A Consideration of Comments on Writeups
Preface
We're all discussing a proposed feature which isn't coded, but is easier than you might think to implement. As such, don't freak out because we're doing something horrible. We're just talking. But please feel free to add your voice if this idea horrifies you. Because it still might be a reality, and it'd be best if we addressed everyone's concerns to make it the best reality it can be.
To me, the point of adding discussions is to encourage feedback and increase interaction. It falls somewhere between the public catbox and long form writeups; and it potentially provides a place for something that presently has no sanctioned place on the site: long-form criticism or discussion of a writeup. Although the "blab" box was already created to encourage feedback, it doesn't fulfill this need as well as it could because: (1) its intent (to message the writeup's author) is not clear to many, (2) it does not allow public discussion about a writeup which can elucidate things for future readers, (3) it does not provide a clear route for back-and-forth between an author and a commenter attached to the writeup
Some History
With the work already put into usergroup discussions by Swap and those before him (sorry, I don't remember who the coders were who worked on it originally), E2 already has nested comment threads which work fairly well. If you're in a usergroup, you can create a discussion, all members of the group will get a message when you do so, and you'll get messages if people reply to a comment you've made. Content Editors and gods had this feature for a long time, but Swap expanded them so that they could be specific to any usergroup.
This means, if there is a writeup pertinent to a group you're in, you can already have a discussion on it. Just create a new discussion, in the text of it link to a writeup, and then add your commentary. Others can reply.
But interface is everything. People simply don't do this. Doing so would have a limited audience; this sort of behavior isn't suggested by the design, since there isn't an easy way to create a discussion right from a writeup; and many people reading this probably just learned that this place has had discussions for years.
How I Had Thought about It Working: Opt-In Not Opt-Out
The way I had thought about this working was that a user interested in comments on their writeups could enable discussions on them: either turning discussions on for their new writeups by default, or clicking the box to allow discussions on individual writeups. Further, these comments would only be visible to logged in users, keeping the focus of the site to the writeups, and the community aspect primarily to those actively writing. I like sam's idea of not displaying the discussion on the node page, but providing a link to go to the discussion. That keeps the page design clean while still making the feature obvious and easy to get to when somebody is thinking about it.
Further, I had envisioned that the discussion would be controlled by the author of the writeup. Yes, this means that a user could be a prima donna and delete anything critical or not up to their standards. But it would also mean that adding this feature would not force editors/chanops to make very difficult calls about appropriateness and bounds of speech. This necessarily would mean making it opt-in. If comments were opt-out, given that most writeups are by writers who are no longer regular users (or by bots), somebody from staff would have to monitor them; that is, if we deemed they needed to be monitored at all. There is always the option of making comments a sort of "free speech zone", with all of the consequences that entails.
Potential Benefits
Speaking from a writer's perspective, if you really want feedback, putting a form to give it right on the page is going to be valuable. It makes back and forth much easier than the current message system, explicitly associates everything with the writeup rather than crossing back and forth from messages to editing writeup and back, and allows others to see comments that have already been made. Making it opt-in also guarantees only those ready for feedback receive it; or at least, only those who think they're ready for feedback until they see what feedback can really look like. And that raises the larger question of the effect of comments on the site in general.
More comments and more commenters means more activity, means more writing, and so on in a feedback loop. The easier it is to contribute and be involved, the more people who will get involved, and the more rewarding the writing experience can be. For all my reservations about Wikipedia, it is this approach which fueled their massive success. Today, they have semi-protected so many pages, it's hard to imagine what that place used to be. But they have so many contributors, they can afford to be a little standoffish to avoid vandals. E2 does not presently have this luxury. Further, they actually open their comment area ("Talk pages") to everyone, logged in or not.
So, on the extreme end we could let Guest User post writeups and comments without logging in. Obviously, we don't do this, and it's unlikely to be in the cards. But the less we emphasize comments, the fewer users we get involved, the less people will find them helpful, and the less we make the coding time spent on them worthwhile.
A Version 1 Approach
I'd suggest making comments visible to logged-in users only, and postable by anyone who has verified their email address. (Older users may not be aware, but you must now verify your email address before you can post writeups or chat, to keep spammers out. Same logic here.) We can use the code that already exists, and works pretty well, but notify the author (rather than a usergroup) when comments are posted. We'd turn the preferences for "allow comments on my writeups" on by default for new users, but off for existing users. I'm way open to chanops and Content Editors hammering out between them what to do about patrolling comments, but the idea of "if a comment gets flagged twice or more, it sends a notification to all eds" would strike me as fine. Easy enough to implement, but maybe not in v1. As the code is now, you can already edit your comments to your heart's content. There is no voting or other GP benefit for adding comments.
Everything else, technical wise, could be v2.
The bigger issue raised is the social one, which would be a question of what would be appropriate content. Things like "Is it appropriate/useful to just have a comment of praise that doesn't provide constructive feedback?", "How about 'me too' or '+1' replies?", "Should comments be restricted to the writing styles or factual concerns of the writeup, or would replies or criticisms of opinion pieces be acceptable?", "How far off topic should a discussion be allowed to go?", and so on are all policy things that aren't really up my alley. If people are writing full-fledged, writeup-quality stuff in comments, that's not a bad thing, but we'd rather see them in writeups. Should there be some kind of official limit on comment size to suggest that sort of thing? (Right now, they have the same length limit as writeups, which is huge.)
All in all, I know abuse is more on people's minds with such a thing, but I don't expect people are likely to be dicks about this sort of thing if it's restricted to logged-in users. Noders are, by and large, good people.
Feedback about Feedback
I'd love to see some daylogs from people who hate the idea of comments and why. I know you're out there, and your opinions on this matter would be valuable if stated publicly or at least passed along to somebody on staff who can air them to the editors.
In addition, if you guys haven't, I'd suggest trying out the usergroup discussion feature and seeing how it feels. If you're not in a usergroup, I can make a throwaway one just so you can test comments and provide thoughts on how they work/could be improved. Just toss me a /msg.