You touch here on a theory I've had about news site commenters. I've noted from some of my interactions with our site's users that many of them are older or not particularly web-savvy. For some, this is the first website they've ever joined to comment on anything.

My theory is that a great deal of those who comment on news sites simply do not know what an online community is even supposed to be like. They've never been members of message boards or Facebook or written in Livejournals. They don't know about online etiquette, about moderating oneself before posting, about what a good comment even is (hence why so many commenters still type in ALL CAPS!!!!!).

It's a whole new element of responsibility to take on, but maybe we should be doing more to educate our members.

Mandy, I think the short answer is to have a moderators panel define clear criteria for what a 'good post' consists of: relevance to topic or thread, cites specific point of discussion, uses supporting data, good grammar, absence (or presence) of LOLcat-speak, etc. That makes it easier to assess contentious discussions without taking a side or appearing to take a side.

Over time, the community develops an ethos of respect and quality contribution. Let the heavies pummel a couple of the wankers so they know you mean business.

(Weird, I put this in yesterday and just noticed it never posted via Disqus)

I know a lot of sites have certain elements of that, but nothing is perfect. You can vote up and down comments on a site like Digg, for instance, but we've all seen how that also leads to unpopular opinions getting buried by their opposition. A quantity of posts and a lot of “likes” from a core group of like-minded friends can raise ranks on message boards, but that doesn't mean the person in question is necessarily offering any discussion of merit.

It's tough to make a system that is fair – and I think that's an issue a lot of developers will face in the coming years.