This has really been bothering me lately. Over the past week or so, I've seen TONS of songs with continous comments that have nothing to do with the meaning of a song or what a song means to someone. I've seen plenty of comments on how great a song is, how much it sucks, or what genre they think it fits in. This wouldn't be so terrible if I didn't have to go through pages of comments to find the 3-5 posts that give an actual meaning to someone or the meaning the band intended that someone has researched.

Here's a good example: http://www.songmeanings.net/songs/view/76198/

I didn't bother reading past the first few posts on the next page. All you see is, "this song is great" and continous arguing about what emo is, how cool or uncool it is, and if the band fits into the emo category. Trash.

The charm of this site has always been the meaning of songs people find, whether intended by the band or personal. I don't want to see how many people think a song is cool or not. It's baffling to see so many unnecessary posts that have nothing to do with what it seems the site should be about.

I have a few ideas to help fix these problems. First of all, an opinion poll could be put up for all the songs so people could vote and see the opinion of others on whatever song. A poll or a rating option would work for this. Next, have 3 or so individual posts that people can only post replies to and stay within that box you can expand to show the comments and add your own. What I mean by this, is sections for comments. Ie, "song meanings and interpretations", "opinions", and "other". Either this, or allow searches of comments by type.

All in all, I think the site could be much better. If nothing else, moderate something. As per the link above, it's getting beyond ridiculous. Eventually, I'm going to stop coming to this site altogether and just use a pure lyrics site. At least then I don't have to see useless comments filling up the page.

yes perhaps the idea behind the success of the site had now become it's greatest downfall?

one would say that the website is run by the public but perhaps the public cannot be trusted to generate quality content. Would it be beneficial for a team of admins to go around deleting rubbish posts? I think not as this would strain resources and not fix the problems directly.

If you think about the way wikipedia is run, it is run by the public but it is tightly monitered by admins and even maintained by the public, i believe that voting or some sort of majority verdict is the way forward for this site, i think that the original submitter of lyrics should not be in sole control over the content for then onwards but should be open to public editing. this could then be maintained by voting for the most reliable or correct version.

Thankyou

I would gladly volunteer my time to delete junk posts.  But how do the "owners" of this site know they can trust me?  That's the problem that sites Wikipedia have been struggling with for a long time now.  Who watches the watchmen?