Moderation of article comments
 

Just wanted to ask, has internally somehow the policy for comments approval changed?
I ask this because two of my comments for the Phantasmagoria review were apparently rejected, while it never happened before to me.
And it's weird because my comments were still about the game in some way.
It kinda demotivates me to write comments if I can't be sure if they will be approved. Also, I'm just not sure if they were truly rejected or if it's just a bug. And when other comments that sound in comparison less constructive come through...then that's just weird.

So, I hope you can clear things up for me! :)

No, they haven't changed, but I'm glad you started this thread, as I've been meaning to start one myself and keep putting it off. (Not about you, ozzie, just in general. ;) )

If I recall your two latest comments, one was just a(n intentional) joke in response to someone else, and the other did more to derail the topic to the issue of re-review policies than contribute to the topic of Phantasmagoria. If other less substantial comments slip though sometimes, they shouldn't, but it's hard to discuss such things hypothetically.

But that brings me to the point I wanted to remind people about, which is that article comments are not the same as the forum. I'm glad people use comments, and wish people did it more often, but not at the expense of just becoming a de facto forum thread. That's not what they're for. If someone wants to continue questioning our policies or discuss topics in detail, that's for forums. Comments are just supposed to be a place for different people to share their view of the game/article in question.

There's no magic number, and no actual limit, but honestly, if someone is posting more than one comment per article, they're probably misusing it.

EDIT: Also I know a lot of other comment sections elsewhere have far more relaxed standards, but that's exactly the reason I don't want ours to be. I can't believe the cesspool of crap many comment threads become.

Nicely said :)

Old thread, but I didn't feel like I wanted to argue about this before.

The reason why I write now is that I noticed that I wanted to post comments on a few entries, but didn't because I worried that it wouldn't be on-topic enough and so that it would be a waste of time if I write it.
Personally, I don't see a problem when it goes off-topic. On Adventure-Treff and Rock Paper Shotgun many interesting discussions sprung up about games in general, genre conventions or whatever. I wouldn't want to miss them.
On the other side, especially on Adventure-Treff, the quality of the comments can sink to a really low, trollish level. I definitely could do without those.
RPS had at one point a very high level of intercourse, but in the past angry, reactionary comments increased. But it's pretty good for the lax moderating.

So I do like it that you try to keep the quality of the comments high, even if there is the occasional non-constructive on-topic comment like "too low score", but I don't like the penalization if it goes off-topic. For me, a discussion flows natural, so the topic changes naturally, too. And I hate it if it's broken off and pushed into another, specific thread.
And honestly, I don't understand the advantage of being so strict.

Yes, obviously there isn't an advantage for you, but there is for the people who want and expect article comments to actually further contribute to their understanding of the game in question without wading through tons of off-topic posts. And I assure you, those people exist.

If it's "discussion" one wants, that's what the forums are for. That's the very reason they exist. Article comments are to add value to the purpose of the article.

My comments mainly consist of "I wish this game was available for PS3".
So I don't know how my comments manage to get through moderation.

Well, a little variety would serve you well if you want them to continue passing through. ;) But it's a perfectly valid comment nonetheless.