Vinca, I don't know what you mean by a "zinger". You called me an "ass". I took this, very reasonably it seems to me, to indicate that you were upset by my earlier posts. If you weren't upset by them, fine...so noted.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 29, 2009 6:43 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

Hi Snappy. No problem, as those are all excellent questions. I think a cap on the number of posts people can make is an interesting idea that probably deserves a "trial run". At the same time, I think you're right that there are 'sticky wickets' and plenty of variables that deserve close scrutiny. I also don't know what this sort of measure would require in the way of software and programming, though others here probably do.

To be honest, I didn't have a precise cap in mind. I guess I should clarify one thing, though. You don't want the cap to be so low that it is blocking expression or so high that it's useless. Most people (those who don't post excessively or pointlessly) should not have to be mindful of the cap; others (who post excessively and/or pointlessly), should have to be mindful of it.

So where should the cap be? I think some trial and error would be required to answer this question...armchair speculation won't cut it. Furthermore, you might discover that you do not want the cap to be precise at all. Perhaps it could be variable limit, with Mr. B raising it or lowering it at his discretion, depending on what he sees happening on the site. Also, should the cap be specific to particular threads or to the entire site? Should posters be able to start with a clean slate each *day*? I didn't have anything too specific in mind in these respects.

As I imagined the posting cap, it would apply equally, across the board and to everyone. Someone might argue that this also ought to be up to Mr. B's discretion, so that he could affix a cap to particular people's handles or something. However, this could result in Mr. B's having to keep track of how much various individuals are posting. That would be a lot of work and...well, life is short.

Long story short, there are a lot of variations on this idea that one could try out. I think one or two of them probably deserve a shot. Am I convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that they'd work? Certainly not, and other people have floated ideas here that I'm equally, if not more, intrigued by (e.g., the "ignore button").

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 29, 2009 4:35 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

Hi Vinca. I've described why I think the Open Thread is bad for the site and that's the most constructive contribution I can make to our dialogue about it. As it happens I don't share your opinion of the Open Thread, and I'm sorry this is a source of distress to you.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 29, 2009 3:13 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

Just want everyone to know that "Tesla Coil" is not my real name. It's a moniker that I plucked out of thin air, as this site doesn't permit guest commenting. If anyone else would like to borrow the name "Tesla Coil", drive it around the block a few times, post comments (absurd or profound) under it, have at it. This is a website after all, not real life. My sense of "identity" will not be threatened.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 29, 2009 1:45 AM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm simply disagreeing with you. As I remember it, the old Brownstoner was (somewhat) more civil and focused, with guest commenters playing an invaluable role keeping things on track and keeping some regulars in check. Yes, the site had its problems even then, and I agree with you that the trolls were a nuisance (though one can of course troll by simply creating a new handle for oneself...that's not a problem). So, my recollections differ from yours, I guess. Fortunately, the archives are there for all to see.

As for handles, I suppose one can "become a personality" on the thread with one handle and thus acquire some sense of responsibility. However, the fact is no one is limited to just one handle. You can have 5 or 20 or 100 handles if you want them, which should give you all the latitude you need for mischief making. I think it's also important to point out that one can have a sense of responsibility without any handle at all, but simply in virtue of being a person, here, conversing with others!

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 28, 2009 7:57 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

I think registration has hurt the site. I base this on pretty much the only thing I can base it on, a frank comparison of the Brownstoner of yore with the Brownstoner of today. I didn't see the need to repeat what others (including myself) have already said in this thread, though. You can rehash some of it if you wish, but if guest commenting really isn't an option Mr. B is willing to consider, then it's all academic. If you and some others don't agree with my assessments...well, I'm sorry and you are certainly in a position to voice your disagreement. I don't know what more you can ask for.

I wonder what sort of "minimal responsibility" you think is carried by an anonymous handle that I could make up in less than a single second. What is it, exactly, that you think I want to do? Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that you think I secretly want to post four-letter words and then giggle about it. Why would I be deterred from doing this by the requirement that I act under a contrived name like Bob, Jane, Farmer Jim, the Blind Watchmaker? I don't see what you're getting at here.

As for Curbed, I'm not sure why you're so interested in it. It doesn't seem to me to have much in common with any incarnation of Brownstoner. So, apples and oranges. What works on Brownstoner isn't necessarily going to worked on Curbed, and vice versa.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 28, 2009 7:15 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

"What exactly about having to register do you take issue with?"

It's hurt this site. Next question?

"I don't understand why it's so important to not have a log in name."

In the grand scheme of things, it's not important. Few things are. In the not-so-grand scheme of things, it'd be nice to save a few keystrokes here and there. They do add up. It's simple ergonomics.

"Is there something you want to say that is so repugnant that even having to do so under a made up name would prevents you from saying it?"

Nope.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 28, 2009 5:51 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

I wonder if Mr. B could resurrect the old Brooklyn Record site and have it essentially mirror the Brownstoner site, with one important difference: it would *include* guest commenting.

How long would it take before it would overtake Brownstoner in both popularity and quality of discourse?

Not long, I imagine.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 28, 2009 4:14 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

"Those wanting to gain additional posts would simply come up with ridiculous log in names to thwart the "limit" and go on undiscovered. The idea would [be to]...create more chaos and less ownership of one's comments."

But I don't think that the problem at present is a group of people who are trying to create choas and undermine comment ownership. Is it? I know that was a problem some time ago, but to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been a (serious) problem since the registation requirement was put in place. Not that I like the registration requirement, but my understanding is that it did, at least, solve identity theft problem.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 7:25 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

Just for clarification, while I do think that limiting the number of posts people make per day could be a good thing, I imagine the "limit" to be such that few people would ever have to think twice about it. The idea would not be to keep people from saying what they have to say. Rather, the idea would be to keep a very small number of people from inundating the site with white noise. Period. Such a "limit" would go undiscovered by almost everyone, and it's not too different from some measures Mr. B has already taken in the past. I know that at times Mr. B has put limits on the number of posts people could make over a short span of time ...what was it...10, 15 minutes...I can't recall). At the time I thought those measures were helpful and I think they could be again.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 6:28 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

I can see the value in an "ignore button". If it would function as a personalized filter or kill file for everyone who uses the site, that might be interesting and constructive. It'd be like having your very own Brownstoner, which you can moderate to suit your own taste. Definitely worth thinking about and kudos to whomever suggested it (alas, I don't have time to track you down...).

Come to think of it, if Mr. B implemented this suggestion, why couldn't he then reinstate guest commenting? Those who didn't want to read guest comments could simply 'ignore' them.

An ignore button that only let's you give someone a consequence-free thumbs up or down seems less sensible to me, simply because I don't think anyone cares about consequence-free ratings of this kind, least of all the person being rated.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 2:42 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

"I don't want to see it regulated and moderated into bland nothingness."

If you'd prefer to see it unregulated and unmoderated into bland nothingness, that's your prerogative. I don't like moderation either, but I do hope to find a route around "bland nothingness".

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 12:50 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

'All ideas are "post worthy." That's what defines a "blog."'

I respectfully disagree with you here. It's reasonable for any blog owner to want to increase the "signal to noise" ratio on his/her site.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 12:37 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

One of my coworkers just made an interesting suggestion.

Suppose you put some VERY liberal cap on the number of posts someone could make to the site over the course of a day. Perhaps 10 or 15? A large enough number so that we could capture anything they have that's of substance, but a small enough number so that we could avoid the rest.

A cap of this kind would force people to THINK about what they're saying. Remember the old Seinfeld episode when Elaine was evaluating men in terms of whether they're "sponge worthy"? Well, some of the regulars would have to consider whether the idea that just popped into their heads is "post worthy".

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 12:25 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

I don't think that anyone feels "intimidated" by the regular posters here. I think a lot of people wonder why they should bother to post when they feel the thread will inevitably deteriorate into chaos, but that's something quite different.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 12:08 PM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

I did read the post, but I wasn't talking about hits in my comment. Brownstoner is a "smaller pond" in the sense that registration is turning away lots of folks out that would otherwise be active participants. It's consistent with this that the overall number of hits on the site has increased.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 11:55 AM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

Many of the current problems with the site stem from Brownstoner's being a much smaller pond than it once was. Back in the site's "golden age", when it was freewheeling and guest commenting was permitted, it was much harder for a small clique of followers to dominate it. It was really quite the phenomenon at that time and people's first reaction was to step back and marvel!

If you reintroduce guest commenting, that should solve the problem. However, I get the sense that guest commenting isn't really on the table.

The only other practical solution I can think of would be the very aggressive moderation of posts. However, I get the sense that moderation also isn't being considered. (Though, like another poster above, I don't see why not.)

I don't think the open threads are improving things. In fact, I think the overall tenor of the site has suffered since you introduced the open threads. Instead of "draining off" the bile and ill will of the regulars to the benefit of more focused threads, the open threads just get everyone worked up and the ensuing nuttiness just infects the other threads on the site. Not good.

If I may speak bluntly, but respectfully...You long ago made the decision to cradle a few hardcore regulars and to make this site a sort of virtual parlor for them. There's something to be said for this strategy, but it has a cost as you now obviously realize. If you're unwilling to make any serious changes to the way the commenting proceeds, then I think you're stuck with the status quo.

Whatever you decide, I will keep my fingers crossed for you and the site!

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 27, 2009 11:46 AM in response to Let's Talk About Commenting

A friend of mine is hoping to open new gay bar in this same space. It will be called Darling Daintyfoot's (name of one of Jean Genet's characters). Not sure where things stand with this at present, but it's a good location with a good vibe.

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 26, 2009 12:23 PM in response to Curtains for the Starlight Lounge

Anyone else having trouble getting posts to show up?

Posted by: Tesla Coil at March 26, 2009 12:17 PM in response to Bushwick Projects and Environs Safe?