Site Comments - Powered by AI?
Hey Everyone,
This is a cross between a question and a little rant...
I've recently been using the SiteComments platform to get some comments on my blog posts. Hopefully, you understand the importance of getting comments on your blog posts, but lately, I've been questioning the quality of the comments I've been getting through SiteComments.
I think it's safe to say that some members are using AI to generate comments and some of them have been great. But then there have been some that aren't or have missed the point of the platform.
The one I got today was just a synopsis of my blog post. It didn't offer a question, an opinion, or anything that would be worth me approving it.
I think using AI for site comments can be useful, but I suppose it still needs to add value to the blog post and I'm not always seeing it. If you're going to do it, make sure you use the right prompt to ensure AI offers value to the blog post... Or write it yourself... I kind of get the feeling some aren't reading the blog post and just letting AI do the work, but missing the point of comments.
I suppose I just wanted to get some opinions on how you are getting on with SiteComments. What is your experience with Site Comments? Are you approving the comments or rejecting them? Am I right to question it...
I'd love to hear what you all think?
Recent Comments
27
Hey John,
Yep the "summarise the article as a comment" has become a "real thing" recently, and yes, it's awful.
Simply disapprove them straight away.
It may seem a bit harsh, but realistically it's the only way people will learn.
You'd have to say that many people come here and try to "game the comments system", simply because of the credit system and the potential to earn a few dollars.
I would also say (and this is something I have mentioned in countless blog posts here), it comes down to experience, the person's intelligence, how much the READ in general, and their overall perception of what is "good".
Unfortunately, AI is NOT the "magic bullet" for people who potentially fall into the negative aspects of the above 4 categories I've mentioned.
What I mean is, and this is evidenced in various blog posts on the platform, some people's perception of what great AI looks like is skewed by these factors.
As an example, if someone doesn't read regularly, hasn't written anything since high school, and has no experience with online writing, a garbled over-the-top, full of hyperbole and exaggeration AI comment/article will seem impressive.
In fact, it's becoming more obvious that many people are completely reliant on the output of AI and don't even read what they've been given (I've seen a LOT of evidence of this on the platform and within blog posts and websites).
You could say that those who are using AI incorrectly still have the wrong mindset... they are still looking for that "easy push-button system".
So, rather than wasting your time, or even trying to reach out to others to explain (it would be like a full-time job trying to explain this to someone who "thinks" the comments/content they're producing is good), just disapprove them.
If someone is getting constantly disapproved they will either have to move on, or hopefully work out why this is happening and then aim to improve their comments themselves.
Partha
Hi Partha,
Great insights, and I get where you're coming from. I will be disproving them going forward but I wanted to share as some others can get duped into believing it's ok today, even though they give it some thought about the comment and read it through before they click submit.
Thanks again,
John
Hey Kathie,
I've only got back into using SiteComments recently... I was using the "ask for comments" thread, which was giving some great natural comments. But I've started posting daily, and didn't want to put that onto the people in that thread.
SO I asked for some comments through SiteComments. I've had some good comments, both natural and some that definitely look AI-written. But they did add value to the blog post, or provide a great question for me to respond to.
But then there have been a few that didn't really offer value, or be a comment a real person would have written (in my opinion).
Hence, writing this to see what you all thought.
Thanks for stopping by...
John
I think it that it is a good thing that we have AI as an "assistant", the trouble comes in when we use it as a "creator". We should always add our own voice to the conversation. As far as site comments go, I wouldn't accept one if it does not add the value you want or seems to be disconnected from the discussion.
Just my thoughts,
Rod
Hi Rod,
I think that's the important bit - offering value.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
John
If you are getting AI comments, it goes against the policies and you can disapprove and send people to this post with a message. SiteComments - The Full Walkthrough & Benefits This is the updated walk-through, training, and best practices with SiteComments. There has been SOME commenters using this, but it is likely because at times they may think it is OK.
Just let them know if it is obvious, and then you can disapprove if it is canned GPT content.
Thanks for the share, Kyle. I do see some great comments, but there will always be some that aren't.
I did disapprove the comment that was clearly AI-generated.
See more comments
Hi John,
I think like Partha said, people are just lazy and don't want to do their homework before they comment on posts. I for one haven't used site Comments as i only joined premium a few days ago. So this would be a good eye opener for the near future.
Faith.
Hi Faith,
thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've only recently started using it again as my publishing is becoming more frequent. But some aren't going the right way about using it.
Regards
John
That's true. So those you don't waste your time with as long as you see it is not related to the post you have shared.