Skip to main content

The Disqussion

Yesterday Fred blogged about Disqus's report on its user base, with the title "Pseudonyms Drive Community". Part of the definition of "quality" were number of replies and number of likes.

Now, Likes are variable but don't reflect that; intent differs from person to person. I like a lot of things, but I like some things much more than others. Disqus gives us no way to differentiate that.

An example is that I tend to like @awaldstein 's first comments; I appreciate them, I learn from them, and I want to point that out to others.

In later comments down the thread, I might like a joke he makes. I appreciate them less, I don't really learn from them, and when I Like them it's just to pat him on the back.

So how can such a variable signal be given such weight in their analysis?

And quantity as an indicator of quality, well, that really bugs me. Some of the best comments require no response. They're great on their own.

Some very long threads have tons of replies that are completely meaningless to the original point; some original points are weak on content but strong on provocation.

I dropped in late to the party--4 hours after the original post, and posted this.
Number of times a comment is replied to? Really? That's a signal of quality? 

Seems to me it's a signal of engagement. 
Or in some cases, enragement. 
Not simply what the sage meant. (drop me a beat...)

The totality of the statement is a bit over the top. Some, not all good comments are from pseudonyms, just like within that group some, not all comments are useful, reliable, or experience-based. 

Quantity is not a signal for quality. As much as I like Disqus, this 'research' doesn't reflect the quality of the service.
My comment was voted up pretty quickly, became the top comment and stayed there (yay me!).

Should velocity be a signal? Maybe. But velocity doesn't speak to the quality of the content (though by default everything I say is amazing high-quality content, of course;) )

Likes and number of replies don't do the job; they're inadequate signals. A better approach would be to have yet another button (or slider, or stars) that lets you vote on quality.

On StackOverflow, the best answers are voted up. Wait! Are they really the best? With programming there are tons of opinions on the best methodology, but fundamentally the suggested approach has to work, and if 50 people vote for something, it's likely the approach works.

But I think that's weak as well, though it's stronger than what D presented. I can find good solutions through that, though sometimes the better responses have far fewer votes than the most popular ones.

As @messsel pointed out later in @fredwilson 's post, sentiment, quality, etc are tough nuts to crack.

Which is why, I think, people reacted so badly to the claims in @danielha's original post: people care about quality, and we see Disqus as a thought leader (with about a million blogs using Disqus it's clearly a force), and they've based quality on weak signals.

Disqus is one of my favorite companies. We complain because we like what they are doing, but want them to be ideal. And my guess is that many of us differ on what an ideal Disqus should be. As it should be, of course.

I'd like to challenge Disqus to a live video chat among people who care about this. What a great discussion it could be. In fact, it would have been great to have a live video chat sometime yesterday when the topic was hot...when's that feature coming, Daniel?


Popular posts from this blog

Beta Signup

I've been working for quite a while on a new search concept, though the further in I get, the closer the rest of the world gets to what we're doing. So today I'm inviting you to sign up for the rather modest beta, which will be ready soon if we can nail down a few difficult  details. Jawaya is a way of navigating the web and getting better results. And that's as much as I can say right now, because we're not a funded startup, and things are moving really fast in this space--it's going to be very competitive. I predict there will be about 10 funded startups in the next 6 months doing something similar. One of them will be mine, and we aim to make it the best. We're raising a round of capital to fund the team, and are shooting for early sustainability. This is my fifth company; my fourth in the tech space, and my third software company. I think it will be the biggest and can possibly have a positive impact on the world by reducing the amount of time it takes

Where Innovation Happens

As I get closer to a go/no-go decision on a project, I've been thinking about the difference about my vision for the project and the supportive innovations to enable the core innovations The vision combines (in unequal parts) product, core innovation as I imagine it, the application of that core innovation, design, marketing,  developer ecosystem, and business development. The core innovation enables everything else, but it's the application of the innovation that makes it meaningful, useful, and in this case, fun. This week we're testing initial approaches to the implementation for our specific application, and that's where we'll develop the enabling innovations, which is basically where the rubber meets the road. The difference is that the enabling innovation happens at the source of real problems only encountered in the making of something, and in a project like this just getting the essence of it right isn't enough; it also has to be safe, the compone

Disqus Digests

This morning my phone dinged with a fresh notification--a new email! What oh what could it be?  I rush over to check while thinking "I need to unsubscribe to a lot of stuff so I get fewer non-urgent dinging notifications." Well shoot, that's disappointing. It's Disqus Digests, one of the biggest wastes of dopamine anticipation ever.  It simply sucks.  Disqus itself is great as a commenting system. I've been there since the beginning and have mostly enjoyed its evolution.  And then they did this interruptive, irrelevant email. Well why does it suck, you say.  Every one of these "Digests" sends a few comments from a blog conversation in which I've already participated. That means it's very, very likely that I've seen the comments before.  So I open the mail, see something I've already read, and curse Daniel and Company for enticing me into wasting my time, and cursing myself for falling for it.  So I unsub