefox to optimally use a modern multi-core processor is considered a massive effort. It is time for Mozilla to close down Firefox development (like they did with Thunderbird). Or at the very least, fork Chrome - it's been done before and it will give them instant parity with all modern web browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
are you doing something that really makes you think this matters?
I use Firefox on my desktop. Until I started getting ULV processors for me ultrabooks and such. Firefox tanks there, even with SSDs. So much so that my need to maintain syncing between portables and desktop caused me to abandon Firefox on the desktop too. Australis just encouraged me to ditch it.
So, your condescension aside, I did manage to talk to Firefox developers over IRC and they themselves concede that Electrolysis is not even close to s
Opening Cracked articles in tabs on an Atom (Score:2)
My own (nontrivial) browsing is definitely not CPU-bound. I've never said "wow my browser keeps using 100% of a cpu, if only it could utilize the other cores too!"
On my laptop with an Atom N450 (single core, dual SMT) CPU, when I go to Cracked.com in the morning and open the four new articles of the day in tabs, Firefox is CPU-bound for tens of seconds. I see the CPU usage pegging at 50%, which represents one of the two virtual cores in use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mozilla wants an 'open Web'. Making an open source browser is a big part of that.
Protecting users from mass surveillance is another. Crippling third-party systems by default is a big part of that.
Unfortunately that kills some existing services, like unified commenting systems, which users want. Someone *could* come along with a unified commenting system which doesn't conduct mass surveillance, but that's an unlikely business model at the moment. Hence Mozilla's solving the chicken-and-egg problem themselves
Re: (Score:2)
Web browser maker decides to create a disqus competitor, instead of working on their web browser.
It probably has something to do with the money:
"The two-year development project will be funded by a $3.89 million grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Miami-based philanthropic organization that specializes in media and the arts."
A thousand times no (Score:5, Insightful)
Single sign-on is a fine thing. But let's encourage people to run their own message bases, because I'm tired of having to figure out which domains I need to permit scripts from, and because I don't really want one company aggregating all my comments without even having to work for them.
The Slashdot comment system (Score:4, Insightful)
is probably the "least bad" one I've seen. It would be nice if multiple ratings could be applied to a post, ("+1 funny, +1 insightful, -1 Troll") but it is fairly good at reducing the trolls and flamage.
Re:The Slashdot comment system (Score:5, Insightful)
The system is overrated because of the user composition.
If Slashdot was a forum about games, movies and cars we'd have posts from five year olds with +5 insightful and infantile internet memes with +5 funny.
Re:The Slashdot comment system (Score:5, Funny)
How is that any different from Slashdot at any point over the past 15 years?
Re:In Sovjet Russia... (Score:1)
the System comments you! ... sorry... had to....
The Slashdot comment system (Score:3)
You've never been to reddit. That commenting system is close to perfect. It does it's job, and it's scaleable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the subreddits are very good.
However the rest of the site is full of emo redditards who downvote by group-think just because they "disagree" with the status quo.
Reddit is the 4chan of /.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I HATE HATE HATE reddit's commenting system.
Re: (Score:3)
is probably the "least bad" one I've seen. It would be nice if multiple ratings could be applied to a post, ("+1 funny, +1 insightful, -1 Troll") but it is fairly good at reducing the trolls and flamage.
It's got its problems though...
When there's an article, there are some obvious things you can post and get high mod points for. You just have to be the first to post that particular comment.
Article: Something about patent trolls
Post: Patent trolls should be strung up by their thumbs!!!
+5 insightful
So basically, if you want higher mod points, you're just racing to make that post. That's dumb, and ensures the top 5 comments on any story are going to be very predictable and Slashdot comments have an obvious te
Re: (Score:2)
Article: Something about patent trolls
Post: Patent trolls should be strung up by their thumbs!!!
+5 insightful
Or make the "hilarious" joke about patenting the process of filing patents.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, if you want higher mod points, you're just racing to make that post. That's dumb,
Which is why I, for one, don't do that. I personally have two goals in the /. MMORPG, aside from raising my achievement score; getting successful submissions (which raises the score) and getting good first-to-score-five comments, not just the predictable ones. I don't claim I'm the game's premier player or anything, but I think I've got some skills.
I tend to see pretty much everything in game terms, probably due to all the formative years wasted playing dungeon crawlers, so don't be especially insulted. Bes
Re:The Slashdot comment system (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often wanted +0 "inciteful" - a combination of insightful and flamebait, for those posts that blend useful information with a barrage of unnecessary name-calling.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not to mention a -1 "just plain incorrect". for supposedly factual statements made that turn out to be misguided, common myth, or at worst deliberately intended to mislead.
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention a -1 "just plain incorrect". for supposedly factual statements made that turn out to be misguided, common myth, or at worst deliberately intended to mislead.
In honor of Slashdot, land of strenuously defending bad behavior, I propose that it should be called (-1, WRONG)
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention a -1 "just plain incorrect". for supposedly factual statements made that turn out to be misguided, common myth, or at worst deliberately intended to mislead.
I've wanted that for awhile as well. Eventually I started using -1, Overrated for that, justifying to myself that a factually wrong post at the default +2 or +1 is still "overrated."
Re:Bring back Usenet! (Score:2)
I would love to have more modern version of Usenet. A simple news and commenting protocol that can be implemented in a web browser or a dedicated client alike. Something that is ubiquitous as RSS feeds. I have a client that aggregates all the latest articles from my favorite sites and and then can go in and browse comments in a tree like structure. I would have the ability to mark individual stories and even sub-threads to follow or know what comments I have read or have yet to read. Hell, I doubt that som
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I miss the early days of the internet where everything had a tool, and there was a tool for everything. There were programs and protocols galore: HTTP, Gopher, Usenet, Email, FTP, IRC, Archie / Veronica, Telnet for BBSes. Most of them are dead or so niche to be included only for "legacy compatibility". Now there is just HTTP to rule them all and shit is boring.
Boy, I miss that about the Internet too, where you had open protocols and then people chose their own interface to use it. Everyone was happy! Now you have a mish-mash of proprietary protocols on websites using interfaces that are, for the most part, inferior to many of the programs that we used 15 years ago. Use whatever interface the end user likes the most. How revolutionary!
Re: (Score:2)
It exists - sort of - and it's pretty cool. Check out www.squte.com. It's a web overlay to Usenet, permitting modding up and down and a lot more. Written by a guy who really loves Usenet but recognizes that it needs a web interface that provides the functionality people coming from systems like Reddit or Slashdot would expect.
It's pretty commendable, really. GIve it a look.
Re: (Score:2)
Disqus already exists and it's terrible.
So... Disqus? (Score:2)
Will it support moderation? (Score:1)
Will this system support the moderation (a.k.a. censorship) of comments?
I can't see mainstream media corporations adopting it if it does not support the editing or removal of commentary they disagree with.
But does supporting such functionality conflict with Mozilla's mission and the Mozilla Manifesto? Can Mozilla really claim to stand for openness and freedom while simultaneously creating a system that supports overt and indisputable censorship?
Re: (Score:2)
Shockingly, most major websites don't want to have Goatse links showing up to their users, and thus want moderation tools.
I know, that's just crazy talk.
All this... (Score:5, Interesting)
At a time when news organizations are shuttering their comment sections?
One news agency after another are realizing that comments actually *hurt* readership because there are enough asshole commenters out there posting crap, that it's actually turning off readers from their service entirely.
Re:All this... (Score:5, Funny)
Aww man, I started to read that in "Epic Movie Trailer Guy" voice.
"At a time when news organizations are shuttering their comment sections, one news agency took a chance to engage with it's readers. This summer watch how The Washington Post turns the tables on big media. Clint Eastwood reprises his role as the pilot of the Firefox (*cut to scene of him clicking on a hyperlink*). From the Director of Mozilla vs Mothrasoft. Commenting will never be the same."
Re:All this... (Score:4, Insightful)
At the same time, I have found that comments on news sites were actually some of the best information out there - just like here on Slashdot. Yes, there are ahole trolls and idiots, but there aren't as many as some make it out to be - and there are usually sides to a story that aren't being told by the story itself where commenters fill in the blanks.
To be fair, though, the quality of comments overall - including here at Slashdot - has declined, simply because people don't spend the time typing up large treatises anymore. More people want a Twitter-like soundbyte more than information, and won't read comments more than a few lines long. They have better thing to... squirrel!
Re: (Score:3)
My local McClatchy-owned news site recently went to strictly Facebook login posting. Which whittled out the obvious trolls but as a byproduct, resulted in the same set of commenters on every article.
But what's interesting is that even with their full names, pictures and even employer names showing alongside the posts, they still submit inflamatory and trollish stuff. Especially politics and religion. Like one adjuster for Allstate recently went on a rampage about an unmarried female congressional candida
Re: (Score:2)
re facebook posters... I always thought this quote was particularly apt:
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.
I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
But.. it turns out that they were just twats all along, which is depressing.
Best voting system evah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot does. Mark someone as a foe. Gone.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What I want is a 'foe' system that cuts out not only the foe's posts but the entire comment tree started by them.
I've found kill-files are somewhat useless when well-intentioned troll-feeders reply and I end up seeing the troll's nonsense in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
Most forums do have that. It's called an ignore list. They've had such a feature since forever ago.
Pale Moon (Score:1)
http://www.palemoon.org/ [palemoon.org]
They just overhauled the Times' comments (Score:2)
Within the past 18 months along with the whole web site. It's gotten really JS heavy and the comments section (which is only allowed to fill the right 1/3 of the browser window), which makes it really painful to use and browse the comments.
I liked the older system which had the comments on the bottom of the news story instead of on the side.
It's may not be practical, but it would almost be nice to see an IMDB style comments section for every story the way IMDB has one for every cast member and every film/s
Probable major FU in TFS (Score:2)
The Fine Summary states that the sponsor is the Knights Foundation. But the story makes reference to the Knight Foundation.
Knights Foundation: does good works with London juvies.
Knight Foundation: does good works with news organizations.
/. eds: Please review and fix or clarify.
Just the facts (Score:1)
Good (Score:2)
To their credit, the move was widely praised on "tech sites"(1) as a welcome change.
(1): "tech sites" - Websites created or managed by hipsters with iPads that know what a partition is and wear NERD t-shirts. They also reformat their mom's computer from time to time. See: slashdot, arstechnica
This Could be Fun... (Score:2)
"The most ambitious aim of the project is to create a feature that would efficiently highlight the most relevant and pertinent reader comments on an article, perhaps through word-recognition software."
The object of the game is to get a complete load of bollocks accepted as the most relevant and pertinent reader comment on as many articles as possible. Extra points for the front page and headline articles.
"Give more control to readers" means (Score:1)
Give less control to readers and allow the screaming angry retarded mob to reinforce itself by rabidly banning the 1% of people who don't agree with them.
Only viable if privacy upheld... (Score:2)
While I generally support Mozilla's endeavors, as one of the last bastion of noob-to-guru accessible, Free/open source, secure and most important privacy respecting software around, this has me worried. The statement about "Publishers will then be able to collect and use this content for other forms of storytelling and spark ongoing discussions by providing readers with targeted content and notifications." could mean yet another data mining and targeted advertising opportunity, for instance.
The only way I
Open Annotation already exists (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A number of things, but the three worst, in my view, are that it is very often extremely slow to load (and sometimes fails to load at all), it requires me to allow Disqus to run Javascript, and it involves a third party (Disqus) sitting between me and the blog -- which means that I have to allow myself to be tracked across multiple websites just so I can make a comment.
Sites that use Disqus are sites that don't allow comments as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:1)
It also works horribly on mobile sites with nested comments basically being a huge vertical stacking of one word. And putting it into landscape mode does not make it scale to fit.