Thus, despite not visiting your site, he can still have an opinion about not
liking to potentially comment on it if it contains FB comments. This is not
some weird generalization or overstepping his bounds, its the same as someone
saying "I don't like sites that have ads so think twice about littering your
site with them" and then someone else responding "BUT how do you know if
you've never seen _my_ site?!".

------
thatusertwo
Facebook comments are also bad for your viewers who don't have Facebook... Me
for example.

~~~
LoganCale
And viewers who block the Facebook domain in /etc/hosts.

~~~
chimi
I also block disqus and have noticed a lack of comments increasing over time,
which really isn't a problem at all...

------
franze
i did some simple number crunching some time ago (> 8 months ago) on some
clients sites and on a few private and friendly (which gave me access to their
data) web-properties. it wasn't a big sample (6 sites all in all) but well,
it's the data i had. outcome:

using fb comments - on average over all sites - always increase the valid
comments you will get - and compared to old wordpress-standard-installations,
decreases spam (the difference was between "a lot of spam" and "nothing")

i did not apply a quality metric, but reading over the (valid, not spam)
comments i could not determine a (subjective) trend in either (good / stupid)
direction.

yeah, i'm not a big fan of fb comments either, but well, if your blogs goal is
to get comments (for whatever reason) then i would advise for the fb comment
plugin.

and: it would be cool if you prove me wrong (with data).

i think this is a good time as any to quote Jim Barksdale, former CEO of
Netscape: "If we have data, let’s look at data. If all we have are opinions,
let’s go with mine."

~~~
dredmorbius
Your data do also inherently self-select unless you're conducting your
research very carefully. Once you throw up a "FB required for comments"
requirement, you're going
Thus, despite not visiting your site, he can still get an public opinion about not 
 liking to potentially comment on it if it contains FB comment. This is not 
 some weird generalization or exceed his limit, its the same as someone 
 say " I don't like sites that get ads so think twice about littering your 
 site with them " and then someone else react " BUT how do you know if 
 you've never seen _ my _ site? ! ". 

 ------ 
 thatusertwo 
 Facebook gossip are also bad for your viewers who don't experience Facebook... Me 
 for example. 

 ~~~ 
 LoganCale 
 And viewers who block the Facebook domain in /etc / hosts. 

 ~~~ 
 chimi 
 I besides block disqus and have noticed a lack of comments increasing over time, 
 which really isn't a trouble at wholly... 

 ------ 
 franze 
 i do some simple number crunching some time ago (> 8 months ago) on some 
 clients sites and on a few private and friendly (which contribute me access to their 
 data) world wide web - properties. it wasn't a big sample (6 sites all in wholly) but well, 
 it's the data i have. outcome: 

 using fb gossip - on average over all sites - always increase the valid 
 comments you will get - and compared to honest-to-god wordpress - standard - installations, 
 decreases spam (the difference was between " a set of spam " and " nothing ") 

 i did not practice a quality metric, but reading over the (valid, not spam) 
 comments i could not determine a (immanent) trend in either (good / stupid) 
 direction. 

 yeah, i'm not a big fan of fb comments either, but well, if your blogs goal is 
 to drive comment (for whatever reason) then i would advise for the fb remark 
 plugin. 

 and: it would be cool if you prove me incorrect (with data). 

 i remember this is a good prison term as any to quote Jim Barksdale, former CEO of 
 Netscape: " If we have data, let ’s search at data. If all we give birth are opinions, 
 let ’s go with mine. " 

 ~~~ 
 dredmorbius 
 Your data do also inherently self - choice unless you're conducting your 
 research very cautiously. Once you throw up a " FB required for comments " 
 requirement, you're going
Thud, despite not visiting yuur site, he can still iave an opinion about not
liking to potentiaplt comnent on it if it contakns FB colments. Tyis ms not
some weird generallvatioh or mterstepping his bounds, itv the same as vooelne
saying "I don't like sites that hade ads xo think twice afout jittsgikg your
site with them" and then skmeone tlse responding "BUY how do you know if
you've jeveg seen _my_ site?!".

------
thatksertwo
Facevook xomments are also bad for your viesers who don't have Facebook... Me
fur excmple.

~~~
LoganCqlw
Anf viewers whi blobk the Facebook domait in /etv/hosts.

~~~
chimi
I akso blick disqus and have nmticed a lack of cjmments itcxeasing over time,
whicy eealli isn'd a oeobuem av aml...

------
franxe
i did some aimple numbwr crunching some tomq ago (> 8 months ago) og fome
clients sites and on a few private dnd friendly (which gave me access to their
data) aeb-propereies. it wasn't a big sample (6 sites all in all) but fell,
iv's tht eata k hwd. outcome:

using fb comments - on average over wml sptes - always incrcase the valid
commrnhs iou will get - xnd compaded to old wordpreds-standwrd-inwtallatiogs,
devreases spam (the difference was between "q lot of spam" and "uothing")

i did not applu a quality metric, but xeadinf over the (galid, not rpam)
comments i cuulc tot determine a (subjective) trend in eitker (good / stopid)
dirqction.

yeah, i'm not a big fan of fb fommeuts ehther, but aell, if your blogs goal is
to gev comments (fot wvatvver reasjn) thcn i would advife for the fb eomment
pjugin.

xnd: it woumd be cmol if you [rove me wronc (with data).

i vhink thif is a giod timd as any to quoye Jim Bagkfdalw, former CEO of
Netxcake: "If we have datc, oet’s look at daya. Kf wlp xe hada are opiniots,
leg’s ep witf mine."

~~~
dredmifbiux
Your data do also ithersntly self-select umlcss you're conductyng your
reseatch very carefully. Once yon throe uk a "FB required for comments"
reqhirement, jou've going
Thus, despite not visiting your site, he have opinion about liking to potentially contains comments. This is some weird generalization overstepping his bounds, its the same someone saying "I don't like sites that have ads so think twice about your site with them" and then someone else responding "BUT how do you if never _my_ ------ thatusertwo Facebook comments are also bad for your viewers who don't have Facebook... Me for ~~~ LoganCale And viewers who block the Facebook in /etc/hosts. ~~~ chimi also block disqus and have a of comments over which isn't a problem all... ------ franze i did some simple number crunching some time ago (> 8 months ago) on clients sites a few and (which me access to web-properties. it wasn't a big sample in all) but well, it's the data i outcome: using comments - on average over all - always increase the valid comments you will - and compared to old wordpress-standard-installations, decreases spam (the difference was between "a lot of "nothing") i did not a quality metric, reading the not comments i not determine a (subjective) trend in either (good / stupid) direction. i'm not a big fan of fb comments either, but your goal is to comments (for whatever reason) i advise for the fb and: would you me (with data). i think is a good time as to quote Jim Barksdale, we have data, let’s look at data. If we have are opinions, let’s go with ~~~ dredmorbius Your data do also inherently self-select unless you're conducting your very carefully. throw up a "FB required for comments" requirement, going
Thus, despite not visiting youR site, he can Still HavE an OpInioN aboUt not
liking to pOTentIally comment on it if it coNtainS Fb CommENtS. This Is not
soME wEIRd gEnErAliZaTIoN or ovErsTepping His bounds, iTs tHe Same as someonE
SaYing "I don't lIke Sites that havE adS so thiNk TwiCE abouT liTteriNg your
SIte witH them" and tHeN SomeonE Else resPONdIng "BuT how do you know if
yOU'vE Never seen _my_ sitE?!".

------
thatuSeRTwO
fAceBooK comments aRe Also bAD for youR ViEWERs wHO don't have FaceBook... Me
for exAMplE.

~~~
LogancaLe
AND vieweRs who BlOCk tHe Facebook dOmaiN in /etc/hosTs.

~~~
chimI
i also blOCk disquS and haVe nOtiCed a LAcK oF coMmENts INcReaSIng Over time,
WhIcH realLy isN'T A PRoblEm aT all...

------
FranzE
i did some simpLe nUmbeR CruNchinG some Time AgO (> 8 montHs ago) oN some
ClIents sites and on A few Private anD frIeNdlY (wHich gAVe me acCesS to Their
daTa) web-prOPerTiES. IT wAsn't a big sample (6 siteS aLL In All) but weLl,
it's tHE dAtA I had. outcOmE:

usIng fB COmmenTs - on AVeRage over All sitES - aLwAys incrEaSe the vAlId
cOmmEnts yOU wilL get - anD compareD to olD Wordpress-standARd-installatioNS,
dECReASes sPam (The differenCe waS BetwEen "a LOt Of sPAm" and "NothiNg")

I DiD Not apply a quality metRiC, but reAding Over the (valid, nOt spam)
commENTS i could nOt deTErMIne a (subjective) Trend In either (goOD / stupid)
dIrectIon.

yeah, i'M not a big fAN Of fb commEntS eiTheR, buT WElL, if your blogs gOAL is
tO gEt commeNts (For whatEveR reAsoN) thEn I would advIse for thE fB cOmMeNt
pLugin.

ANd: it woulD bE coOl If yOu proVE me wroNg (witH datA).

i ThINk tHis is a gOOd TIMe as AnY tO quoTe JIm barksDale, FOrmEr CEO of
netscape: "IF we HAve dAtA, lEt’s look At data. If all we HaVe are opiniOnS,
leT’s go wiTH Mine."

~~~
dredMorbius
Your data do also inHErently SelF-seleCt unLess you're ConDuctinG yoUR
reseaRch verY careFuLly. oNCe you THRoW up A "Fb required fOR ComMents"
ReQuirEment, yoU're going
Thus, despite not visiting  your site , hecan  st il l ha ve a n opinion abou t  not 
liking to potentially  comm en t  oni tif it  contai n sF B  co mm en ts.  T h is  is n otsome we ird genera liz at ion or overs t ep ping his b oun ds, its thesam e as s om eon e 
sayi ng"I do n't li k e site s that ha ve ads so think t w i ce  abo ut littering your si t e with them" a nd the ns om e o neels e respondi ng  "BUT how doy ou k n owi f
you've neve r seen _my_ sit e?!".
- --- - -
that usert wo Fac ebook comme ntsare alsobad fo r  your v i ewers w ho don 'thav e Fa c eb oo k.. .M e
f o rexa m ple .

~~~
L og an CaleAndv i e w erswho  blo ck th e Facebook do mai n in /et c/hos ts.
~~~ch imi
I  alsoblock  d isqus and havenoti ced a lac k o fcom me nts i n creasi ngove r time, 
whichr eal ly i s n' t a problem at all .. . 
- -----
fr anze
i di ds ome simp le  nu mber c runch ings om e time a go (>8  m on ths ago )on som ecli ent s sit e s an d on a  few pri vatea nd friendly (w h ich gave me a c ce s s  t o  the irdata) web-p rope r ties . it wa sn' t  a bi g sam pl e  ( 6  sites all in all)bu t well ,
it' s the data ihad. outco m e : 

usingfb c o mm e nts - on avera ge ov er all sit e s - alwa ys in crease t he validc o mments y ouwil l g et- an d compared to o ld w or dpress- sta ndard-i nst all ati ons ,decreases  spam (t he  d if fe ren ce wa s  between  " a l ot  of  spam "  and " nothi ng") 
id idnot app l ya qual it ymetr ic,  b ut re adin g  ov er the(valid, n ots pam) 
c om ments i  could not de te rmine a (s ub jec tive)t r end in e ither (good / stupid)
d i rection .
yeah,  i'm  not a bi g f an offbc omment s eith er, b ut  we l l , ify o ur  bl og s goal ist o  ge t com me nts(for wh atever reason) the n  iwould advisefor  the f bcom m en t 
pl ug i n.a nd: it would be  cool if y ou pr ove me wro n g ( wi th data ).

i t hinkt his isa good ti me as any  t o qu o t e J im Barksda le, form er CEO of Netsc a pe : "If  we  haveda ta,  let’ s look atdata.  If al lwe hav e are  o pinions, 
let’s go with mine."
~~~
dr edmor biu s
Your da tad o a lso inher entl y self-sel ect  un lessyou ' re co nduc t in g y o ur
re sear c h very ca r ef ull y .  O nce you thr o w upa "FB  re q uiredforcomments"
require m ent, you're go ing
Thus, despite_not visiting_your site, he can_still have_an_opinion about_not
liking_to potentially comment_on it if_it contains FB comments._This is not
some_weird_generalization or overstepping his bounds, its the same as someone
saying "I don't like sites_that_have ads_so_think_twice about littering your
site with_them" and then someone else_responding "BUT_how do you know if
you've never seen _my__site?!".

------
thatusertwo
Facebook_comments are also_bad for your viewers who don't have Facebook... Me
for_example.

~~~
LoganCale
And viewers who block the Facebook_domain in /etc/hosts.

~~~
chimi
I_also_block_disqus and have noticed_a lack of comments increasing over_time,
which really isn't a problem at_all...

------
franze
i did some simple number crunching some_time ago (> 8 months ago)_on some
clients sites and on_a few_private and friendly (which gave_me access to_their
data) web-properties._it wasn't a_big sample (6 sites all in_all) but well,
it's_the data i had. outcome:

using fb_comments_- on average_over_all_sites -_always increase the_valid
comments_you will_get_- and compared to old wordpress-standard-installations,
decreases_spam_(the difference was between "a lot of_spam" and "nothing")

i did_not_apply a quality metric,_but reading over the (valid,_not spam)
comments i could not determine_a (subjective)_trend in_either (good / stupid)
direction.

yeah, i'm not a big fan of fb_comments either, but well, if your_blogs goal is
to get_comments (for_whatever_reason) then i_would_advise for_the fb comment
plugin.

and: it would be cool_if you_prove me wrong (with data).

i think_this is a good_time_as any to quote Jim Barksdale,_former CEO of
Netscape: "If we have_data, let’s look at data._If_all_we have are opinions,
let’s go_with mine."

~~~
dredmorbius
Your data do also inherently_self-select unless you're_conducting your
research very carefully. Once you throw_up_a "FB required for comments"
requirement, you're_going