Feeds Don't Need A Reply Function

[willow]

Title:
Feeds Don't Need A Reply Function

Area:
feeds

Summary:
Stop making feeds seem like original DW content

Description:
Content that is imported to be read on DW, via RSS aka Feeds, should NOT have a reply function. The content creator never sees any replies made to a feed (it is not an account, there is no associated email), and entries and comments are not permanent on a feed anyway.

When individuals do not realize that, because there's a reply function, they can end up commenting and being ignored.

There is really no need for feeds to have a reply function - especially when there's a link to the direct entry itself.

Poll #4436 Feeds Don't Need A Reply Function

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 73

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
24 (32.9%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
9 (12.3%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
29 (39.7%)

(I have no opinion)
9 (12.3%)

(Other: please comment)
2 (2.7%)

Comments

[matgb]

I think this is close to a duplicate of Bug 471 – feeds should respect standard, in which feed accounts would disallow comments if the feed they're taking it from uses the standard protocol.

I do think that, if technically possible, we should also use that comment transfer protocol the name of which escapes me that Brad was talking about that allows comments to be fed back to source as well.

So my with changes is to make it a feed by feed case, depending on the settings within that feed. Some feeds, after all, specifically like that comments are allowed, Neil Gaiman employing someone to monitor comments on the LJ feed springs to mind.

[matgb]

Oh, it's also, I think, related to Bug 191 – I&I: Syndication ownership features

[thorfinn]

I think you're talking about pingbacks, which make a lot of sense for public space commentary, but by all that's anything, please, don't enable them for any kind of locked content!

I'm also +1 for the "comment" not "reply" thing for rss feeds.

[azurelunatic]

Oh good, I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking of that thing.

Hah, found it. http://www.salmon-protocol.org/

[ninetydegrees]

I think 'Reply' should be edited to 'Comment' or 'Speak' but I don't think it shouldn't be hidden entirely (see Mat's comment though). Some comments aren't for the author. Some are just comments on the content or a discussion between readers. I like reading and sometimes posting comments on the xkcd feed for example.

[senmut]

This was my thought. I have some feeds in common with others, and occasionally it's nice to see other DWenizens comment on them, instead of trying to figure out people in the comments at the original site.

[ninetydegrees]

I meant "I don't think it should be hidden entirely" of course.

[zvi]

+1

[stormy]

+1 to "Comment".

[goodbyebird]

+1

[rebelsheart]

Some communities, like those based around comics, watch commenters on the comic's feed and invite people to their communities based on who comments.

[zing_och]

I'm torn on this - on the one hand, I like being able to comment on an xkcd comic, and maybe having a discussion about another feed with my fellow people on DW instead of the original site (where there may be more trolls, hurtful people or whatever).

On the other hand it is misleading that one can comment on things without the author getting to see those comments. I agree with ninetydegrees that the link should be changed from "reply" to "comment" if comments aren't closed altogether. If there's something else we could do to make it clear that commenters aren't talking to the author, I'd be all for it.

[matgb]

I actually think 'reply' should be changed to 'comment' as a site wide default anyway, somedays. Somedays, I set mine to comment, then back to reply, then I change my mind again.

I don't know which is clearer and, importantly for me, more encouraging to readers. But I definitely think 'reply' is wrong on feeds.

[cheyinka]

But someone could change the link from 'reply' to 'comment' for all posts on eir reading list, and then that distinction wouldn't be visible to em.

[cesy]

I'd support changing it to "Comment" rather than "Reply", but I don't want to lose comments altogether. I'd be happy with the bugs that are already in the database to respect the commenting standards in the feeds, though.

[northern]

I like that readers can comment to each other on feeds. I'd like to keep the reply feed - or sure, call it "comment". :)

[kutsuwamushi]

I've run into this problem with feeds of my journals on LJ, and it's quite frustrating.

Maybe instead of disabling commenting on feeds there could be a warning put above the reply form that says something like "You are about to comment on a syndicated feed. Your comment will not be sent to the author. If you would like to reply to the author, comment on the original entry."

Or something like that, I know that's not great wording.

[matgb]

I've submitted the idea that our feeds should have a footer similar to the existing crosspost footer, which would partially solve that problem, and improve a few other things.

[twisted_times]

"You are about to comment on a syndicated feed. Your comment will not be sent to the author. If you would like to reply to the author, comment on the original entry."

I think that wording sounds excellent! :)

[susanreads]

I'm of two minds about where to draw the line, but can we tell whether comments are open at the original site? If it's a feed from LJ or IJ I'd rather people were directed to comment there, but if commenting on the original requires registering in yet another place and inventing yet another password, and possibly having to be approved by the management, I see why people would want to talk here instead. I've also been frustrated by LJ accounts which don't allow OpenID commenting; on the other hand I don't think we should have comments that aren't notifiable to the original author. Can we provide notifications to the OP if they want them?

"Comment" rather than "reply" is a good change, anyway.

[charmian]

I heard that DW might have a function where the owners of a feed can claim it... Then, maybe there could be a feature for them to opt-in to, and disable comments? I'm not sure all feed owners would care; and some might actually not mind.

[melannen]

+1.

Even without feed claiming, would it be possible to let the person who creates a feed choose whether to allow comments or not? It wouldn't solve the issue entirely, but it would mean places like xkcd feed could keep their comments, but people just making feeds of livejournals could turn them off.

[msilverstar]

I'd like to see a very clear explanation that it's local comments only and will disappear in two weeks.

Though another option would be to not delete the feed posts that have comments...

[pauamma]

Not deleting those would mean comment linkspam would remain there forever.

[pauamma]

In addition to the reasons mentioned above for keeping it open (perhaps with a "your comments may not be seen by the offsite poster and commenters and will disappear after $time" mention), commenting on the feed is sometimes the only solution, for one or more of thee reasons below:
- the source blog/site doesn't allow commenting on the entry, or at all.
- the source blog/site requires registration to comment, and doesn't support OpenID.
- commenting using OpenID (or all commenting) is broken on the source blog/site.
- the source blog/site has a privacy policy that doesn't suit the commenter's taste or needs.
- the commenter isn't logged in on the source site and it's a cumbersome process or not worth it for jotting off a quick comment.
- and I'm probably missing some.

[zvi]

commenting is a quick and simple way to grab a copy of something, if all of one's own comments are mailed to yourself. commenting on a feed would do that, I suppose.