Commenting Rules

[peteloud]

This morning I was using reddit to find some data on coronavirus, whereupon I noticed their Commenting Rules

I liked the rule,

"Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed."

This forum gets rather a lot of "Short comments and low effort replies".  I think the forum would be better without them.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by peteloud

[Sprinter]

I feel you buddy and I agree (edit: I agree in general. I know very little about this forum, as I just signed up). I call it "facebook behavior" (short, close to zero information comments) or "social static" (comments which solely express feelings), both with little to no use for the topic at hand or real life. In my opinion, not tolerating facebook behavior and removing social static is a thing that helps forum entries stay usefull and efficient and discussions refreshingly informative and productive.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Sprinter
clarification

[Hotzn]

On 2/29/2020 at 11:39 AM, peteloud said:

This morning I was using reddit to find some data on coronavirus, whereupon I noticed their Commenting Rules

I liked the rule,

"Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed."

This forum gets rather a lot of "Short comments and low effort replies".  I think the forum would be better without them.

 

Sorry, but I disagree. The rule you are quoting says that comments are "automatically removed" (whatever that means) if they are EITHER short OR 'low effort'. However, the mere length of a comment does neither determine how accurate nor how useful it is. Often - especially if a specific question is asked - the shortest answer is the best. If such answers are 'automatically' removed (let's say by an algorithm measuring the 'length'), the forum in question would cripple its own content. And concerning 'low effort' - that term is entirely subjective. What is 'effort' here? Who should decide that? 

Not sure in which part of these forums you experience comments which you perceive as too short or of too little effort, but the parts I am frequenting do not seem to be suffering from any of that, and I am quite content with how these forums are moderated.

[EjectedCasings]

Yeah, no thanks. 'Short' is relative. Why, I could say that the first post in this thread is short and have it removed. Why do you think that short replies are inherently bad? I've seen a lot of short posts that have good insight into them. Maybe the person can't think of anything else to say. Short/low effort posts don't necessarily hurt the conversation. Removing peoples replies and opinions does not make the forum better. At the end of the day, this is Hinterland's forum, and what they say goes. The only times that I've seen posts outright removed are when people start talking nasty to each other. Should we treat short posts the same way? Of course not. The admin does an excellent job of deciding when to intervene and inject a statement or warning. All in all: no.

[peteloud]

I have to agree that the criteria are not perfect and that a short comment could be very concise and very good.  However I read between the lines and took their rules to mean, "We don't want stupid irrelevant comments". 

Apart from Hinterland I contribute comments to a couple of UK news websites, these websites are regarded as the serious end of UK political news media.  I constantly see a stream of stupid and/or irrelevant comments. Often it is someone trying, and failing, to be witty. Often it is some just saying "I agree".  I feel that such comments add nothing whatsoever to the topic under discussion and that the forum would be better without such comments.  I often feel that people making such comments are just seeking attention or, in the case of TLD, just trying to increase their counts of posts.

[Screenshot Pilgrim]

It's obvious why a life threatening disease forum would have very strict rules, but should it be so for one about a fictional/virtual experience?  (Beautifully rendered and developed by people who take their work seriously, no doubt)   I tend towards the lighter side on comments, and like to encourage fellow fan artists if I can, but I also understand that attempts at humor are never going to be welcome by everyone.  That's life.  But hey, I think the sound of crickets is very funny sometimes.

If someone says nothing but, "I agree." it may not add anything for you, but for them?  A sense of inclusion maybe?   ..which is better than a sense of rejection.

If forum threads are/were essays from contributing authors, to be edited for publication, then I could see a reason for cutting what's not needed.

[Sprinter]

The interesting and informative part in a discussion though would be, why you write "I agree". What your personal point of view is. What your experiences are. Etc. ... . Writing agree/disagree or up-/downvoting merely is a poll. But a poll and a discussion are different things.

I personally developed the habbit - at least to try - to always give a reason or explanation and an intention together with an expression of want/need/feeling. In general, this way communication is much more clear. Participants find a common ground faster. Participants are required to pause and think about what they want and why they want it, which inherently forces them to come clear about what their feelings, needs and goals are. At least to the extent to formulate a reasonable comment in a discussion.

About myself I have the suspicion, that I started to develop that way, when I started to deal with kids. It makes communication with them much easier and ... kids learn at lightspeed anyways, but if I give them reasons/explanations and intentions the learn at warpspeed. I think on grown ups it has the same effect, though there the effect is much smaller, as everyone unconsciously weighs the explanation given against all the other experiences one had.

What we are doing here, is a true discussion, I personally deem very interesting, because I learn about other peoples views.

[Guest kristaok]

No thanks, this isn't reddit. What next a rating system?

[Admin]

While it's a good idea we don't have a robust moderating team, nor do we particularly want one. Volunteer moderators might be added in the future, but low effort and too short are very subjective criteria (as pointed out). Sometimes shorter replies can get to the heart of the matter better than more verbose ones.

[Guest kristaok]

2 hours ago, Dum_Gen said:

Downvoted. Where is my Hinterlandforums gold, anyone?

lol exactly. 

To the OP; Truth be told I'm just not good at making long posts... People like me shouldn't feel singled out because of that.