The third and fourth comment are directed at the second comment, but are displayed in reply to the first comment since there's only one level of replies. Confusing.
Also, instead of linking to the comment to show this, I had to take a screenshot.
Yeah, I find it pretty annoying that you can't deep link a comment as well, but I'm not sure how to make it better.
What do you think would be a good way to add that functionality, given that the comment plugin is running in an iframe on a different domain (so e.g. putting a hash in the top url won't be readable by the iframe)?
I think Jon to some extent fails to realize that having options (i.e. sorting by date) comes at the price of complexity.
A significant amount of modern software has gone the opposite way seeking to remove options to simplify products for users.
Facebook grew up competing against MySpace, a site which gave it's users more options and configurability than anyone could want. Facebook realized that users don't want to be able to tweak everything, they want things to be standardized and just work.
While that may be true for Facebook users, it's not true for users of specific sites that use their comment system. Part of my thinking when coming up with the idea for IndexTank is that sites need to control their UX (search in our case). The vast majority cannot invest in building backend technology, so they use what's readily available and easy.
Facebook comments are easy, but they are not customizable. I haven't tried Disqus, but if I were them I'd focus on ease of use and control (not by the end user, but by the site).
Thanks for making Index Tank, I am just starting to implement it into my ruby application and have found it to be easier than any other search option I have tried.
I don't know if he fails to realize it so much as it just makes him want to rant. Whatever the case may be, what works on a social network might not work for a cross-platform interface.
I miss Disqus at TC. I think they were working on a solution for problems with commenting. I don't get that sense from Facebook comments.
With just a few strategic word replacements, one could turn this into a pretty convincing rant about Wal-Mart.
There's nothing cool or innovative or interesting or high quality. But dammit, they're everywhere, can do a lot of things good enough to satisfy Joe Consumer, and have just kind of slowly sunk quietly into the background of their culture. They're ubiquitous, and that ubiquity allows them to cut corners and keep "costs" low because they operate at a scale no one else can really touch.
That reminds me of this post on how Craigslist's business is being eaten away, and why it's taking so long (because of the critical mass needed to compete against its network-effect benefit): http://www.quora.com/Why-hasnt-another-product-disrupted-and...
The idea was to cut back on trolls by using "real names", but a) it's still easy to create troll accounts on Facebook and b) it rules out comments from pseudonymous visitors.
In terms of dealing with trolls, active moderation is the most reliable method I've seen used in practice. I know it doesn't scale well, which is why people turn to voting schemes instead.
reflect on the fact that what you are looking at is the very best product that a $75 billion software company, one famous for allegedly only hiring A-list talent, was able to build.
Except that it isn't the "very best product ... FB was able to build." It is just something useful that a team at FB built -- something that provides some value for websites and users, and that will continue to be evolved and improved in the future.
FB Comments may or may not be an amazing product, but obviously it is good enough for TC, so that says something.
One thing i hate the most about it especially on techcruch is that a person using Operamini cant view any post on techcrunch because (i think) the FB plugin screws up with Operamini.One cannot see the comments and also the page just goes blue. I hope they fix this
The reply from the Facebook employee was interesting. "While I think you have some interesting points about missing features, overall this post is sullied by its sulky, immature tone. [...]"
On the one hand, I wish all companies let their employees be human and respond as such. On the other hand, it feels like if you're going to engage, you should ignore the insults and address any valid points. Here it just looks like two parties trading jabs while dancing around any real issues.
I'd love to comment on the article itself that the Facebook comments system is a barrier to entry, but then I'd have to enable the Facebook platform and risk losing my SSL on my account every time I log in.
What do you mean "risk losing your SSL?" Do you mean the "turn off SSL so I can access this canvas application?" thingy? As long as you don't click that, you shouldn't have to worry - if you've turned on HTTPS browsing, it only sends your auth cookies over HTTPS, so you're not vulnerable to downgrading attacks.
If that is what you mean, how do you think it could be less scary? The idea is to strike a balance between security and usability, and if we'd love to do a better job of that where possible! (I work on security at facebook, though not the HTTPS implementation directly.)
In Facebook under account settings there is an option for persistent SSL. If you turn on the Facebook platform and use any part of it, on any site (such as clicking a like button, or using Facebook comments, or using an "Facebook app" like Farmville (just an example)) it disables the SSL part of your account, and doesn't re-enable it when it can, instead your account is once again non-SSL enabled.
Now, the last time I tested this was when Facebook comments came out on a test account I have, if it no longer disables SSL using Facebook comments that would certainly be a step up.
Even then I don't want everything tied to my Facebook account, and it is not exactly easy to switch which Facebook account is used on which website.
Interesting - what do you mean by "your account is non-SSL enabled?" I've got persistent HTTPS turned on (and have not opted out of platform), and clicking a like button or commenting on a comment plugin does not add non-secure authentication cookies (i.e. I can still only use the site over HTTPS). Perhaps you had HTTPS turned off on your test account?
As far as not wanting to comment with your FB account, you can sign in with Yahoo...?
When the SSL option first came out I tested this, and noticed that using the like button would turn SSL off in my settings, since then I have just used adblock to block all of the like buttons.
I always find it funny when a paid Huffington Post staffer is upset about the quality of something that's free! You'd also think that Techcrunch would work with an up and coming company working in the space — well I guess the old Techcrunch would have done that...
If you don't think there are any suitable comment engines on the market, why not put your money where your mouth is and pay my company to build one for you.
I think a reasonable budget/timeframe would be $350,000 over 18 months.
Facebook Comments removes honesty and replaces it with PC Cheerleading. Sounds perfect for the modern TC as it moves from startup coverage to covering companies founded before computers had mice. Most real insights are unpopular, if they were popular it'd be common knowledge.
This will stop trolls for a few minutes, you can buy a Facebook account with 100 friends for a buck or two if you really want to troll. On the long term this is likely to succeed to the same degree that Kuro5hin charging $5 for an account had.
I think the interesting question is, if this comment system was standalone, so it didn't have any network or real name effects behind it, would anyone use it?
I'd prefer to use something attached to the back end and possibly use Facebook connect for the real name aspect, or even include the indication back into the feed on Facebook, although not everyone wants that.
Sounds like the single level replies is a big problem for some users. If the replies are single threaded, why is there a reply button on each reply instead of just at the bottom?
I don't know about the Facebook comments system because I avoid it wherever possible, but at least with the Twitter reply button, it prepends the ever-popular @OP.
In short, a Twitter conversation can be replayed, or stitched together after the fact. From what I'm seeing with this thread, it doesn't appear that is possible with the Facebook comments (though I know that they DO have the '@' reference, sort of.)
I am wondering how much money that techcrunch gets from the facebook in oder to keep their comment system. Disqus is much better system than facebook comments.
As noted in the article the level of quality of comments is much higher with Facebook comments, plus with the comments showing up on people's Facebook stream it gives Techcrunch a huge amount of free publicity.
So I doubt they need money to convince them to use Facebook over Disqus.
I was a regular contributor to Techcrunch comments (and not a troll), but I haven't commented once since they moved to Facebook comments. And I won't.
This Techcrunch article is the first one in a week or more that I have read the comments. And I've pretty much tuned out of Techcrunch now, and moved over exclusively to HN. I used to have Techcrunch open all day, every day. Now it's gone.
So, one switch from Disqus to Facebook comments lost me - a long time reader of TC, and an active participant at TechCrunch 40 and TechCrunch 50. And they probably don't even know it.
I wasn't in love with the Disqus system, but there was one feature that was right for me, that FB comments don't have: separation from Facebook.
This (comment activity shows up in Facebook stream) is precisely why I won't be commenting on Techcrunch articles any time soon. I have no interest in advertising to my aunt and high school ex-girlfriends that I have a minute opinion about some random bit of software technology. I'm not looking for anonymity to troll, I just want to control my various internet personas. More for the sake of my "real friends" than anything else.
uh, I totally disagree with both you and the blog author that quality of comments is higher. Yes, 80% of the trolling from before needed to be eliminated, but at least there was discussion and disagreement about the topics covered.
The majority of the comments on techcrunch are now the most bland, content-free statements you could imagine ("this is good!"), and the spammers are still around, only now they get to post links to their site from an account that links back to their facebook page. victory?
Yes the quality of the comments increased, but the number of comments decreased in every article which implies less interaction. Thus if this trend goes, techcrunch might end comment less. thus loosing the free publicity that they after.
It brings a lot of traffic to my startup when a domain is listed as my company on Facebook also it allows me to read comments more clearly, there's no trash but there's a lot more pressure.
I posted a comment on the blackberry playbook review and someone that worked for RIM replied with a load of marketing spin I wasn't bothered to reply too. You also get notifications which makes me reply more often also that needs a lot of tweaking.
I actually have noscript blocking facebook.com and fbcdn.com and facebook cookies. I really don't feel like I've missed anything. The times I've read facebook comments, it felt like they were on the level of people giving "I propose a toast to..." speeches at dinner parties.
Money quote : "Facebook Comments is basically Facebook writ small: while it’s maddeningly mediocre lowest-common-denominator crap, it’s not quite bad enough not to use."
The third and fourth comment are directed at the second comment, but are displayed in reply to the first comment since there's only one level of replies. Confusing.
Also, instead of linking to the comment to show this, I had to take a screenshot.