You spammers...

[nasu_dengaku]

The number of lj spam comments I have to delete per day (10+) is kind of insane.  The complaints about the heavy traffic of ads shown to nonmembers (despite me paying for a membership) are also rankling me.  If I'm paying for lj as a blog hosting service, it shouldn't show ads to people trying to look at my blog

Comments

[ef2p]

I don't get any spam. But I almost never make a public post. You could try making your posts friends only.

Other ideas:
Log IP Addresses
Screen non-friends comments
Use CAPTCHA for non-friends comments

You can find these settings at: http://www.livejournal.com/manage/settings/?cat=privacy

[nasu_dengaku]

but I *want* to have public posts. Most of my content is for general consumption.

I get enough legitimate non-friend comments that I don't want to screen them.

[maradydd]

Facebook already allows its comment threads to be embedded on other sites. TechCrunch uses it.

Of course the chance of getting FB comments integrated cleanly with G+ is basically nil, ever.

[sfink]

Yeah, I'm planning on abandoning LJ because of the ads for commenters. I had two people respond to a blog post over IRC instead of on LJ because they were annoyed by the ads. When I confusedly said, "what ads?" one of them had me try to comment without being logged in. Argh! It doesn't just show an obnoxious ad, it forces you to sit through it.

I haven't decided where to go, though. I was contemplating github + disqus. But I kind of miss having control over the blog software. (I used to have a heavily hacked usemod wiki for my blog, but I don't want to host off of my dynamic DSL line anymore.)

I blog rarely enough that it feels like an incredibly low-stakes decision. Hmmm... though come to think of it, I should probably migrate my work blog somewhere too. It's WordPress but on a site with very limited theme options.

[hansandersen]

My understanding is that if someone ever re-posts a piece of content on G+ (or "shares", or whatever the native G+ verb is) then that essentially bifurcates the entry; comments on the shared copy don't back-propagate to the original. It sounds like this kind of rampant bifurcation is "by design" because it lets G+ avoid ever having to intersect two peoples' circles to figure out who has commenting rights to any given post. It remains to be seen how this will play out in actual use.

One of the things that is becoming apparent to me watching all this social network fragmentation unfold is that content authors are going to have to either give up control over where the public reaction to their posts takes place, or influence it subtly over time by having exactly one preferred venue, interacting with the community in that venue, and hoping that the readership ascribes enough value to the author's involvement that the discussion gravitates to that venue.

Minimize search won't work

[brad_templeton]

On my own blog, which I host, when you comment, the form tells you that any links in the comment will be disregarded by search engines. In addition, anonymous commenters (few create accounts to spam) have to answer a trivial barely-a-captcha question. However, spammers are paying poor people to write comments on my blog -- some of them obvious spam, some tricky because they cut and paste text from other comments to look on-topic, and ever so often some that are genuine on-topic posts with blue pill links in them (!) -- and this does not stop them. I figure the paid comment spammers may read the warning about how it's a waste of time to spam the blog, but they are probably being paid by the hour or by the comment and don't care.