

Gawker finds making it harder for comments to be seen leads to better comments - bensummers
http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/04/tough-love-gawker-finds-making-it-harder-for-comments-to-be-seen-leads-to-more-and-better-comments/

======
matrix
I read jalopnik from time to time, and I can't say I've noticed that the
comment quality has been anything special.

The best comment model I've seen is the NYTimes, which combines moderation and
featured comments (the user recommended comments are too heavily biased
towards what was posted first to be useful).

~~~
wallflower
Posted recently, "How to correctly sort by average rating":

[http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-
rating....](http://www.evanmiller.org/how-not-to-sort-by-average-rating.html)

------
karzeem
From the headline, I thought this meant that making all comments harder to see
will increase quality.

In fact, the proposition is that rewarding good commenters with higher
visibility will increase quality. Makes sense, and it's nice to see some
quasi-empirical evidence for it.

------
andylei
shouldn't this graph be controlled for traffic? if traffic has grown, that's
probably where a lot of the extra comments came from.

~~~
JeremyChase
The graph is designed to illustrate that heavily controlling comments still
generates a lot of comments.

That said, it would be interesting to have a graph that shows the engagement
rate for users; something like Comments for every 1 Million page views.

