I get it.
No change we make is likely to be ideal.
But let's be honest. The previous comments system fell short of perfect.
Some of the problems were on our end. It's not easy to monitor comments 24 hours a day, although we sure do try. But comments could sit for lengthy periods before being approved, particularly those submitted late at night or on weekends.
Our new system means we're putting more trust in commenters and approving comments more quickly - although we're still trying to keep a good eye on them.
Before, we saw many of the comments streams devolve into name-calling sessions with just a few participants. Some were about political viewpoint. Others divided along lines of athletic team loyalty.
Some of the regulars seemed to enjoy the back-and-forth, but the comments could seem intimidating or off-putting to more casual visitors to our website.
So we've picked this new system to encourage people to put their own names and faces behind their opinions. I think it's more interesting this way. I like to see who people are and what they look like.
Has the number of comments gone down? Maybe. But I think I see some new people commenting - and a wider variety of stories being commented on.
We aren't the only ones trying to get a better grip on comments. News organizations around the country are trying new systems and trying to become more active.
As the Poynter Institute wrote last year, "News organizations that have turned to Facebook to power their website comments say they are seeing a higher quality of discussion and a significant increase in referral traffic."
Will that be the case here?
I hope so. If not we'll try something else.
Meanwhile, how do you like our new system? Let me know in the comments . . .
Daily Mail Managing Editor Brad McElhinny can be reached at 304-348-1703, at bra...@dailymail.com or @BradMcElhinny on Twitter.