pstack, I agree with you, but then I wonder how news sites like the Economist manage to make a voting system work even for extremely contentious articles. Any article on the Economist that mentions China or discusses bailing out a small European nation tends to explode into a frenzy of commenting, but the voting system over there holds up extremely well under pressure.
Regardless of the contention, the community at Economist.com maintains a relatively civil atmosphere. I have always been perplexed by this - especially because you can only upvote, no downvoting is in (yet).
The funny thing is that back in the day (when I first started commenting over there) they did not have any type of voting and it could get bad sometimes. Users begged for voting and we got it, now things are pretty nifty for all commenters.
Maybe it is because a different group of users frequents the Economist. In which case, the answer to improving your comments is to try to improve your sites culture?
I think the Economist might be one of the exceptions, where they are prone to less hit and run activity and have a more participatory readership of regulars. Compare that with any news or magazine site that you might click on right this very moment that is linked via Drudgereport, which I think is far more common.
Regardless of the contention, the community at Economist.com maintains a relatively civil atmosphere. I have always been perplexed by this - especially because you can only upvote, no downvoting is in (yet).
The funny thing is that back in the day (when I first started commenting over there) they did not have any type of voting and it could get bad sometimes. Users begged for voting and we got it, now things are pretty nifty for all commenters.
Maybe it is because a different group of users frequents the Economist. In which case, the answer to improving your comments is to try to improve your sites culture?