Sound off on our comment system: Broken or better?
Posted by:
Matt Neznanski on
April 14, 2009 at
5:10PM PST
Along with the launch of MidValley Voice came a new policy for commenting on news items published on gazettetimes.com, democratherald.com and lebanon-express.com.
You've probably seen the change (since a lot of you were registered commenters on our simple blogs before the switch). Besides looking and acting differently, the new comment system was a major shift in policy in that we no longer pre-moderate comments.
In non-tech words, that means your comment doesn't sit in a queue waiting for an editor to look it over and decide if it's appropriate. Back when we did that, it took a ton of time, and, according to many of the best-practices emerging from folks who manage online communities, tended to stand in the way of a transparent exchange between readers and the newsroom.
But that doesn't mean that it's a painless process, either.
Last week, I got a call from a reader irate over comments published to a story about the late Fred Decker. How dare we, he said, allow people to post derogatory comments on what was essentially an obituary?
I had to tell him that our new policy was to allow comments until someone drew attention to them and described why they were abusive. He wasn't impressed.
And, frankly, neither was I.
My hope for tying comments to profiles on MidValley Voice was to decrease anonymity and elevate the discussion surrounding community information and events. I still have hope.
Like everyone working on the social Web, we're learning as we go. I can say that we're not likely to go back to the days when every comment was read and vetted before it was published.
But that doesn't mean the discussion is over.
I want to know if the tenor of comments on our Web sites keeps you from posting there.
Do you avoid even reading the comment section because it feels like the Wild West?
Is this a major part of your day and, while you don't agree with everyone (or maybe because of that) your guilty pleasure is shaking your fist at regulars here?
Should we end commenting after a certain period of time, say, a week?
Sound off in the comments and let me know. We're listening.
(14) Comments
|
Posted by: DaveM on April 14, 2009 5:56PM PST
Third try....
Fred never made my radar, but if he was opinionated and used the paper to express his opinions, who is to say whether a poster is out of line when they remember him negatively?
I think you should save all the comments unless you have disk space issues.
So far, besides non-intuitive sign-in issues, this is a far better way to handle comments. Calling what we had before a Comments system, is a gross overstatement without the modifier pathetic.
|
|
Many of 51 comments are not ‘elevating the discussion’
-----
Reference Professor John Goodwin’s letter to the editor ‘Mailbag: Sixty-eight percent approve (April 13):‘ as of yesterday, April 14, many of these 51 comments follow a very non-elevated discussion.
Actually, it appears many of these ‘commenters’ do not even correctly understand or address the discussion thread.
It’s a definite pattern exhibited by many posters
----
Many of these same people quickly jump to the ‘argumentum ad hominem’ in almost every editorial or letter to the editor.
Barefoot 9, CarpeDM 1, Dangerous Dave 15, EH 5, Gordon 1, human race 2, Orguy 5, Tom Johnson 5.
Even John Puma 5, gets down to the ‘I’ debate level.
Do a count of commenter’s comments over a week
-----
Some good responses occur. However as many of the big news organizations have discovered, a monitor seems to be the main way to ‘elevate the discussion.’
Add current number of comments to all MVV listings
------
This info allows more ‘scanning review’ of these ‘social Web’ posts. Current numbers of comments are only noted under ‘Most Popular’ listing.
Many newspapers routinely provide this service.
Does ‘... the tenor of comments on our Web sites keeps you from posting there.’
-----
Yes. Not because ‘... it feels like the Wild West?’
Rather, it is because many of these commenters so quickly become very small, very childlike.
Try to elevate the discussion as a journalist
-----
As a journalist, consider adding points of this topic from websites of Poynter Institute, Columbia Journalism Review, and USC Annenberg School for Communication, among others.
|
|
I also had to deal with the fallout from the Fred Decker story, and talked with a friend of his from Arizona who was extremely upset, partly about "cowards" making anonymous comments.
Fred was a controversial fellow, no doubt about it, and I think many of the postings, even those critical of him, were appropriate to list. It was a news story, after all.
Ironically, we wrote about Fred mainly becuase he was so outspoken, not for accomplishments at Oregon State University.
That he's sparking a debate about online anonymity is somehow fitting. Regardless of whether you agreed with him, Fred stood by his words. Which brings us to the current state of the G-T and D-H Web sites.
I cringe at the pseudonyms we currently allow online. A newspaper should be about attributing information to sources, and making those sources stand by their words -- even in the simple blogs after Web stories.
There might be fewer idiotic posts and comment battles if people had to use their real names on our Web sites. Right now, they can hide behind their online tags and there's no sense of real-world consequences.
While the negative tone of the simple blog posts can be entertaining, I don't think we're doing a service to our readers by allowing this Wild West culture. We were hoping to have a forum, to spark discussions. And that still does happens. But often, masked desperadoes hijack the thread and fire away insults.
|
|
|
Require same standards as Letter to Editor
-----
As a short step back...
1. Why not require comments to follow same standards and submission policy information presently required for Letters to the Editor?
2. Or add to your newspaper business model and charge mini payments for comments?
|
|
Posted by: MVTec on April 15, 2009 3:49PM PST
It is obvious that those who want to be anonymous and continue with hijacking the threads have remained anonymous even after the change to a profile style commenting system.
Truth is, these people will never change, and will probably never leave the comments, always hijacking and changing the tone of the conversation.
Requiring standards would probably cause the comments to die off, most people thrive and expect a system with anonymous aliases. The key is those people that want to be involved and enjoy a useful discussion need to take the thread back and ignore the posts added by those adding to the Wild West culture.
|
|
|
Personally, I wouldn't mind some of the comments dying off. It would make it easier to read the thoughtful discussion that sometimes occurs.
I totally agree with Eric. A standard like the Letters to the Editor for online comments would be helpful. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how we could implement that.
|
|
Posted by: Laure on April 16, 2009 5:06PM PST
When you write a letter to the editor for publication, anonymity is not allowed. You must provide a name (not alias), address and phone number. Your address and phone are not published, but your name is. Same should apply to online comments.
If your opinion is important enough to you that you feel it must be expressed, then you should be willing to stand behind it. I personally think it's cowardice to do otherwise.
|
|
I agree that it is cowardice to hide behind your alias when making comments. Kyle's point about not being sure how to implement that is the huge problem. Comment systems are rarely (if ever) set to record people's address, phone number, name etc. All that is generally required is an email address.
Would those moderating comments then be required to verify phone numbers and addresses? The system could require it, but we would all include a fake "real" sounding name, a real address (not where we live though), and a fake "real" phone number.
The internet was not built on distinctive, recognizable and verifyable data.
|
|
|
Posted by: DaveM on April 17, 2009 12:30PM PST
I'd never recommend anonymity for all users. Women, in particular, seem to draw a lot of unwanted attention from freaks and ne'er do wells. The best (and most imperfect) way to handle hijackers and polls are the online reporting tools and community moderation.
Banning users is seldom effective, as better than half will come back with new nicks and toss-away eddresses.
|
|
|
Posted by: DaveM on April 17, 2009 12:32PM PST
Oops. Please make that hijackers and trolls.
Maybe an edit function would be nice.....
|
|
|
Could Mid-Valley Voice allow comments only by paid comment subscribers?
Building online audiences by allowing online discussions or comments about news, editorials, staff & community blogs and letters to the editor is a great goal.
As noted in this thread, many commenters quickly descend “... into flame wars, profanity, racism and other forms of ugliness...” including very small mindedness.
Why not add commenter subscriptions to your business model?
Is not one of most newspaper's goals to make a bit of cash?
On the other hand, block IP addresses of “offending commenters” until these people agree to grow up.
Online Comments: A Partnership Solution?
This Poyntner Institute website post talks about some options.
This post comment outlines a subscription model.
“News websites and blogs often invite readers to submit online comments about articles but ways to add a higher level of accountability to the process are needed. Some websites only grant permission if the contributor provides a working email address but with free email accounts readily available, remaining anonymous is way too easy.
Our-Hometown's novel "comments option" allows article-specific comments by paid subscribers only. If any of the posters get out of hand, the newspaper can trace everything back to the subscriber's account that can only be opened with a valid credit card and disable future comments.
This story first appeared in Newspaper Association of America New Media Federation's 9/30/2005 Online Publishing Update.
Furthermore, Our Online Subscription Model generates revenue while simultaneously protecting circulation for the newspaper's print edition. The system limits access to the "fresh news" to paid subscribers while leaving the archives open to the public.
Open archives continue to be a major source of traffic from the search engines as they draw in readers that are looking for information on the issues covered by the newspaper. The system increases newspaper profits by eliminating delivery costs, especially for out of town subscriptions.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Laure on April 25, 2009 8:56AM PST
I'm not suggesting that ANYONE's address and phone number be available to readers, but it should be a required submittal to the D-H.
When you log in or register, at no time are you REQUIRED to provide your address and phone number, it's optional in creating a profile. Before being allowed to comment, it should be required to provide it to the D-H in your profile information. It will never be published.
I think paid subscription to MVV would be counter-productive to increasing participation. We're not New York, we're Linn County, and in these economic times, I (and I suspect many more) will choose not to participate should we have to pay for it.
Not to mention that it would no longer be a "community". We shouldn't have to pay to have a voice in our community.
|
|
|
Is it not clear, GT/DH and Mid Valley Voice need more control on forums comments?
i.e. “Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.”
It appears to work at http://www.voiceofsandiego.org
“Reader feedback
* Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
* Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
* Please be patient with the posts — there may be a delay before they appear on the site — and make sure to enter the code in the “image verification” box.”
|
|
|
