10 votes

Can we show number of not-label-collapsed comments instead of plain number of comments?

Right now, there is number of comments visible when on main/group page. What would you think about excluding comments that are collapsed by default, such as those labeled as noise? I'm disappointed when I see 7 comments at an article, but there is none actually relevant to the article itself. The disadvantage of this is that the site could feel more dead, especially in low-activity groups.

13 comments

  1. [2]
    Eylrid
    Link
    What about showing both like "3 relevant comments (7 total)" or something?

    What about showing both like "3 relevant comments (7 total)" or something?

    11 votes
    1. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      This is a good addition to @Soptik's good suggestion.

      This is a good addition to @Soptik's good suggestion.

      1 vote
  2. [2]
    cfabbro
    Link
    Added suggestion to Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/issues/536 p.s. I'm a bit busy ATM, so can't really spend too much time thinking about this or responding in detail. But my initial gut...

    Added suggestion to Gitlab:
    https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/issues/536

    p.s. I'm a bit busy ATM, so can't really spend too much time thinking about this or responding in detail. But my initial gut reaction says that this should only be an option, and perhaps not the default setting, since moderators and admins will definitely want to have a totally accurate comment count, even including noise comments.

    6 votes
    1. Wes
      Link Parent
      If there were a setting like "Expand all comments regardless of noise" (like HN's showdead setting), then the comment count displayed could inherit from that setting. Just to reduce settings page...

      If there were a setting like "Expand all comments regardless of noise" (like HN's showdead setting), then the comment count displayed could inherit from that setting. Just to reduce settings page bloat.

      4 votes
  3. [9]
    Greg
    Link
    This is tangential, but hopefully relevant: I feel like I'm seeing more comments collapsed than I would reasonably expect to. It seems as though people are using the labels as disagreement...

    This is tangential, but hopefully relevant: I feel like I'm seeing more comments collapsed than I would reasonably expect to.

    It seems as though people are using the labels as disagreement signifiers or pseudo-downvotes. I can't even entirely claim the high ground here - I've definitely used the exemplary label as a "super agree" once or twice - but I do think it's worth discussing. My personal bar for collapsing a comment would be fairly high, pretty much just something that's actively detracting from the conversation; is that reasonable? How is the label usage as observed looking compared to the expectations/goals of the system?

    2 votes
    1. cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      My bar is not that high. I use noise on anything which doesn't add to the discussion, which is what the description of the label says it supposed to be for. Comments like "LOL" are obviously...

      My personal bar for collapsing a comment would be fairly high, pretty much just something that's actively detracting from the conversation; is that reasonable?

      My bar is not that high. I use noise on anything which doesn't add to the discussion, which is what the description of the label says it supposed to be for. Comments like "LOL" are obviously noise, but even ones like "I agree/disagree with this" don't add anything to the discussion either IMO, and so I also label those sorts noise as well. If the person actually explains why they agree/disagree then I won't label it noise though.

      How is the label usage as observed looking compared to the expectations/goals of the system?

      Honestly, I have only seen a handful of cases where I think noise was misused, more often than not on joke comments, which should have had the joke label applied instead of noise. However in a number of those cases, I simply voted on the comment and it actually undid the collapse effect on refresh, so chances are it was just a couple humorless people misusing the label.

      edit: All the other labels are harder to tell if they are being misused though simply because their effect is not so noticeable. Even exemplary is hard to tell if it's being misused too, since we can't see people's messages, and even I have used it as a means of simply communicating "thanks", rather than as a "this comment is superb and everyone should read it!" kinda thing. Back when exemplary was way more prominent (the big Exemplary x4 at the top of a comment) I think there was more misuse of it for "I agree, fuck that person you responded to!" and "here's an exemplary because I don't think the person above you deserved one!" kinda one-upmanship, but that seems to have died down now that it's just the blue ribbon again.

      7 votes
    2. [7]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      I mostly agree with @cfabbro. Like him, I have a low bar for labelling something as "noise" or "offtopic" or "joke". However, unlike him, I think a joke is also noise, so a joke comment will...

      I mostly agree with @cfabbro.

      Like him, I have a low bar for labelling something as "noise" or "offtopic" or "joke". However, unlike him, I think a joke is also noise, so a joke comment will usually get both those labels from me. I also use "noise" for comments which are just article summaries or block quotes from the article, because they're not adding anything that I can't get from reading the article itself.

      And I do not use the label feature as a disagreement signifier. I'm fastidious about that.

      Like him, I don't see many collapsed comments which should not be collapsed for some reason. In these cases, I will message Deimos directly to let him know someone is misusing the label feature. I think I've messaged him only two or three times about this in the past six months.

      Do you have examples of comments which have been collapsed that you think should not have been collapsed? That might help guide this discussion, seeing as people like me & @cfabbro (who both spend way too much time on Tildes!) haven't seen what you're referring to.

      5 votes
      1. [5]
        Greg
        Link Parent
        Given that both you and @cfabbro take a similar view on when to use the labels, that does suggest that this was at least partially just a mismatch of expectations. For context, while I'm obviously...

        Given that both you and @cfabbro take a similar view on when to use the labels, that does suggest that this was at least partially just a mismatch of expectations. For context, while I'm obviously a much more casual user, I don't think I've ever actually used (i.e. felt the need to use) one of the negative labels - which in turn definitely suggests that my interpretation was a fairly strict one!

        The idea that @cfabbro mentioned of a negative angle on the exemplary tags back when they were more prominent is particularly interesting, and it's not one I would have thought of otherwise. I can see how small changes in prominence can change people's behaviour in general, though, and that's mainly why I thought this warranted a quick check.

        Do you have examples of comments which have been collapsed that you think should not have been collapsed? That might help guide this discussion, seeing as people like me & @cfabbro (who both spend way too much time on Tildes!) haven't seen what you're referring to.

        As a fairly unscientific survey, I've just taken a quick run through all commented posts on my own front page and found a total of five collapsed comments across all the posts - that's definitely fewer than I would have guesstimated, so if that's representative then I'm overestimating the numbers in general.

        Of those, this is the breakdown:

        • One is just the word "yep" - I can see this being noise, although I wouldn't have collapsed it as I don't feel it actively detracts, and that just comes back to the question of expectation that we started with.
        • One is an emphatic expression of frustration on the Epstein thread, which I would say is a valid comment. I can see an argument for it being a borderline case, and I wouldn't say it's clear cut, but to me the emotional reaction is fair input to the thread.
        • A similar but less emphatic comment on the same thread, which is both collapsed and exemplary. That seems a fairly odd situation in general.
        • One which references a meme. Again, I wouldn't personally have collapsed it (I think it contributes as a reminder of how concepts get exaggerated to their extremes) but I can see an argument either way.
        • One which expresses a strong opinion and in my opinion should definitely not be collapsed as it starts a discussion.
        2 votes
        1. [3]
          cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Only one of those examples strike me as an inappropriate use of the noise label, and here's my rationale for why. Imagine if 10 more people responded similarly in the same thread. Now imagine 100,...

          Only one of those examples strike me as an inappropriate use of the noise label, and here's my rationale for why.

          One is just the word "yep"

          Imagine if 10 more people responded similarly in the same thread. Now imagine 100, 1000, 10000. That would significantly decrease the signal and increases the noise, drowning out the actually valuable contributions to the discussion. It's noise and shouldn't be encouraged. Not only that but if people want to simply express agreement, they can vote on the comment. There is no need to reply "Yep" to express that.

          And so, bedraggled and on the cusp of final victory, there arose a great calamity the world over in the form of one large, collective, "GOD. FUCKING. DAMMIT."

          That to me seems like it was intended as a joke, which has its own label, and so therefor has been mislabeled as noise.

          This is outrageous!

          Similar to the "Yep"... imagine 100 of those exact same comments.

          "it's just a prank, bro."

          See, this is a case where I think there is actually some crossover between joke and noise. While it's undeniably a joke, it's a tired cliche one that doesn't add anything of value to the discussion. It's nothing but a low effort callback.

          The only correct answer here is "yes" and I don't really see why this article is making it seem like there's a debate.

          This one may be borderline, however since the OP couldn't even be bothered to explain their rationale and stated it as if there is no room for debate, I think the noise label is perfectly justified. This case goes back to my "If the person actually explains why... then I won't label it noise" rationale in my previous comment.

          5 votes
          1. [2]
            Greg
            Link Parent
            My own take is still a little softer, but I can see the merit all of those arguments, and as I mentioned I did find fewer than I'd expected from the current front page. I'm quite willing to...

            My own take is still a little softer, but I can see the merit all of those arguments, and as I mentioned I did find fewer than I'd expected from the current front page. I'm quite willing to believe that the difference in thinking means that I was perceiving it as more of an issue than was warranted - now it's directly on my mind I'll probably end up keeping a closer eye out anyway, but it seems like you guys have it in hand.

            1 vote
            1. cfabbro
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              IMO there is nothing wrong with having a softer view... and there is definitely some merit in your way of looking at it too, so thanks for expressing your concerns/opinions on the matter. Knowing...

              IMO there is nothing wrong with having a softer view... and there is definitely some merit in your way of looking at it too, so thanks for expressing your concerns/opinions on the matter. Knowing what others think regarding the labels and their use tempers my own, and yours helped remind me that being too extreme in my interpretation isn't super helpful either. ;)

              1 vote
      2. Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        P.S. I just stumbled across a comment which should not be collapsed. There's one! But they really don't happen very often, in my observation.

        P.S. I just stumbled across a comment which should not be collapsed. There's one! But they really don't happen very often, in my observation.

        1 vote