Some people are offended and sometimes frightened by angry exchanges. Others find any use of the ad hominem totally out of bounds (control freaks, I call them…). Some people need every joke explained (see prior parenthetical ironic instance). Some publications will not, indeed MUST not tolerate rough language. Garfield observes that “news organizations are awash in mean, hateful and occasionally libelous rhetoric that makes us wonder how the free exchange of those particular ideas contributes to the alleged democratized online ideal.”

Comment threads can turn transgressive and conflict with community standards: the standards of the community of readers and writers within a particular blog circle; and/or, the standards of the community at large. Derek Powazek’s 10 Ways Newspapers Can Improve Comments provides a decent framework for managing comment content, minimizing risks from that “mean, hateful and occasionally libelous rhetoric.”

Paper based “Letters to the Editor” have always been managed at the discretion of the editor. Not everything is published. The pace of discussions in print is stepped down to the frequency of publication. Online, the dynamics are different, the pace is faster, commenters are generally free to publish their own observations. When conversations, discussions, or debates turn ugly online, then some post-hoc editorial control can be exercised. Putting everyone’s comments through the filter of a “community manager” is not my favorite approach, but where positive control is required I can see it as an alternative.

Moderation can be the answer to over-the-top transgressive behavior, but I agree with you Jeff that it isn’t worthwhile playing whack-a-mole with the entire population of clueless, ugly, and mean commenters.

Tell youtube. Sometimes the self-correcting system doesn’t work that well, either. To that end, I just finished a project analyzing specific comment threads on youtube: http://thejenaproject.com

Am glad Derek’s pushing this, too, via newspaper sites. The comments on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution site (ajc.com) are scarily similar (in tone and vehemence) to those I considered on youtube. Solutions abound, but “cultivating the garden” costs time/money.

Then call is the wrong verb. Associated is better. And you still did exactly what a bad online conversation does. You played the nazi card. You may think it makes you more profound but I’d say it only makes you look blunter.

I really would like to hear that question you asked Ira Glass. Would you put it up, please?

Thanks

jeff

Jeff, I repeat: Not true. Not fair. I did NOT accuse readers of any such thing, and you know it. Picking up a reference from the Ad Age thread on this (where someone beat me to Godwinville) I said that the AD ITSELF did to effeminate-looking males what Nazi propaganda did to the Jews. Caricatured them. Ridiculed them. Made them objects of violence.

So, no, Jeff, there is no irony that I can locate…and I locate irony for a living.

By the way, if you think my concerns are silly, do read about yesterday’s Unitarian church shooting.

Bob

But I have to ask: how does the comments section improve the quality or efficacy of journalism on a newspaper site? I’ve never read a user comment that brought the story into sharper focus or helped me better understand an issue.

I’ve always been suspicious that the rush to add comments to a legitimate news site reflects little more than a cheap trick to drive page views and help popularize certain content platforms (Wordpress, Blogger, etc.).

Help me understand this a bit better.

Tim

His article has 446 comments so far. For this entry (unlike most), the Times not only allows readers to sort comments chronologically, but also by reader recommendation. More over, editors have a selected a few as their favorites. Doc Searls may be right that these tools are primitive, but I think we’re all better off for having them.

I can’t see why any publisher would not want the extra eyeballs on their stories. The better the commenting system the more engaged the audience. The more engaged the audience the happier the advertisers. The happier the advertisers the more likely publishers will pay for new stories to which we can contribute.

Cultivate the garden; don’t plow it under.

There are two simple things that help 1) moderation, i.e. make and communicate clear rules and being transparent about why you throw stuff out. your page is your home. 2) engagement. reporters and editors should learn to talk to their readers/users, not only when they find mistakes. encourage the good people in a thread or via private message, ignore the ones who do not like you anyway.
That may not be the solution to all the problems, but the basics if you want to take comments seriously. If you don’t, don’t host them.

Guess he doesn’t see the irony in a lot of things.

“The day before, at Web2Open, I had heard something similar in the Troll Whispering session. Christy Canida explained that when someone posts something trollish or otherwise dubious on her site, they get put in a state where only they can see their posts, but no-one else can (except Christy and the other conversation monitors). This damps down the flame responses until Christy and co have time to review, and maybe release them, but in their view the post is on the site, but no-one is responding.”

http://is.gd/9WO

It was the height of activism in the 60s and the public comment portion of school board meetings were often wild and nearly out of control. I remember a couple of occasions where where things were so tense that the cops were on call.

I was terrified for my father’s safety, but remember him saying that all feedback has value, even if it comes with great emotion.

Our social network outreach at Comcast has generated a wide array of feedback, most of it incredibly useful, some pretty vitriolic. But we need to hear it.

We’re listening and learning, and the information we gather from the web is impacting our thought process as we continue to invest in improving the customer experience.

For me, it’s had the added benefit of initiating some great relationships that have been rewarding well beyond the answering of a question or solving a cable problem.

Robert Scoble wrote something the other day that resonated with me.

“I see a lot of blogs that tear down companies, people, or ideas. I remember when the blogs always just were trying to uplift each other and put interesting ideas forward.”

Doc is right that Internet discourse is still in its infancy and I’m not sure that the blogisphere was ever as sanguine as Robert remembers.

But it can be useful medium to help us try to be better human beings.

Would I prefer that people be civil in their interactions? Absolutely. But I’ll take the input, however it comes.

All feedback has value, even if it comes with great emotion.

Scott Westerman
Vice President
Comcast
@ComcastScott on Twitter
scott.westerman@comcast.net

Because I post a fair amount of non-flame-retardant material — especially about MSNBC and Fox News — I turned off comments for a while. And then I realized that was stupid and turned them back on, with moderation.

Now, when commenters tell me I got something wrong, I make a quick fix, usually leaving a strikethrough behind as evidence I screwed up.

When they tell me I’m a liberal, I OK the comment because I know someone will be along to reply, “Are you f’ing kidding me?”

And when they launch into a tired tirade about my manhood or the MSM or other refrigerator-magnet word-assembly BS … I just leave it in the queue. Sometimes I even come back and approve the comment.

Yesterday I edited a comment riddled with all caps and typos, then posted it. I just liked what the poster had to say, even though I would disagreed with it.

It’s about being taught by your readers. The ones who post comments that are all about them…..let them get their own damn blog.

To speak of “social networking” on the Net today is laughable. We do the best we can with extremely primitive tools, none of which fully support the subtle and rich interactions we have with other people in real life.

Moderated comments on a blog are a huge advance over the troll-filled cacophony of USENET, but still poor at encouraging the polite and civil discourse — or even the good arguments — we might enjoy over a dinner table, in a classroom, or in line at a theater.

The older I get, the farther I see we still have to go.

(And I turn 61 tomorrow. How the hell did that happen?)

Cheers,
Doc

Not fair. I played the Hitler card NOT in response to online criticism but to the offending ad itself. And why? Because it is a direct parallel, and a logical, not especially hyperbolic extension of my argument. How do you create an environment that allows you to kill 6 million people? First you caricature and dehumanize them.

If you think this is overstatement, I suggest you consult the parents of Matthew Shepard.

Yours,
Bob

And that’s something that both newspapers and large companies don’t understand about comments: for better or worse, those comments are forming a community. If you want that community to have standards,they have to be written and posted. Then, someone from the company has to be there to interact. If there’s no interaction, then what’s the point of the comments?

Because, presently, there’s no interaction, comments sections on articles often seem like the old forums were moved to a visible and direct place (vs. hanging out in the forum “back rooms”, disconnected from source material.) But why do this if you don’t want to have the reporter or someone else on staff have a conversation with the rabble. Yes, interaction takes time and money–but if an organization doesn’t have the time and money to hire requisite staff to become comment section stewards, then why have comments? Are those comments sections in place just to give the “audience” voice? If that’s the case, then they’re going to get what they get and have to deal with it.

And I’m really tired of pundits like Glass et al discussing this stuff. They’re beginning to sound really uninformed.