Which part do you object to? Collapsing threads? Sorting? Both?
EDIT:
There is already a user setting “Do not collapse comments to single line”, it makes sense that this would also apply to editorial comments.
You can sort comments by karma or chronologically… it would probably make sense to keep editorial comments at their original place when sorting chronologically, and moving them to the bottom when sorting by karma (as if applying a huge negative pseudo-karma to them).
Which part do you object to? Collapsing threads? Sorting? Both?
Both, although collapsing more than sorting. A few things -
I would have far less objections if this was strictly about typos; it isn’t[1].
I would have far less objections if the comment author was the only person that could mark a comment as such. Unfortunately, I recognize that in the good-faith case this somewhat reduces its utility.
It’s a way for a post author to unilaterally make responses ‘go away’ in a somewhat less blatant manner[2]. As long as the site is small this isn’t the end of the world; this becomes more and more of a concern as the site grows.
Receiving a notification if your comment was marked as such helps, but does not fully alleviate my concerns.
(If you get a notification on an account you no longer check, that doesn’t really help.)
(Ditto, if you get a notification that you disagree with… then what?)
For sorting: either people ended up upvoting said comment a lot—in which case knowing that e.g. ‘this post was heavily edited to address X and many of the comments are discussing pre-edit’ is useful—or they didn’t, in which case there’s no real need to downsort the comment.
There is already a user setting “Do not collapse comments to single line”, it makes sense that this would also apply to editorial comments.
The post starts off by talking about typos, but then says “this comment was useful at the moment it was made, but it has outlived is usefulness”—which covers far more than just typos.
The current moderation is bad enough for this; it’s a whole lot easier to detect bad-faith ‘removing comment entirely’ than it is to detect bad-faith ‘I did an edit that (didn’t actually) address(ed) this point, so this comment no longer applies’.
I would have far less objections if the comment author was the only person that could mark a comment as such. Unfortunately, I recognize that in the good-faith case this somewhat reduces its utility.
Yeah. I was considering something like “the ‘outdated’ flag can be set by comment author, article authors, or the moderators… but if someone else has set it, the comment author will be notified and can remove the flag, in which case no one other than the comment author will be able to set it again”—but this seems needlessly complicated.
From my perspective, in the case of abuse, the comment is not removed, only collapsed and moved to the bottom, so there remains a clear evidence of abuse that can be called out; which in my opinion is a sufficient protection against abuse. (I guess there should be a small print mentioning who specifically has set the “outdated” flag for given comment.)
Maybe the wording should be specific enough, like “This comment reported a typo which has been fixed”, to make it more obvious what constitutes an abuse of the button.
Yeah. I was considering something like “the ‘outdated’ flag can be set by comment author, article authors, or the moderators… but if someone else has set it, the comment author will be notified and can remove the flag, in which case no one other than the comment author will be able to set it again”—but this seems needlessly complicated.
(If you get a notification on an account you no longer check, that doesn’t really help.)
so there remains a clear evidence of abuse that can be called out; which in my opinion is a sufficient protection against abuse.
Hm. I think you have a somewhat more optimistic view of this than I do.
I do not believe that “a (failed) attempt to fix an issue” can be that easily distinguished from abuse.
It’s not so much “this comment reported a typo”. It’s things like “step 6 of your argument doesn’t follow from step 5″ hidden and the post updated with something that doesn’t actually resolve the problem.
Which part do you object to? Collapsing threads? Sorting? Both?
EDIT:
There is already a user setting “Do not collapse comments to single line”, it makes sense that this would also apply to editorial comments.
You can sort comments by karma or chronologically… it would probably make sense to keep editorial comments at their original place when sorting chronologically, and moving them to the bottom when sorting by karma (as if applying a huge negative pseudo-karma to them).
Would such implementation address your concerns?
Both, although collapsing more than sorting. A few things -
I would have far less objections if this was strictly about typos; it isn’t[1].
I would have far less objections if the comment author was the only person that could mark a comment as such. Unfortunately, I recognize that in the good-faith case this somewhat reduces its utility.
It’s a way for a post author to unilaterally make responses ‘go away’ in a somewhat less blatant manner[2]. As long as the site is small this isn’t the end of the world; this becomes more and more of a concern as the site grows.
Receiving a notification if your comment was marked as such helps, but does not fully alleviate my concerns.
(If you get a notification on an account you no longer check, that doesn’t really help.)
(Ditto, if you get a notification that you disagree with… then what?)
For sorting: either people ended up upvoting said comment a lot—in which case knowing that e.g. ‘this post was heavily edited to address X and many of the comments are discussing pre-edit’ is useful—or they didn’t, in which case there’s no real need to downsort the comment.
I would be fine if this was combined.
The post starts off by talking about typos, but then says “this comment was useful at the moment it was made, but it has outlived is usefulness”—which covers far more than just typos.
The current moderation is bad enough for this; it’s a whole lot easier to detect bad-faith ‘removing comment entirely’ than it is to detect bad-faith ‘I did an edit that (didn’t actually) address(ed) this point, so this comment no longer applies’.
Yeah. I was considering something like “the ‘outdated’ flag can be set by comment author, article authors, or the moderators… but if someone else has set it, the comment author will be notified and can remove the flag, in which case no one other than the comment author will be able to set it again”—but this seems needlessly complicated.
From my perspective, in the case of abuse, the comment is not removed, only collapsed and moved to the bottom, so there remains a clear evidence of abuse that can be called out; which in my opinion is a sufficient protection against abuse. (I guess there should be a small print mentioning who specifically has set the “outdated” flag for given comment.)
Maybe the wording should be specific enough, like “This comment reported a typo which has been fixed”, to make it more obvious what constitutes an abuse of the button.
(If you get a notification on an account you no longer check, that doesn’t really help.)
Hm. I think you have a somewhat more optimistic view of this than I do.
I do not believe that “a (failed) attempt to fix an issue” can be that easily distinguished from abuse.
It’s not so much “this comment reported a typo”. It’s things like “step 6 of your argument doesn’t follow from step 5″ hidden and the post updated with something that doesn’t actually resolve the problem.