Let’s take a look at a couple of the larger issues at play: the current problems with online discussion systems and the value of providing an outlet for reaction.

The current (and ideal) online commenting atmosphere

The intent behind comment sections on articles and posts is great: engage readers, allow feedback for your work, and build a community. But as readers of popular news sites and media outlets know well, these areas often turn quite vile and, in the end, can detract from the main story. The tone isn’t (entirely) the fault of the news source; it’s largely due to the fact that comment systems aren’t adequate for the kinds of interactions people have online. An ideal discussion system must have a way to implement the concepts of value and reputation.

If an article has five hundred comments, it’s often difficult to find which really add to the conversation. That’s where value comes into play. Users need a way to mark whether a comment adds value to the conversation or whether it detracts from it. (Preferably, there should be an option to flag a comment as inappropriate or offensive as well.) While it’s an important function, it should be very simple for users to “vote” on a comment. You’ve probably actually already seen a commenting system with value built-in: YouTube’s “thumbs up” and “thumbs down.” This also allows YouTube to place the highest-rated comments right underneath the video.

Reputation is a bit trickier; it requires value to be aggregated across all of the contributions from a particular user. eBay is a simple and well-known example of reputation, with users’ scores being a good first indication of trustworthiness. By combining vote totals, both positive and negative, across all of the comments from a particular user, a system could generate a fairly accurate idea of the user’s reputation on the site. Of course, the site would have to decide whether a user’s quantity (number of comments) or quality (value of each comment) weighs more into users’ reputation values. (Cross-site aggregation systems like Disqus could theoretically implement this on a larger level, providing a “global” reputation score for a user.)

It should be noted that the ongoing discussion between using real names and pseudonyms on sites doesn’t really play a part in this system. While real names do lend some degree of credibility, commenters sometimes have valid reasons for posting under a pseudonym (privacy, security, etc.). As long as comments are linked with an individual score, reputation can be calculated either way.¹

Many papers and readers have suggested that moderation is the key to a successful environment for comments. By moderating discussion, though, the site’s readers often cry of censorship. Moderation is an important last resort, but the task of managing comments is best left to the site’s community.

Providing a place for discussion

Allowing comments on a site also provides another benefit: a centralized and somewhat controlled place for reaction to an article. It’s a benefit, no doubt, but I’d argue that a comment section isn’t the only (or the best) way. It’s important to provide a way for people to react, but this could be done through a number of ways:

• A way to provide a URL for a reaction post
• A Twitter feed of tweets that mention the story’s URL in a short link
• The ability to use trackbacks from blog posts about the article

If a site is wary about encouraging discussion on the same page as the original article, a more link-based approach can provide a bit of a compromise.

Comments on the web – especially on media sites – hold a lot of promise, but right now they seem to detract from an article as often as they add to one. Most systems for commenting aren’t at a point where they can handle the complexity of discussion with concepts like value and reputation, both of which encourage users to be good citizens on the site. Hopefully we’ll see more sites implement better systems for commenting as the web evolves, and hopefully the discussion will improve along with them.

¹ Psudonymity and anonymity aren’t the same. I’ve yet to find an example of discussion in which complete anonymity adds any value at all.

UPDATE: I’m happy to see that the Press Herald has re-enabled comments using Automattic’s Intense Debate. I hadn’t seen it used in the past, but it looks as though it’s a robust system that, indeed, incorporates value and reputation. I’m anxious to see how the discussion evolves with the new system in place.

Every piece of political news that appears makes me a stronger believer of that statement.

A while ago a post entitled “Solve Some Real World Problems” popped up in Google Reader from Chris Brogan. It’s no surprise, really, that the politics of politics could easily be considered one of the problems technology could help to solve. Numerous startups have tried. None have really caught on, though (at least as far as I’m aware)… why?

The need for a new system

I’ve started to think about what it is I don’t enjoy about politics and how it is presented and discussed online.  There are actually several factors I feel are missing from the current dialogue when looking at a specific post from a commenter or forum user:

• Accountability. A majority of posts are written anonymously or under a pseudonym. Who is this person? Are they liberal or conservative? Where do they stand on issues?
• History. At the same time, it’s important to know what the person has said in the past. What has this person said in the past? What is the scope of his/her contributions to the discussion?
• Reference. Many posts cite speeches or past candidate views. Where can I read where the points within the post were originally raised?
• Freedom. Often comments are based solely on the fact that they involve their favorite candidate. Do you support a candidate but not agree with one of his or her views? (*gasp*)

The style of discussion is also important.  This also lends itself to many options:

• A free-form discussion forum
• A discussion forum based off of broad topics (a speech, an issue, etc.)
• A discussion forum based off of external news articles or URLs (digg-style)

I would probably argue for the third option in this case.

From all of this, I feel a successful forum for political discussion would need a few features:

• A login system with required registration (name, location, political affiliation, and supported candidate(s))
• Some sort of comment rating and user karma system
• A user post history
• A (very) easy way to cite external sources
• Invitation-only… at least to start

Does Digg or Reddit already cover these bases? Yes, to an extent. But I believe the political discussion is so unique that it needs its own specialized arena.

What do you think?

I would love to hear what you think about this. What do you believe is missing in the current online political discussion? How could it be changed into a more effective and productive conversation? Do you agree with what I’ve said… or what have I left out? Is there a site that already does this well?

If you’re a new reader to ANW, welcome. Don’t be afraid to comment! I’d also love to hear from people with all sorts of political affiliations: liberal, conservative, and anything in between. Thanks for participating.

Getting ready to speak to radio executives at the Radio Ink conference. Q: Is radio dead? Discuss! 

Since my friends on Twitter share my love of the Laporte, I was treated to a constant barrage of replies.

In its fairly short life, Twitter has moved from not much more than a public view of status messages to a close-knit way to read and reply to whatever happens to be taking up space in the minds of your friends.  Leo’s afternoon query – and thousands of others from people all around the world – signal another space for everyone’s favorite 140-character addiction: a real-time polling service.

Advantage: popularity

The polling advantage is held by those with a huge following.  While a user with a double-digit following may receive one or two responses a Twitter question, Leo (with over 9,000 followers) will naturally receive more.

Where does that leave users with a humbler following?  In general Twitter users enjoy making connections and helping others.  The missing link is a centralized place for people to ask (and answer) questions in the Twitterverse.

A possible solution

Twitter services such as @commuter have become an innovative way to extend the possibilities of microblogging.  Could a centralized question and answer service be the answer for Twitter users who want to ask and answer questions?

Consider the following scenario.

1. A Twitter user sends a direct message (DM) to a question service/bot.
2. The service tweets the user’s question with the user’s name at the beginning of the tweet.
3. Other users reply to the question asker with their answer.

A very similar service already exists; @QNA takes a more reference-based approach.  The social component of Twitter seems to be missing, though.  Any sort of conversational question could be useful: What should I watch on TV right now? Anyone know how to change roles in WordPress? Where should I go for the best cheese steaks in Philly?

The biggest challenge of such a service would be convincing enough users to adopt it.

In his wonderful “Social Media & Networking Starter Guide” presentation at PodCamp Toronto, Chris Brogan (another member of the Twitter four-digit follower club) explained how his connections on Twitter helped him find his destination while he was lost in Manhattan.   How long will it take before any Twitter user can have that sort of convenience?