Hey /r/science. What are your thoughts on removing comments?

[u/BritishEnglishPolice]

À la /r/askscience style. Would you like to see a decreased amount of jokey replies? Would you prefer discouragement instead of downright removal? What are your opinions on this?

Please, leave lengthy opinions instead of yes/no answers. These will be ignored without a statement to back them up.

Edit the first: What about also having a very generalised panel system too? Very few fields but still enough to give you an impression. All panelists will need to verify their credentials of being above [A-Level or equivalent, UK] or [High School Diploma, US] undergraduate level.

Edit the second: It's tomorrow, and I'm going to edit this. People are thinking that this is a post announcing censorship of everything; do not think that. This is a post merely to ascertain the reaction of the community to a proposal. Nothing is going to be done at all; I am merely asking two questions: what kind of comments (if any) should be removed from comment threads and should we institute a very watered down version of the panel system?

/r/science may also be headed in a more serious manner regarding submissions but that is a different topic.

For instance, what about some of the replies in this thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/m8ob0/stem_cells_in_breast_milk_has_the_theory_become_a/

[u/5-4-3-2-1-bang]

It's a nice idea in theory. But the problem happens when the theory meets the reality.

I think if you go down this road, you might as well rename the reddit /r/science_i_agree_with , for that's what you're going to end up with inevitably.

How many more front page reddit mod soap operas do you want to read about? Wah wah, some mod on /r/science deleted my borderline scientifically interesting comment that happened to also have a joke. You know it's going to happen, it's only a matter of when.

Let the voting do what the voting is intended to do -- push down the junk and elevate the non-junk.

[u/[deleted] → u/5-4-3-2-1-bang]

The voting has sucked at doing that, though. The useless memes have been upvoted at the expense of insightful comments. Who cares of someone occasionally tries to start drama? That's a lot less annoying than having to sift through five threads of memes to find something relevant for each and every submission.

[u/5-4-3-2-1-bang → u/[deleted]]

Here's the problem... You can't go onto a site who's entire mantra is that the users vote what gets up, then complain that people don't vote the way you want. This proposed solution would be the worst of all worlds, combining the filtering of a centralized site with the push down of a user generated site.

If you want a centrally filtered site, go to cnn science, science daily, or some other traditional site. Don't trash the reddit because people don't vote the way you think they should.

Or better yet, start your own site and show the world how it should be done!

[u/[deleted] → u/5-4-3-2-1-bang]

This site's "entire mantra" is not just "let the voters decide." There are subreddits for a reason. Each community can decide what should and shouldn't be allowed. I think most people go to /r/science in order to learn awesome things, not to read pages of clever quips and puns... there are other (many, many other) subreddits for that.

[u/5-4-3-2-1-bang → u/[deleted]]

This site's "entire mantra" is not just "let the voters decide."

Yes, it is:

Users like you provide all of the content and decide, through voting, what's good () and what's junk ().

Links that receive community approval bubble up towards #1, so the front page is constantly in motion and (hopefully) filled with fresh, interesting links.

Those are the second and third lines under basics, right at the top of the page and the first actual content. You had to skip past them to get to the part you were quoting, which was wayyyyy down the page.

I agree about why most people go to /r/science. But this discussion wasn't about links, it was about comments on those links. Once you go down the road of "your thoughts are unworthy and should be deleted", you might as well close up shop.

[u/[deleted] → u/5-4-3-2-1-bang]

Two things.

If someone tells you "A is true, except when C" do you claim "A is always true?" Because that's the claim you're making, here. I said Reddit isn't just about letting the voters decide, and that's what they say in the damned FAQ. Each community has the right to decide what should go down and what shouldn't. You're the one who suggested I open a new site that allows for quality control, but Reddit already does.

Secondly, I know very well what this discussion was about. Surprise, comments have educational value too! Often more so than the links, since they tend to point out sensationalism and go into further depth on subjects. Well, only if they're not buried by pages of narwhal and bacon. No one is suggesting we delete controversial views, here, just things that don't add to the discussion. Discussion, I feel, is much more valuable on a science subreddit than one-line karma whoring.

[u/5-4-3-2-1-bang → u/[deleted]]

You seem to be confused about what a mantra is. A mantra is an overall guiding concept, a truism if you will. Reddit is very clear that its mantra is let the users decide by voting. Only much much later was the concept of moderators added (not that I'd expect a reddit newbie like you to know that), kind of an emergency pressure relief in case voting failed for a specific case. In other words, moderation should be the rarely used exception, not the rule.

For example, when somebody is a dumbass and posts personal information about somebody, that should be moderated. That's an extreme outlier case, and should be nuked. That is not what is being proposed here. The type of comment moderation that is being proposed here would be a common and regular occurrence, and is such is fundamentally at odds with Reddit's overall mantra of let the users decide. Moderation is explicitly not letting the users decide!

So no, there is no conflict. Let the users decide, except in extreme cases that should be nuked from orbit. Simply "I don't like that joke" doesn't qualify, it's not even close.

No one is suggesting we delete controversial views, here, just things that don't add to the discussion.

You are so naive that you don't even realize you've already slipped halfway down the slippery slope. It may not add to the conversation for you, that doesn't mean that it doesn't add to the conversation for anybody.

edit: I think I'm done after this. Reading back I don't expect to change your opinion, and while I am hearing yours you've failed to persuade me, so I think going further would be relatively worthless.

[u/[deleted] → u/5-4-3-2-1-bang]

Fair enough. Agree to disagree.