Brilliant, but it'll never be widespread enough to make a meaningful difference.
Besides, nobody comments on websites directly any more. Now it all goes to Twitter or Facebook, and they'll never implement anything like this because it'd be directly inimical to their business model.
I disagree. I mean, yes, it won't spread, but for anyone who cares about not having a blog filed with hate spam / bs from people who didn't actually read the article this is a great idea. It may not fix the internet, but there are some blogs where this could make a huge impact on the mental state of their owners.
Cool idea, but I feel like people will use it to make their comment section an echo chamber. For example, if your article is pro-hilary, you are asking Trump fans to acknowledge certain things you said about pro-hilary to be correct before they get to comment. And they mostly likely will not want to do this.
Perhaps. I think the "prevent people from sharing until they know what they are sharing" is the most important part to me. Had a fun time hacking on it today though. Just a little Friday joke.
I don't know. Before you dismiss an opinion, you should at least acknowledge that you understand what they are trying to say. I think it's essential for a healthy discussion.
For crying out loud, please use labels for radio buttons - it makes them SO much less painful to select. I wish browsers would start flagging errors for this sort of thing.
i _was_ thinking about taking a browser fingerprint and using that to prevent people from reloading the article / trying a second time. So basically, either you read /grok it or you just don't get to share it -- but that felt like a little much.
I'm honestly more interested in the discussion then I am with the article in almost all occasions. Even if I don't have any interest in the link I'll still peruse the comments.
If you ask me, the whole point of an article is to spark a good discussion.
It's 50/50 for me. Here on Hacker News there are many articles where the discussion is worthwhile. On many other sites, it's almost never a good idea to read the comments. And I'm not just talking YouTube.
It _should_, but, as we know with clickbait titles (which are not prevalent on HN, thank goodness), the title doesn't always convey anything even discussed in the article.
I'm the same way. Often I will see a link that looks interesting with no comments because it just recently landed on the front page. Rather than click the link, I check back in a few hours to read the comments.
I think something like this is needed for elections. If you want to vote for someone, you have to pass a simple quiz to prove you know what they stand for.
I think you're missing the point, which is that voters should at least read about their options in some way or another, rather than blindly (or nearly blindly) choosing the one who will "save our country".
You're proposing aristocracy, that would be a big step backwards. I think there are far better ways to inform people about their choices and give them the power to decide who they want to be represented by. In any case, we should make voting easier for people, not harder.
Then don't invalidate that vote, print off the exam for the voter with their score, still let the voter vote. Maybe you get multiple 'I voted' stickers if you pass the exam with flying colors.
Saying "this is aristocracy" is kind of like saying that FDR was a fascist; it adds nothing to the conversation except emotional associations. If the idea will give rise to harmful consequences, say what those consequences are, instead of trying to associate it with a name you don't like.
(See also Orwell's Politics and the English Language, if memory serves.)
Not a bad idea at all. Perhaps the questions could derive from the citizenship test?
Of course, there would be risks of partial administration and regulatory capture, as mentioned in other responses to you; but I think it's a good idea, and it might be possible to make it work.
It seems like you'd just increase the volume of spam and tell your spambots to always vote "Constructive". If you release more spam than legitimate users send messages, you'll break through regardless of how they vote. You could even have your spambots downvote the real users, since they'd be displacing your precious viagra ads.
Meta-moderation is a thing. Slashdot has been doing it for years.
Not everyone gets to vote, and systems would need to be in place to check for gaming.
I have had this idea - but my solution is different. The solution is that the time on site has to approximate the estimated reading time. Extra measure could be taking by tracking the scroll rate.
Y.T.’s mom pulls up the new memo, checks the time, and starts reading it. The estimated reading time is 15.62 minutes. Later, when Marietta [her boss] does her end-of-day statistical roundup, sitting in her private office at 9:00 P.M., she will see the name of each employee and next to it, the amount of time spent reading this memo, and her reaction, based on the time spent, will go something like this:
• Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.
• 10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.
• 14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.
• 16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.
• More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).
Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary.
I think if you wanted to truly implement some type of functionality like this, time on site could be a component. It would definitely filter out the case of someone like me, who clicks through to the comments and then clicks the story link in the comments.
I do this so my browser history points back to the comments when I'm done with the article. I have no idea how many other people do this.
This is not directly related to Readsure, but I've been thinking about comments becoming the main content. It'd be interested to see which percentage of people go directly to the comments in aggregators like reddit or hacker news. Even more interesting to me would be to see how many people would pass the quiz by reading only the comments. Sometimes the comment section is rich enough and can provide more information than the source itself if one has good inferring skills.
I think this has a flaw. Considering that you will be presenting the end user with multiple options and the choice to only select one, the user can simply spend 4-5 seconds to select each option one by one until they get it right - Does not really verify that the end user indeed read the article
64 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadBesides, nobody comments on websites directly any more. Now it all goes to Twitter or Facebook, and they'll never implement anything like this because it'd be directly inimical to their business model.
I get a fair number of commenters, so it doesn't seem unreasonable.
In either case, I think this would be better for Github issues. It'll force people to actually know what the hell is going on before they comment.
Social engineering: some guy reads it and then posts the answer to your question in the comments.
If you ask me, the whole point of an article is to spark a good discussion.
Congratulations, OP. You're funded.
(I kid I kid)
Of course even if you required people to know a politician's voting record before voting for them, politicians would find some way to game the system.
Our elections are bad enough with the electoral college, super delegates, and gerrymandering.
(See also Orwell's Politics and the English Language, if memory serves.)
Of course, there would be risks of partial administration and regulatory capture, as mentioned in other responses to you; but I think it's a good idea, and it might be possible to make it work.
Can this be automated? That would be really sweet.
There is an xkcd[1] comic where instead of captchas, users have to supply valuable insights, thus solving the problem of trolls once and for all.
This might be first step towards such a solution.
[1] https://xkcd.com/810/
if (ans == 4){ document.getElementById("question_right").style.display = "block"; } else { document.getElementById("question_wrong").style.display = "block"; }
• Less than 10 min.: Time for an employee conference and possible attitude counseling.
• 10-14 min.: Keep an eye on this employee; may be developing slipshod attitude.
• 14-15.61 min.: Employee is an efficient worker, may sometimes miss important details.
• Exactly 15.62 min.: Smartass. Needs attitude counseling.
• 15.63-16 min.: Asswipe. Not to be trusted.
• 16-18 min.: Employee is a methodical worker, may sometimes get hung up on minor details.
• More than 18 min.: Check the security videotape, see just what this employee was up to (e.g., possible unauthorized restroom break).
Y.T.’s mom decides to spend between fourteen and fifteen minutes reading the memo. It’s better for younger workers to spend too long, to show that they’re careful, not cocky. It’s better for older workers to go a little fast, to show good management potential. She’s pushing forty. She scans through the memo, hitting the Page Down button at reasonably regular intervals, occasionally paging back up to pretend to reread some earlier section. The computer is going to notice all this. It approves of rereading. It’s a small thing, but over a decade or so this stuff really shows up on your work-habits summary.
I do this so my browser history points back to the comments when I'm done with the article. I have no idea how many other people do this.