Jim Brady: Yeah, that's a terrific analysis. So the point is that the only people qualified to discuss comments on articles are people who allow comments and delete nothing? That would be one heck of a discussion. As for clearly exaggerating, I saw that "analysis." It was of a cached page of one of the two problematic posts, and as I have mentioned a number of times, didn't have any of the posts that we'd removed. If you want to act as it that's proof of clear exaggeration, I think you lose some credibility when you talk about the press and its burden of proof. If The Post had used that burden of proof to show that Abramoff directed money to Democrats, you'd rightfully be all over them.
First, the point of having a conversation about how best to handle a large volume of comments on a high volume site is, presumably, to get some feedback on how to do so. I have site with a high volume of comments. Jane does. Kos does. Charles Johnson does. The slashdot people do. Having Reynolds on to sniff for an hour that he doesn't like comments is rather pointless.
Brady's been all over the map with his claims about number of intolerable comments he deleted. He has, at times, clearly exaggerated the number. Or, maybe, at other times he's clearly underestimated the number. We've heard a few hundred. We've heard 50.