Ch-ch-changes - Macleans.ca
 

Ch-ch-changes

An all-new commenting system is coming to Macleans.ca


 

We’re a restless bunch over here at Macleans.ca. To prove it, we’ve been working on some tweaks here and there, the most noticeable of which will go live today.

Some time in the next few hours, we’ll be switching our comment system over to Disqus. What that means for you, dear reader/commenter, is mainly three things:

(1) Most of the old comments have been imported (the really old ones are coming soon), but your IntenseDebate profiles will not be transferred over to the new system. So all those reputation points you’ve been collecting/squandering over the years will be gone for good. Sorry; we just couldn’t make it happen.

(2) From now on, you’ll have to register before you can comment on articles. You don’t necessarily have to register with Disqus—you can also log in with Twitter or Facebook—but the days of completely anonymous guest comments are over.

(3) Comments will now be relegated to a separate page. You’ll have to click a link at the bottom of an article to see the comments attached to it. The good news is that this should improve load times quite a bit for articles that have a ton of comments.

This is all part of a broader effort to give the site a bit of a spring cleaning, so you’ll be seeing some other, more subtle, changes as well. And since there’s no such thing as a bug-free website, you may notice some glitches as we work out the kinks. Please be patient with us as we sort everything out. In the meantime, feel free to add your comments and suggestions to this post. We’ll be keeping an eye on it.

Hope y’all like what we’ve got in store.


 

Ch-ch-changes

  1. I don't approve of all of these changes, but on balance they seem like a good idea – especially with respect to moving comments onto a separate page.

  2. Now we're going need to learn a completely new set of identities to ignore or anticipate among the comments.

    • Perhaps only minor adjustments are needed.

      • testing

  3. This is going to create an existential crisis for some commenters. My whole Macleans commenting identity is based on one incredibly unpopular comment from a year ago…without the reputation points, what am I?

    • You're Style, baby. Style is Style, always and forever. Now what was that incredibly unpopular comment again?

  4. Question: If I sign in with Facebook, will my comments on Macleans be advertised to all my friends on Facebook?

    It's not that I mind, but if I comment many times on Macleans, I don't want my friends to get several notifications saying "Michael has commented on such-and-such article at Macleans."

    • That'll be up to you. There's an option for it in the profile settings.

  5. My reputation is gone?!?!?!

    Now what's supposed to be my ice-breaker when speed dating?

    Thanks a lot, Macleans.

    • Try telling a really dirty joke.

    • Oh, you'll still be able to talk about it, I imagine, just not in connection with Macleans.

  6. Will we still be able to give thumbs down to commenters that we don't like?

      • Minus one million!

          • beaten at my own game!

      • Bad move. Allowing the echo chamber to punish anyone who steps outside the 'correct' opinion has only made commenting more partisan and acrimonious, and tends to reward content-free groupthink.

        • Thanks, whoever downvoted the above not five minutes later, for proving my point!

          • It's either that or we all comment that we agree with you 110 %.

            O'Doyle Rules!

          • In explicitly political forums, I'd rather see no reputation function at all. The genuinely spammy CAPS and CONSPIRACY THEORIES posters should get moderated anyway, but when the battle lines are drawn between commenters, allowing the side with more posters to downvote to double-digit negatives solely out of spite just devalues the reputation function to being meaningless. Nonconformists are repelled from joining in the discussion if they know the commentariat-mafia is going to pile on regardless, even with sincere and non-spammy comments. If that's the case, why even have it?

          • Feel free to not care about that stuff.

          • I don't – I have thick enough skin to persevere while pseudonymous, even while rolling my eyes about it – but Rogers probably ought to, for the sake of increasing traffic and any subsequent return from the magazine's advertising/subscriptions/prestige/etc.

          • Well then stop whining about it then.

          • I think a policy is wrong, even though I'm not personally that put out by it; it offends me on the grounds of fairness and logic. So I protest it, as is proper in a free and democratic society. Here's a question for you people – should everyone supporting free speech, or gay rights, or open immigration, etc. just "stop whining" or "feel free not to care" if they're not personally oppressed by a bad policy?

            By the way, Mr. Gohier, if you're still reading – I'd appreciate feedback on this that's not just the "million billion" joking above. You've answered other comments here in good faith, so…what does the Maclean's web strategy have to say about my concerns, if I may ask?

          • I guess I still don't understand what is so not fair or logical about reputation points, to the point of offending. Are you saying you're worried about Rogers' efforts to be sufficiently inclusive with their site, i.e., that someone less indifferent than you to so-called reputation points might be discouraged from participating by the existence of a quick 'n' dirty means for others to register their dis/agreement?

        • Without something like reputation, there's a tendency to attempt to dominate discussions by what amounts to shouting louder.

          If you don't like reputation, the best solution is just to ignore it.

  7. Grrrr.

      • I am already attempting to set up a new disqus profile. We'll see how it goes.

        • I seem to be having problems too. It keeps bouncing me back to the home page when I click 'create a commenter account.' Hmmm….

          • Well, I think that I have managed to migrate over. Most of my comments have come too. I'm sure everybody will be relieved to here that this valuable body of work has not been lost.*

            *A joke!!

          • It seems to be working now, I switched browsers. It didn't like firefox for some reason. Maybe the pop ups were blocked. Anyway, relieved I can now contine my important contributions to the intellectual life of our nation.*

            *Also a joke!!

  8. Every so often, I think that forums rather than just comments would be nice. That would allow commenters to start discussions among themselves, and most forums I've seen have some pretty solid search, history, and reputation functions. It'd be completely understandable if that isn't a direction that is desired, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

    • It's not a bad idea. As a matter of fact, many moons ago, we had forums on here. They were pretty terrible, though, and fell into disrepair. But if there's legitimate interest in reviving them, we'd consider it.

      • Count me as interested. I suspect there are enough regular commenters around here that forums would be workable.

        How long ago was that, out of curiosity?

        • I think they were finally put out of their misery 3-4 years ago.

          • Indeed. The forums were an interesting experiment. The software running them was always a bit flaky, and they were separate from the articles in that you had to go into a specific forums section — meaning that they got very little traffic even at the best of times.

            That said, some of the discussions on them were fairly interesting. Especially with the first CPC budget, in '06.

      • Count me in as interested.

  9. You guys have one of the best comment sections around. Don't change it please!

    • Best comment section, and, on balance, the best discussions.

      I don't like the whole "click on a link to go to the comments. I quite like this set up.

    • Too late.

  10. Can we still post poorly conceived, over-the top, borderline libelous, and pointless comments, anonymously? With atroooshus grammer und spellig? AND SOMETIMES IN ALL CAPS?

    Good.

    • And link to our lunatic newsletter that nobody wants to read?

      • The need to sign in to comment will likely boost sales at free wifi cafes near parliament hill. Good for the comment board, good for theeconomy. Bad for chet/biff/insertnamehere. Oh, and me.

    • And God help us if certain self-promoters are no longer able to link to their own incoherent blogs.

  11. Okay, done. Off and running.

  12. First, let me say goodbye to all of the dozens of commenters (some of whom are quite good) who are surely about to disappear.

    Second, I agree with several people above that some of these changes are decidedly not for the best, but let's see how it goes before criticizing too harshly.

    Third, however, let me just say that the roll-out of these changes, such as it is, is terrible. Macleans has one of the most thriving, and imho one of the BEST communities of commenters in all of Canada. I don't mean to get all uppity, but is it really too much to ask that major changes like this not be rolled out with no more notice than a single blog post mere hours before implementation? I feel like I had better advanced notice that President Obama was about to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden. These changes may end up being great, or they may ruin the place, who knows, but I don't think online social communities like these are the place to be making sweeping changes with little notice to the people effected, even if the changes are all to the good. It kinda feels like you just showed up at our village, announced the great plans you have to improve the village by taking it all down and rebuilding it on higher and more stable ground, and oh, by the way, the bulldozers will be here in a few hours. Even if the plan is to give us all nicer and bigger houses in a better location, you couldn't have given us more than a few hours to pack up our stuff and say goodbey to the old place? We have to literally hear the engines of the bulldozers in the background while you're making the announcement over the megaphone?

    I suppose that's all a bit hyperbolic, but still, given the quality of what's been built here (imho) why rush?

    Finally, like others above, I will say nice and early that I think separating the comments from the articles is a BAD IDEA. So, on that score I don't feel I need to "wait and see" before saying "booooooo!".

    • We're not doing it in a rush so much as recognizing we can't design by committee. We like our readers—we really do—but we're never going to please everyone. That means we have to make decisions and live with the consequences.

      • Sure, but you couldn't announce the decision you've come to a week before implementing it? A day even? I'm not saying that you even should have asked for our input. You SHOULDN'T design by committee. However, "Here's the change we've decided on, and the switch over should be happening in the next few hours" just doesn't seem like good PR. I don't think that commenters need to know months in advance what's about to happen to one of their favourite places to comment, but people who check the site once every two or three days shouldn't ever show up to some big change without having any idea it was going to happen before it happened.

        • Fair enough. I agree it'll catch people by surprise, which isn't a good thing. At the same time, we didn't want people treating the change like some sort of impending doom because it's not. Think of my post as the equivalent to the doctor telling you you'll feel a slight pinch right before giving you a shot.

          • I think it's more like my doctor telling me I'm going to be examined by a different doctor at my appointment, right before my examination starts.

          • Proctologist???

    • "…It kinda feels like you just showed up at our village, announced the great plans you have to improve the village by taking it all down and rebuilding it on higher and more stable ground, and oh, by the way, the bulldozers will be here in a few hours…"

      Channelling "Hitch Hiker's Guide to Galaxy" to some degree eh?

      Didn't you know the plans for this change has been on display at the Alpha Centauri office for six months now? LOL

      • Yes. They were on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard.”

        • LOL

      • LOL

        That exact scenario actually DID cross my mind!

  13. My 2 cents – If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    This is the only site I post comments because you don't need to register (execpt for a few stock market/financial sites, but that is business).

    Was there a reason for implementing this? Or is it a Disqus requirement? Can I assume the main reason for the change is better content mangement?

    JMHO but Macleans blogs are usually good clean fun with few a-hole/nutbar types that crowd other media sites.

    • The reason, quite frankly, is that there are simply too many comments coming in. It's way, way, way easier to manage them if you make people log in. Moreover, it dissuades people from doing drive-by smears, which our regulars aren't in the habit of doing. It sucks having to make it more difficult for smart people to post, but it's the only (manageable) way we've got of dealing with the stupid ones who take up too much time and energy right now.

      As a matter of fact, user registration is a big part of the reason we're switching platforms. Disqus allows a few more options as far as that's concerned. The point is to keep the door unlocked, but not flung wide open.

      • Wait…too many comments? Seriously? That's your top reason?

        Dear readers: Our comments section is too popular. So, we're working hard on your behalf to make it harder to use our service.

        You're welcome.

        • hahahahahaha. I agree!

          McKinnell does better job of selling than Gohier, that's for sure.

        • Wait, that didn't come across the way I meant it to. I didn't mean the goal is to reduce the number of comments. The goal is to make it easier for us to manage an ever-growing number of comments. We've outgrown our setup and need bigger digs.

        • Gee, and here I was thinking how much I loved the fact that this comment site was less busy but more full of intelligent commentary. Weird eh?

      • The mandatory registration will be a big improvement. It seems most of the really ugly comments were left by unregistered posters. (The rest were left by me.)

  14. I agree with LKO, while these changes may or may not be good, Philippe Gohier is history's greatest monster.

      • And if you had any thoughts of becoming the new leader leader of the Liberal party, just forget it!

    • Not just history's, but in the entire existence of the universe.

      Goodbye, cruel comment board. . . .

      • Just exercising my hyperbole muscle.

      • We must not let the hyperbole muscle atrophy.

    • So, my actual use of the word "hyperbolic" in my post gave no indication that I my rhetoric was deliberately hyperbolic?

      As I said, my problems not so much with Macleans announcing "Here are the changes and why we're making them", it's with Macleans announcing "Here are the changes we're implementing in the next few hours, and why we're making them".

      • You call that hyperbole? It was about as over the top as a burrowing ant's underarm sweat. My hyberbolic kung fu is mightier than your hyperbolic kung fu.

  15. Farewell, fleeting acquaintances. In the absence of any convincing reason for the changes, one is mildly suspicious.

    • Suspicious? Of what?

      If you want to start a rumour that Osama, JFK and Elvis have taken over moderation of our comment boards and are doing it from beachside hut in Croatia, I'll be the first to help you spread it.

      • He's worried you'll track his IP back to Conservative Party HQ.

        Me, I'd have preferred a week's notice. Would that have killed you guys?

      • Suspicious? Of what?

        You think people on the internet need a reason to be suspicious of changes to how they log in to online systems made within hours of their announcement?

        Well, not to be the crazy conspiracy guy, but changing over to a whole new comment system, with literally hours notice, but reminding everyone that they could always just use their already-existing Facebook or Twitter account instead does seem like it might just encourage a lot of people who don't really understand the privacy implications of using their Facebook or Twitter accounts to log in to non-Facebook/Twitter services to do so nonetheless.

        I wouldn't recommend people use their Facebook account to log in to ANYTHING that's not Facebook, and while I'm sure there's no great conspiracy there, I can certainly see why someone's eyebrow would be raised, particularly since the current system only recently started prompting us to consider sharing every single comment we make on Facebook, every time we comment. I know that Macleans is just using this social network as a means to provide a convenient service that users want, but I'm not naive to the fact that from Zuckerberg's point of view it's just one more vector to get that much more data about everything I ever do or say online, so that he can use that data himself, or sell it to the highest bidder (not my individual personal data of course, but the records of my habits and thoughts aggregated with those of my family and friends, and tied to information about who I am, where I live, what I like…).

        This is why I said it's a bad idea to roll out a major change to an online site that people log in to without at least a few days notice first.

      • suspicious of computer geeks and their works and CHANGE, I suppose.

      • I don’t understand why people are suddenly afraid. You can track IPs without people logging in. I’m guessing your average political hack isn’t smart enough to use a proxy.

  16. No need to be afraid …. creative destruction is our friend!

  17. This comment was deleted.

    • Yeah, the idea is to improve the comments, as well as make it easier on us. For instance, it should make it both harder to spam the boards and easier to remove the spam that gets through. Same goes for libellous comments that get posted over and over from different IPs. (Yes, people do this. And I'm not talking about tasteless or dumb comments—I'm referring to the type of comments that could land me in court.) We need a system that's a bit more robust to handle these things.

      • "We need a system that's a bit more robust to handle these things."

        Makes sense. I don't know much about what you guys behind scenes read/receive.

        I am curious to see anonymity makes difference one or another to comment section. I have used both moniker and my proper name and didn't make difference to what I wrote but I don't know what you guys are holding back/deleting. Look forward to it.

  18. Some notable features that Disqus brings.
    – Most Active, Most Liked and New Faces lists for Members.
    – @ mentions for those who like to reference other commenters in their comments.
    – More options for ordering your comments
    – Being able to respond to a post via twitter and have it display in the comments section.
    Believe us when we say that you're way better off with Disqus. It acts and behaves very similar to Intensedebate but provides a far better list of features. Don't worry, you're in good hands.

    • Can we get a few more reply levels, please?

      Well, actually, a few few?

  19. The most annoying thing about "joining" a well established comment site is that all the good names are already taken…<sigh>
    although, I will say that it totally give me a chance to rebrand myself. (double underscore and all)

    • You’re right about Nothing being Left for names… I gave up after about 30 tries. I’ve decided to stop being an anonymous stalker.

    • try a variation on “Emily”

    • and here I am, newly re-incarnated, but with a strangly similar build..

    • Anything with Emily in it would be great. :)

  20. Just deleted a comment and that worked well …. disappeared quite quick.

  21. Well, I for one welcome it, change is always good!

  22. Just so I'm clear on this: one could still register with a pseudonym and participate without revealing his or her identity, no?

    • Correct. We're not asking people to use their real name.

      • Thanks. Sorry to be so dense, but I have one more question: would I be registering with Maclean's or registering with Disqus? And tangentially, is there some reason blog commenting platforms all seem to have such gawdawful names? :)

        • You'd be registering with Disqus.

          • Thanks again!

  23. All done it was painless, but is not working yet, I loged out of my intensedebate and couldn't remember the password, I use 4 computers and always left my account open (I am the only one who has access to them)

    Now, about the people that I follow or follow me, they seem to be history, that's a bummer!

    • I've seen that picture somewhere before. Nice brow.

      • : )

  24. Requiring Registration — Good. Allows users to build up a history, and I assume will come with some more robust user management features.. such as allowing me to choose whose posts I don't want to see.

    Putting it on a separate page — Very bad. The problem with too many comments will disappear with this change alone. I predict the problem will rapidly become one of too *few* comments, as people won't bother clicking to see what's been said, meaning they won't be enticed to reply, meaning the section will shrink, which will give even regular users less reason to bother checking, and so on until nobody's bothering to check it at all, with corresponding effects on the views of the accompanying article as well.

    • I don't know about that. The Maclean's site in general isn't the easiest one to navigate (I don't mean it's bad or anything, guys!), so I expect most comments provided are already the products of fairly motivated individuals. I can't see one extra click being that monumental a hurdle. But I'm often wrong…

  25. You're posting from a library, I take it?

  26. There is no anonymity in Stephen Harper's Canada.

    • Also.

      Change! Boo!!

  27. Testing. I do wish the the original article was still visible after one clicks through for comments. Any way of making that happen? I’ll keep you posted as new points of complaint come to mind. :)

    • Nice to see you Sean you truly have been sorely missed!

      • I doubt that, but it’s awfully good to see you again too!

        • Oh we are, personally I learned a lot from you!!

  28. Okay. System looks like it’s just put in, and there seems to be some problems with newer pages/comments.. as in, newer articles don’t have any. Assuming this is a momentary glitch.

    However, the older articles retain comments and one thing to immediately nit-pick.. no nesting beyond the first level. This is going to make following the various conversations a *lot* more difficult.

    Well, it looks like edits work even if the comment has already been replied to. That could get.. surreal.

    Aha! Another interesting change.. you can shut off your “like” if you change your mind. Could make it interesting in arguments. No dislike ability that I can spot yet.

    • Agreed about the nesting, though perhaps the encouraged use of “at” might mitigate the confusion a bit.

      • Oh. There we go. This time I could reply to you.. it seems it takes Disqus a moment to figure out what options it’s going to give. Either that or the backstage guys are running around frantically with set-up options right now. PS.. edits work. Wonder if they work in a comment that’s already been replied to?

        Woohoo! And nesting. Much better. Now I wonder if I can link to some random website

        And if the anchor tags didn’t work, there’s always http://www.randomwebsite.com/

      • We original had it at 1 reply nesting but I’ve bumped it up to 2 as a sign of good faith. The reasoning was I didn’t want threads to go to deep. It get’s really confusing.

      • Really? And here I thought it added to clarity.. for instance, this is a response to jmckinnel. But if someone got in ahead of me, how will they know who it’s to?

      • Now we’re allowed two layers of nesting. This is how it starts! First thing you know, wading through the threads will be like opening one of those nesting dolls!! It’s sinister.

      • @jmckinnell:disqus You think killing off reasonable nesting reduces confusion?

      • this is in reply to @jmckinnell:disqus

        We like the discussions to be deep. :)

        Just have to figure out how to keep the bickering down to a minimum.

        Any chance of bringing back ‘points’, and a dislike button? It actually helped to know who was serious, and how was here to just raise some ‘stuff’?

        • Instead of it being a matter of total rating based on positive and negative rating. It’s now simply based on how many likes you get. If you write a lot of good comments then people will give you a lot of likes. If you click the community button at the top right of the comments you can see lists of who comments the most and who has the more comments. Or even just by clicking on a persons profile picture you can get a sense of how many comments that person has made and how many likes they’ve gotten as a result.

          If someone is at 10,000 comments and they only have 10 likes you can get a sense of just how important they actually are.

          • @jmckinnell:disqus : Sometimes though you really want to disapprove without actually commenting. The “thumb down” was good for that. There’s a difference between actively and passively disliking. Here we only get the passive (as in “I’ll pass on using the “like” button, thanks!”).

            I like sites where they have a running tally of likes and dislikes, rather than the aggregate score we used to get from IntensDebate – it gives a sense of just how well a comment resonates: Is it controversial? Uniformly liked or disliked? Or just too bland to be bothered with? +15, -13 is more informative than +2.

    • Ah. This is why no nesting.. I can’t reply to your comment. I can only reply to the thread starter.

      Incidentally.. welcome back! It’s nice to see you again.

      Now to test this and see what happens if I fire this @92fceef97a785f4edf7ecb8b5b367f81:disqus , although if it does what I think it will, it’s gonna be something that proves annoying in short order.

      • @thwim – trying this new feature. I seem to be able to reply to your reply to yourself; let’s see how it nests.

      • @KeithBram Hm. I think the guys behind the scenes must be working, it looks like they have to enable each level separately, because while I can reply to myself here as well, I can’t reply to you as of yet. Also, for some reason it’s not giving me your name when I start with the @ thing so I don’t know if we’ll see it.

        Oh, wait.. figured it out. I’d spelled your name wrong to begin with (flipped the e and the i). And it looks like the auto-@ stuff doesn’t work in editing. I’ll try with a new message.

      • thanks, nice to see you again too!

      • @KeithBram:disqus Like so. Tah-dah.

        • @92fceef97a785f4edf7ecb8b5b367f81:disqus : Supposedly these @ entries will generate an email to the person – but 23 hrs later, I haven’t received any email saying you’d replied…

      • how on earth could this @92fceef97a785f4edf7ecb8b5b367f81:disqus get annoying? lol

  29. Well, it’s up and running! At first blush, it seems much the same…

  30. Oh look, I’m New and Improved….because this damned system said there was already a SanDiegoDave registered.

    • Sheesh. Did you think you were the only guy in San Diego named Dave?

  31. Yeah but, this means change. I HATE CHANGE!!!

  32. Oohhh very nice and slick macleans…I like it!!

    • Yeah, but you like everything and everyone Claudia. :)

      • Oh God I know, sometimes I really hate myself for that : )

  33. Oooh very nice and slick macleans, I like it!!

  34. Well, I posted the same thing twice, because it said that to make a comment I had to post something, which I already had, mmmm…..

  35. OK, So let’s see what all of this is about then….

    (ETA: So, you really CAN edit a comment even after someone has replied to it! That’s going to get HILARIOUS!!!!)

    • Had to refresh the page to make my last comment appear, but there it is!

      I’m a whole new man!

      Again.

      I’ll be interested to see if as many people think that I think I’m a Lord, and don’t get my rather subtle reference (I’m from Kitchener) with this, the third iteration of my username, since every comment system seems to want to impose different limits on what I can and can’t use in my name. I’ve got enough characters to spell out Lord again, so that’s nice, but there’s no way it was going to let me use an apostrophe!

      • Nope, I don’t get it. I think you just think you’re the Lord.

    • Editing allowed after a reply has been in place? Other words besides “hilarious” come to mind. Ferinstance:

      MYL: Thwim is a smug piece of…

      Thwim: Liar!

      MYL replaces original post: The sun rises in the East.

      Thwim edits original reply: Now you’re a liar AND you hide your lie!

      MYL edits original post: The sun rises in the East. And I have no idea what Thwim just below is mumbling about.

      • What I hate most though is that there’s only a “reply” option for the original post, and one post below that. So, if you want to reply to ANYTHING below the first reply, you have to reply to the first reply. If one thought that the nesting in the OLD system was confusing, wait until there are four or five conversations happening simultaneously, and absolutely no one can tell who’s talking to whom, because every single reply seems to be a reply to one comment, rather than, say, a reply to a different comment three comments down from that one!!!

        • @Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus and @jmckinnell:disqus – I guess we’ll just have to make good use of these @ addresses to make it clear whom we are addressing. It does mean, though, that it’s easier to reply to two people as once.

      • @Lord_Kitcheners_Own:disqus Really the goal is to keep people on topic. We’ll see how things go. Nothing is set in stone. We can change it but we want to see how it works out.

  36. I’d just like to reiterate for everyone, outside of the nested threads, that NO ONE should use their Facebook account to log in to anything that’s not Facebook, imho. It’s RIDICULOUS how much data we all hand over to Mark Zuckerberg for free as it is, and there’s no reason to give him even more connections to even more information about you.

    Remember, Facebook’s business isn’t social networking, it’s collecting and mining data. Which is fair enough, but I often find it surprising how many people don’t seem to realize that. You’re not Facebook’s customer, you’re their PRODUCT.

    • I got a new smartphone 2 weeks ago. I made the mistake of logging into the Facebook application once, just out of curiosity. It downloaded my entire Facebook friends list onto the phone, including phone numbers, emails, etc., and I can’t delete them. So I’ve got phone numbers for people I haven’t talked to in 20 years.

      Apparently I’m going to have to do a factory reset and reload all my real contacts from scratch again. I knew Facebook was evil. I just had no idea how absolutely cancerous it is. I could strangle HTC and Android for allowing such a malignant piece of s/w to be pre-packaged onto their phone & OS. It’s like malware but worse. At least malware can be removed by AV s/w.

  37. When I click on my screen name (which is red, presumably that means I’m registered) I just get a 404 error message. Anyone else getting that?

    • I think red means you have a blog or something similar to which the clickee is supposed to be directed…

  38. I’m a little concerned people will be less inclined to comment on stories now that the comments section is on a separate page. One of the main reasons I started commenting on the Maclean’s website was my observation that many of the commentators had genuinely intelligent and insightful things to say. I’m not sure I ever would have noticed this if the comments were on a separate page.

  39. Seeing if this works, I had to pick a different username to login to this new Disqus, it claimed JSC was already taken.

  40. Testing, testing, one, two, three…

  41. Hey, Sean’s back! Yay!

    Edit: Wait a minute: this was a “reply” top my own “testing” comment but it somehow got turfed out to sit all alone.

    • Hey, Sean’s back! Yay! ”

      I agree. Voice of sanity and moderation. Welcome back, Sean.

      I like new comment section but we need more nesting. Have got use to it now. I also gave you liked, try it out.

    • Good to you see you all again (though I’ve never stopped visiting – just a long break from spewing my feeble thoughts).

  42. Can’t really say I am thrilled. The system needed a tweak, for sure, but this is a bit much.

  43. Drat someone beat me to my old login . Change is inevitable one supposes. If the goal is to reduce smears and reduce strain available space; consider limiting the number of postings one commentator can make on a thread. There’s been a tendency for snipping at each other in the past and I have been guilty of it myself.

  44. This lack of nesting might really cut off conversations, imho.

    If myl makes a comment, I can reply to it. If he likes, CR can then reply to my comment. And that, apparently, is it. If WDM wants to respond to CR’s comment, he has to reply to MY comment. If Emily wants to reply to WDM’s comment then SHE has to reply to my comment. At that point, everyone’s replying either to myl’s original
    comment, or to my reply, all the way down…

    I know there’s the whole @ option, but I still think it’s going to get confusing.

    • I agree. It was nice to be able to directly reply to the comment you wanted to. Can’t see why they have the system they have now.

  45. Hey, wait a minute! I can’t express my hatred anymore! Where’s the “don’t like” aka “you suck” button?

    How am I going to get my cathardic release now? Sigh. LOL

  46. This seems like a fairly drastic change to simply give us twitter access to comment threads. I miss the default hidden threads (limiting the depth of the initial comment thread) and the fact that comments were inline with the article itself.

    I sure hope the back-end features make this all worth it for you guys.

  47. Well, the ‘link to comment’ appears to not work. What else?

    • Could you be more specific? Is this within Disqus? or on the site?

      • if you get an email that someone replied to your post, and follow the link that comes with it, it only takes you to the story, not the reply. ID used to take us right to the comment. Saves a lot of time, searching for comments.

        • ID used to take us right to the comment when it worked. I had only about a 50% success rate with that feature.

  48. Here goes nothing! This is a test…

  49. Well, someone beat me to my old user name. Funny no one seemed to want it when I wasn’t registered.

  50. Something seems suspiciously new here. But, hey, anything once. Huzzah!

  51. We are not amused.

    • To elaborate, I do not like having to switch back and forth between comments and the article.

  52. I didn’t notice this post before.  The new commenting system has a few problems.  You can no longer read the body of a story while commenting on it, which makes quoting interesting passages difficult.  The look and feel is inferior to the previous system.  OTOH, getting rid of the thumbs is probably a good idea, as certain people took great pleasure in trolling for thumbs-downs.  That change will (hopefully) cut down on the number of trolls.  Threading seems to be more problematic in this system, too.

    If you are to change only one thing back, please change the layout so that the comments appear on the same page as the original post/article spawning the comments.

  53.  Mmmm, not hating new format but not loving it either … care not about the reputation thing … separate page for comments – harder to refer back to article, but can always open in separate tab on  Chrome … but, do hate and may just be me – cannot see where and how to thumbs down a comment (v. a particular page). 

  54.  I don’t agree with the changes but we must look at both sides of the case and I think they are fair.

  55.  Thanks but I disagree