jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (6 posts)

Does comment censorship have more than one purpose?

  1. somethgblue profile image87
    somethgblueposted 5 years ago

    Does comment censorship have more than one purpose?

    Does the deletion comments that are contrary to the point of your article serve to increase your hub score or is it just a vain attempt to sooth your ego?

  2. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    I started a thread about this.  I have yet to censor a comment.  It would take a lot for me to do so. 

    Some people definitely soothe their egos; however, I recently learned that too many comments that were off the topic could decrease the amount of Google traffic one could potentially receive.  Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

  3. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago

    Your Hub Score wouldn't effect your organic, search engine traffic in the slightest.
    Yes, a bunch of irrelevant comments on your web pages/articles will definitely have a negative impact on your natural traffic via Google, Bing, Yahoo!, etc., but I ignore such things while on a community site, such as this.
    On the other hand, it is not uncommon for a web page to rank higher, after receiving several comments (if they are mostly related/germane/pertinent, whatever...).
    Anyway, what ticks me off, among many other things, is when people write controversial and/or debatable Hubs, but only approve the comments that agree with them.
    I can understand deleting somebody that continues to reply back with the same, repetitive inane drivel, but as the old adage states:  "If ya can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
    In this case, it may very well be better stated for me:  "If ya can't handle the asininity and the ridiculous level of sensitivity here, go back to your own bad ass websites and be your own cyber-based administrator of utter madness; ha!

    1. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That's what happened in my case.  My political philosophy was called a "disease."  Yet, I was only allowed to post one comment, and then the person responded, and censored my response to the response.

      Other commentators were allowed to attack me.

    2. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, Sooner28...
      Yeah, I also find it to be very amusing in a bad way, when people delete your rebuttals but yet, let other people insult your commentary without allowing you to comment back.  I know, censorship is for the weak and dishonest. [...]

  4. profile image0
    RobSchneiderposted 5 years ago

    As you know, only one insane person comments on my hubs regularly, so it's not an issue with me. In general, I think relevance should be the key to including or excluding comments. On my blogs, I only delete obviously spammy comments (Great site! I learned a lot from it!) that are written solely for link building purposes.

    Some people get obsessed with having the last word in an argument. If they're not contributing anything new, I give them a friendly warning that if they don't have anything new to say, I'll delete their next comment. That happens particularly with 9/11 articles. When their back's against the wall they start lashing out with insults. It's a waste of everyone's time.