By default, comments be enabled on only one crossposted site

[pseudomonas]

Title:
By default, comments be enabled on only one crossposted site

Area:
crossposting

Summary:
When a new crossposting site is added, the default assumption should be that either comments are to be allowed there (and disabled on DW and other crosspost sites) or allowed on DW and disabled there.

This requires the functionality not currently present of posting with comments disabled on DW and enabled on a remote site.

Description:
Having parallel discussion threads on different sites

a) is often unconducive to productive discussion, as half the commenters will not be talking to the other half.

b) makes people who want to read all comments keep track of twice as many entries.

c) leads to people missing many comments, often with the journal owner being unaware that they are doing so.

I am *not* proposing that it should be made *impossible* to allow comments on more than one site, simply that the *default* assumption should be that users keep their comments all in one place, and offered a choice of which site hosts comments.

Poll #3685 By default, comments be enabled on only one crossposted site

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 38

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
2 (5.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
3 (7.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
29 (76.3%)

(I have no opinion)
3 (7.9%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (2.6%)

Comments

[briarwood]

It would be good to have the option of disabling comments on Dreamwidth but allowing them on the crossposted entry (and preferably on a post-by-post basis, though I can see the danger of options-creep there). Right now that's only possible by editing the remote post. I wouldn't use that functionality myself, but I know a lot of people post here because the DW crossposter is so cool, but still prefer LJ as their main 'home'.

But I don't see a good reason to make that the default behaviour. I prefer the default to be comments allowed everywhere, with the option to disallow one or the other.

True, in heavy metadiscussion it's way more convenient to have comments all in one place but that's not what the majority of posts are about. The default should always be what works best for the majority of posts.

[pseudomonas]

I think that having the comments split works well for the poster but badly for the commenters for any kind of discussion, not just "metadiscussion". Taken to extremes, you can get one site being read by so few people that no productive discussion can take place.

[briarwood]

Perhaps but that still assumes that the majority of posts are intended to generate the kind of discussion that would benefit from that. I don't think that's true.

From scrolling through the 'latest things' feed on DW, I'd guess that the largest category of posts are creative offerings - the sort of posts where comments aren't usually intended to engender discussion between readers, only between the poster and her readers. But even that category is far from being a majority.

To justify this suggestion being the default behaviour, I think you'd need to demonstrate that a majority of posts would benefit by it.

For my own part, I wouldn't ever want to turn off discussion on LJ crossposts: I have friends on both sites who have valid reasons for not wanting to comment on the other.

[liv]

I don't like split discussions very much either, but I do think DW should avoid doing anything, even changing the default behaviour, that looks as if it's hostile to other sites. Interoperability has the potential to be a killer feature once it's fully developed, so I don't want to see even minor steps away from that. Besides which DW is already perceived as being anti-LJ, and that perception, however false, is making a lot of people reluctant to get involved.

[havocthecat]

I have friends on multiple journal sites. Why would I ever want the default to be something that excludes them?

In other words, I think the default should always be the most inclusive option possible. The customized options should be the ones that allow a user to pick and choose their features, such as enabling/disabling comments on other sites.

[sorchasilver]

+1

[delladea]

+1

[cheyinka]

Right - you can go back and disable comments if comments have been left on by accident, but you can't go back in time and make it possible for someone who only reads you on $othersite to comment when e first sees the post.

[msilverstar]

+1

[kyrielle]

This!

Supporting the option to disable comments on Dreamwidth and have them on at another site - that I'm fine with (I won't use it, but I'm fine with it). But I don't want it to be the default.

I also don't see that it's in Dreamwidth's best interests to have a feature default that, based on the description here, the first time you add a cross-posting site that site ends up with primary commenting - that is, by default, driving users away from Dreamwidth to these other sites.

[matgb]

Definitely no to making it the default. Definite yes to allow comments off here but on somewhere else, I'd not use it, but I know others would.

[turlough]

+1

[instantramen]

+1

[zooey_glass]

+1