- All
- Local Webosphere (293)
- Online journalism (111)
- TheNewsTribune.com (168)
- Web 2.0 (147)
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
- January 2009 (1)
- October 2008 (6)
- September 2008 (5)
- August 2008 (9)
- July 2008 (13)
- June 2008 (7)
- May 2008 (9)
- April 2008 (8)
- March 2008 (6)
- February 2008 (8)
- January 2008 (8)
- December 2007 (12)
- More...
- Guest Users: 590
If you have visited the comments on our stories recently, I apologize. This is not what we had in mind.
At their best, story comments add layers to a news story that a newsroom simply can't. Local expertise, interaction, discussion and a healthy exchange of ideas based on the news in the report.
At their worst, story comments are nothing more than senseless drivel. Mean-spirited personal attacks between people who know each other's screen names intimately but know very little about their adversaries in real life.
A few years ago, just when blogs were really taking off and hitting mainstream awareness, we started talking about allowing comments on our news stories. Around the same time, we had a focus group of younger readers tell us they would love the opportunity to interact with the news through comments. They said, "We want to play, too."
We welcomed the idea of allowing readers to hold us accountable, just as we try to hold those in power accountable to our community. We looked forward to the exchange of ideas around our news stories between locally interested citizens. But we also knew that some moderation would be critical; a truly open forum could potentially devolve into a cesspool of personal attacks and bitter name-calling (human nature being what it is). And we didn't accurately forecast the volume of comments that we would receive on a daily basis, let alone those that are posted at all hours of the night. So our minor commitment to foster this community – including the ability for users to "flag" comments they deem inappropriate – has proven to be insufficient.
We now find ourselves at a crossroads. The comments on our stories are marred too frequently by back-and-forth attacks between a small number of regulars who accuse one another of past transgressions and posing as alternate identities. We receive complaints that many of the commenters are, in fact, the same person holding court with himself or herself for all to see. And we are not alone; most news sites that allow comments have even worse conversations running on their sites. From what I hear from online editors around the country, we're actually pretty lucky (which is really scary).
At the same time, editors at the newspaper complain that we don't have enough comments on certain hot button stories (especially when local bloggers get more comments on a post about our story) and we should be doing more to create conversation with our news.
And still there have been many beneficial, constructive, learned conversations on our news stories. And even the correction of errors found in stories that were highlighted by reader comments. To me, anyway, the pluses have outpaced the minuses.
So what should we do? Make all comments go through a review before they are approved? Turn off comments and just make the problem go away? Or continue to allow an open forum and hope the good will shout out the bad?
My preference is to redouble our efforts to the care and feeding (and discipline) of this dynamic community. The comments on our blogs are mostly constructive, high quality contributions by smart people who know the topic, sometimes better than our reporters do. In my opinion, those comment streams work because the blogger is responsible for fostering the discussion and keeping it on track. If we applied those same guidelines to our story comments, we would certainly improve the quality of the discourse.
For example, compare this fairly typical tussle on one of our stories vs. this fairly typical discussion on one of our blogs.
But whose responsibility should it be? The reporter who wrote the story? The reporter's editor? An online editor? All of these people are already plenty busy, so there is no easy answer.
Another option might be to enlist the community for support. Some news sites have "deputized" a small group of regular contributors and asked them to police the comment streams. This is also interesting to me. But the obvious question this raises is "why would we trust the foxes to guard the henhouse?" We often see people grinding personal axes when using our "flag" function to notify us of comments they want removed. After all, what would motivate community members to do a good job? Money? A byline in the newspaper? A free T-shirt.
We're actively discussing how to improve the situation with our comments. While we could use some better software to help us manage them, we can't wait for that. In the meantime, if you have any suggestions, please let me know – or add a comment below.
COMMENTS:
Thanks so much for addressing this.
Personally, like other bloggers, I would prefer to see posters who cannot discourse without fully spelling out and dropping the F bomb or those who make threats of harm against a fellow blogger face flagging and deletion. Most sites do have " rules of engagement" with that criteria ( including the really sick graphic content ones) Most of the time folks here do "police" themselves dealing with the out of control blogger by just ignoring them. But there are a few who love to pull the tigers tail and then a great discussion/ debate is abandoned because of the results. IMO, your example of a "tussle" was ok,yet the post 7 comments above this example was not a tussle but an out of control vile spew.. That should have been flagged and deleted.
Anyway- just my opinion....
Mark, you pose and interesting question: how to moderate comments posted to The News Tribune online stories or blogs?
It would seem-to-me that most-likely the TNT story or blogs article authors do re-visit or read comments; it follows, just to see what others have said as comments to their published online works; therefore, if a TNT online article comments are read by the story or blogs article TNT author; as a result, continue to allow immediate comments posts by commenters, but as another saying has said: "fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you." A simple TNT story or blog article moderation process, if the TNT author has time: The TNT article author removes the comments he or she determined to be inter-personal comments or attacks upon other article commenting people; as a result, these comment posts would show up but with TNT comment moderation---some time after these attack comments are made they just go away from comments view for ever. And, if the online readers do read all comments posted continuosuly they will most-likley determine why some comment posts are just gone, but they did see them before they are removed from viewable comments, so online comment readers should understand why they were removed if they read them and it's not a plot by TNT to suppress the publics' commenting interaction with all their online blogs and stories.
Just my suggestion for a process to moderate comments posted by online TNT readers and that includes my comments posted also.
It's a nasty, negative troll fest and not worth the time or frustration.
I stated a long time ago, and I'm stating it again; if you want real comments, rather than one person posting under dozens of names and others personal attacks, you're going to have to moderate the comments section.
Otherwise, you might as well be the National Enquirer
The exchanges linked to reminded me of The Death of Usenet, which happened in 1994 when AOL started giving their customers access to newsgroups. Prior to that, the barrage of senseless posts ("Bud ROOOOLZ!!!!!!!!!!" posted to rec.crafts.brewing, and similar nonsense) peaked every September with the start of school, and died back down. With The Great AOL Unwashed suddenly unleashed on Usenet, every month was September.
It used to be that when you interacted with someone via a computer forum, whether Usenet, a bulletin board or a mailing list, you were dealing with another high-tech professional and that sense of community usually left things reasonably civil. People also shunned those who hid behind cutesy-wootsey "screen names" that obscured their identity. At the risk of sounding elitist, I really miss those days.
I'm for that. I would hate to see one more commons-like setting be despoiled.
It strikes me as odd that the people commenting on an article seem to be using the comment spaces for some weird forum board of their very own.
Concerning the blog, I saw pickets while on the bus in Seattle on Tuesday, and now I know more about what it was about. I would be more forgiving of that back and forth although it would be useful to have a way to tamp down any repetition-only-louder tendency. That's a sensitive topic, and I can sympathize with not wanting to stifle the discussion so long as civility is maintained.
What I like most about this (and what you are doing at the TNT) is that there is this place for commentary, right here.
Even if the one-broken-window theory is now in dispute, I think it is important that there be guidelines on appropriate conduct and that enforcement be swift and observable. That makes work for someone. I trust that it is worth it.
Should I be attacked, I shall go for a walk, cry and whine a bit, and get on with my life...
http://www.icucmoderation.com/
or pay a few people, with assigned news topics. Given the volume I do not think it realistic to get quality moderation for free. If you're cool with looking like a craigslist forum the flagging system will work, but it seems like you're looking for something a bit more classy.
At some point though, I think you have to be assertive about it and have a no-tolerance policy on off-topic conversation and personal attacks. Delete them all. After a while, maybe you can loosen up these policies again, but it's definitely not looking good right now.
For a community this size I think the +1, -1 method similar to what Slashdot uses, might be effective (though it's effectiveness to a very large audience is questionable).
I would certainly like to see some kind of moderation here.
Have reporters respond once to the first rational comment on their story (if any) - this will have several effects:
- promote rational dialogue
- invest reporters in the comments/discussion
- invest thoughtful commenters in the site
- create a "mom's home" sort of atmosphere, where commenters are more likely to behave
I know that's a lot of work to ask from people already overextended, but ultimately if comments are going to be a part of the site it is probably necessary that reporters participate.
No new insight, no reconsidering of opinion, nothing new learned. The worst part of it all was how humorless it has become.
Also, as WCR mentioned, it became a "troll-fest."
Your two examples were interesting because the comments in the first were just plain stupid. Someone chose the wind-up in the same way a sniper chooses their target. Flush them out then pick them off. The comment was obviously stated as a means to be provocative; the fact that people took the bait and encouraged the 'dialog' was sad.
Personally, I can more readily ignore that example than those of people who log on to push an agenda. They are becoming less and less transparent. I noticed the volume of greenmailing campaigns around elections troubling. The fact that the TNT seemed to do so little to vet out these letters to the editor, then the supporting "comments" was simply too much to bear. It was like listening to someone on the phone being duped by a prank call.
(School millages are classic targets for this behavior)
I am not so sure there is an answer at this time. Limiting the ability to use gmail, yahoo, and hotmail addresses would be a start, but all motivated trolls will still find a way in. I would not 'elect' regulars to police others, they have agendas too.
Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors. Please login or register to comment.
