I supported removing comments not because I thought traffic would spike but because it seemed a way to better preserve civil discourse; I assumed we’d lose some rubberneckers who gathered around the train-wreck comment section, but it seemed like a worthwhile trade. Yet the fact that traffic actually improved suggests that sites are better off without comments — or at least better off without unmoderated ones. That's a lesson that other news organizations are learning. As Nieman Lab wrote last month, if news organizations aren't moderating their comment sections, they can't really expect them foster quality discussion.
६ जून, २०१४
"How Comments Shape Perceptions of Sites' Quality — and Affect Traffic."
"Even if you don't realize it, unmoderated comments change the way you think about what you read...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४६ टिप्पण्या:
If a site attracts a lot of jerks commenting...don't read the comments.
It was better before it went metric.
I just want to know why you would go to all the bother of moderating the comments, while not only allowing a troll to flourish, but actually encouraging him.
Respondents who saw comments evaluated the article as being of lower quality—an 8 percent difference.
Maybe the majority of the readers aren't critical readers, but they recognize accurate criticism of the article when they read it in the comments.
Comments on the national website (Althouse excepted) seem to trend toward the trolls, insults and sarcasm. Local bloggers (Seattle) seem to observe some restraint. They might know someone.
MSM journalists are not very smart nor well informed on average. Hence they fear being corrected and /or mocked. So they ban comments.
And sorry Professor, moderated comments are stupid. It only adds lethargy to your blog. But it's your salon so you get to make the rules.
Commentary lost me when they dropped comments. You will too if you do so. You may not miss me but neither do Washington Monthly and Mother Jones. Moderation means I skim the topics and may or may not come back.
Jut saying.
interesting...
Here, I don't get the sense that I'm being censored. However, I wonder what the LATimes or NYT comments sections would look like with a moderator. Given the LAT commitment to not let climate skeptics have a voice in its pages, would there be any non leftist views allowed in teh comments section...on any issue?
I don't read blogs without comments. I read this one daily because of the (generally) high quality of the commentariat. I don't usually miss the moronic pissing matches of yore, but when I do, Crack is never more than a post away.
If you have low-quality comments, that would imply to me that you have low-quality readers. Maybe site owners should ask themselves what they are doing to attract such a poor quality of readership.
I never saw the point in providing the 781st response to a George Will column.
While I certainly do not question Ann's motivation in the least, most attempts to moderate comments or decisions to eliminate comments are agenda-driven. I am confident that Ann takes great care in a process that must ultimately be annoying and time-consuming, and I believe I know her.
So I cut her slack that doesn't apply to other sites. I do not read any news site nor any blog that doesn't permit comments or that employs heavy-handed moderation. Still, when she banned comments, my visits here dropped considerably.
So these statistics seem to me to be self-serving and contrived. But then, I'm merely blindly extending my own predilection to the majority of my fellow readers.
That said, those uncommented page clicks they are heralding aren't mine.
- Krumhorn
"if news organizations aren't moderating their comment sections, they can't really expect them foster quality discussion."
I tend to agree, but they need to monitor the news stories more carefully first.
It made a difference to me. Before, I thought I was part of a community. After comments were stopped and then moderated, I don't care any more. I don't care if Titus has a sinus infection, if Crack gets a steady gig and stops hating white people, if Shouting Thomas calms down, if Bago gets married, if Ann and Meade get a dog. I just don't care anymore. I just check in from time to time out of curiosity.
It's frustrating not to get the instant gratification of seeing one's post. I must have missed the comments that sent our host back to moderating, because I find those that make it today are usually helpful or entertaining or both. ( Other than Crack who is just a one-trick pony).
I always wonder, where did the commenters of yore go? There were some pretty able and committed ones around here with years of comments under their belts who have vanished, never to be heard from again. Did they die? Just get tired of the whole thing? Change their handle? Some, I think, never forgave Althouse for voting for Obama even once. I know I've been scarcer since this moderation thing came to town. Less immediacy.
Local bloggers (Seattle) seem to observe some restraint. They might know someone.
We might be neighbors.
I fail to understand what you are saying.
I was born here a long time ago.
Sometimes the comments here are so good, the commenter will post them twice, for emphasis.
My view is that this site was better before the moderation. The Socratic method (which Ann tends towards) is stifled when it's a monologue. And despite best efforts, it's much more of a monologue now. Lots of posts explicitly or implicitly ask for a reaction but you can't really react and converse (which wouldn't matter so much on a post that didn't do that - for instance an article on a news site). All you can do is put your message in a bottle and throw it into the sea, and wait to see if anybody notices. It's not a true discussion (or at least a conversation), it's now people posting things that may or may not be read by the person they're responding to because it's batch processed, instead of real time. The same thing happened to Tim Blair's blog after he "went corporate". It was never the same and the fun factor dropped by about 80% because it made a conversation impossible. Witty banter isn't so witty when it doesn't flow naturally.
If the comments were stopped I frankly wouldn't see the point of visiting. What's the use of asking questions if no one could answer them? The posts would need to change character and have a different aim.
"I just want to know why you would go to all the bother of moderating the comments, while not only allowing a troll to flourish, but actually encouraging him."
I have my own standards, which are mostly about rejecting everything submitted by 2 or 3 problem commenters. Sorry for all the hassle for everyone else, but there was no other way.
"And sorry Professor, moderated comments are stupid. It only adds lethargy to your blog."
Since you don't see what I am excluding, you don't know what you are talking about. Try to see it from my perspective, if you can. I guess you can't.
In a prefect world comments would be instantaneous and unmoderated. It ain't a perfect world. Anne owns and runs the site so she can set the rules. If I were being bashed time and again I don't think I would let x,y, and z post here or anywhere else either. So what we have here is a decent compromise.
I like blogs with comments as the good ones flesh out stories and ideas and contribute overall to a blogs overall value. When they were banned here I was disappointed too. But I got the reasons why. Let's hope the current situation works for Anne as we go forward.
Remember, when I ended the comments for a while, it was because the moderation was broken. I had to get it fixed.
At the point when I turned off the comments, I had a problem commenter who was posting every few seconds.
i told you so.
Don't let trolls appropriate your reputation.
If you want to see some entertaining blog moderation (it does exist) check out Ta Nehsi Coates's comment section on his Atlantic blog sometime--that dude and his zombie moderators ban anyone and everyone for the slightest infraction. And infraction, there, means just about anything, from respectfully disagreeing to actually voicing agreement with the author but making a tangential point he doesn't want to discuss. He uses moderators now but in the old days you'd see someone post something mildly critical and seconds later just below it Coates's reply "Banned. You have been warned not to steer the comments in your own direction" or something similar. After a while he got smart and started deleting all the "offensive" posts first so you couldn't see just how benign they were. "Deleted. Banned -not productive to this discussion."
There's a difference between blogs, blogs, news articles, and news articles.
Blogs: have short entries, with minor host input, to another article/blog/photo. This is specifically designed for commenters to interact, and often serves no other purpose.
Blogs: an in-depth article or log of something interesting. Comments are optional and typically not required. If the article is contentious in someway, comments degrade into a group of pigs throwing shit at one another.
News articles: trailer trash reporting of a couple of paragraphs. It isn't a news article but a dumping ground for pigs to throw shit at one another.
News articles: actual, 'it is worth a reporter and a photographer and editing team and printing the thing for delivery' kind of news article. Generates minor commenting, but can devolve into shit slinging. Comments should be moderated or closed, the article can stand alone.
Regardless, comments should be on topic and relevant to the article, as well as contribute something.
Unfortunately, we do live in a world where people carry phone cameras to simply capture a train wreck in action. Comment sections feed that darker side of human nature.
My local paper went from Disqus commentary to Facebook & the comments became 90% liberal & soporific. I'm not sure they didn't do that on purpose to stifle the right
"If you want to see some entertaining blog moderation (it does exist) check out Ta Nehsi Coates's comment section on his Atlantic blog sometime--that dude and his zombie moderators ban anyone and everyone for the slightest infraction. And infraction, there, means just about anything, from respectfully disagreeing to actually voicing agreement with the author but making a tangential point he doesn't want to discuss."
That would be my experience. The problem is that then you are banished from commenting on the whole site. But once McArdle left, I am fine with never going back.
At the point when I turned off the comments, I had a problem commenter who was posting every few seconds.
There has to be a technological solution to this, but assume that you and Meade have talked to Blogger, etc. Glad you stuck it out, and presumably you have overcome this problem.
I think that it would be counter-productive eliminating commenting here. I think that part of the allure of your (Ann's) blog is how you/she gets discussions going.
My local paper went from Disqus commentary to Facebook & the comments became 90% liberal & soporific. I'm not sure they didn't do that on purpose to stifle the right
I am not sure why news outlets move to Facebook for commenting. From my point of view, it is idiotic and counter-productive. Why would I want to mix my commenting with my social engagement? I am just the wrong generation for Facebook. I sometimes feel like those old ladies in the car insurance ad, where the one posts the pictures of her trip on her wall, and then invites her friends over to look at them. And, then unfriends the one who points out that 15% in 15 minutes isn't enough savings any more. And, WTF do they insist on putting some school you went to many decades ago on every comment you write? I think that they are interested in younger readers, and so I go elsewhere. Like here.
Tyrone Slothrop said...
I always wonder, where did the commenters of yore go?
Some are at Lem's. In fact, you can find Meade at Lem's.
This Blog used to have two aspects, now it has one. Still good, but missing something else that was good.
A relatively few people, who could not express disagreement civilly, or are psychopaths, ruined one aspect.
Ms. Althouse - I've seen some of your nutbar comments, and I don't blame you one bit for moderating. I just don't see how you manage to take the time to do that and get the time and info for new content. You must be a workaholic.
jd
I have been commenting on the Althouse blog and others for years, but now I don't comment on Blogs that require signing into Facebook or any other social network.
I think Bloggers who censor comments should maintain a "bad comment bucket" to which they transfer all the censored comments, so commenters can read the censored comments and find out what the censorship criteria are.
It's hard for me not to see this as: journalists like their assumed position of "gatekeepers and molders of public opinion", blog comments give the unwashed rabble a simple way of shouting back against their betters – you don't speak for me, pencil-boy – therefore comments must be carefully moderated, controlled, molded.
That said, moderation is clearly justified in many cases. Few things are less interesting than a dick-sizing contest between Shouting T. and Crack. (Oh wait, those don't get moderated out...)
I was so used to having to scroll past 80% of the comments that I thought it was no big deal. Now that I don't have to, I don't want to go back to the old way. Pre-moderation, every thread would be cluttered up with garbage: trolls, back and forth bickering without real argumentation, long person to person chats better suited to an instant messaging program, etc. I like it better now. Additionally, I think it makes people make better comments because they know the comments won't go up immediately and won't be able to respond to responses immediately. People are making their comments hardier. Their argumentation is better.
If I look at a thread, I usually read all the comments now. I never did that before.
@Freeman I really appreciate hearing that. Circumstances forced me into doing moderation, and I've heard so much complaint that it's good to hear the positive side, especially from you, such a great commenter.
I used to comment, and then stopped, mostly because I've moved on to other interests. I stop by once in a while to read the original blog posts, and more rarely skim the comments. There's nothing in that statement except my interests have moved.
But with regards to moderation of blog comments, I think moderation is required in comments as a blog gets noticed or notoriety.
People of good faith post reasonable comments, but then people with an agenda (to disrupt, or to get their god-approved view in, or to harass, or to incite a fight, or to post a link to a scam/spam site, or whatever) get in on it and the conversation is destroyed.
There's a wide continuum between no comments at all and a free-for-all of snark and sniping.
In an ideal world there'd be a way to open comments for, say, 10 hours, and have the original poster online to intercept all comments.
But a wide-open comment section simply gives in to the bullies.
In a separate discussion I've had with friends, we've proposed that blog comments require a verified identity of a recognizable person. That is, even if you had a handle like TruthAvenger, we'd be able to see you were really Joe Smith, 22, living in Sun Prairie; we could, if interested, find out that Joe Smith was living in his mom's basement or Joe Smith was running a successful legal services operation, and adjust our evaluation of his comments accordingly. The thought was that if people knew that their craziest posts would redound to them, they'd use their natural caution before posting stupid or hateful or violent comments.
Then it was pointed out that this works for men and not for women: women who post under their true name are subjected to harassment at much higher levels than men, that a true identity for a woman often comes with death threats and stalking and all kinds of implied violence.
So we dropped the thought experiment and didn't push it as a solution for crazy or violent or disruptive comments. One man's Meade is another man's distortion. as it were.
Freeman Hunt said...
I was so used to having to scroll past 80% of the comments that I thought it was no big deal. Now that I don't have to, I don't want to go back to the old way. Pre-moderation, every thread would be cluttered up with garbage: trolls, back and forth bickering without real argumentation,
While there is some truth to this we also got the full panoply of humanity. It may not be pretty but it was a hell of a lot more interesting.
"While there is some truth to this we also got the full panoply of humanity. It may not be pretty but it was a hell of a lot more interesting. "
No, it was usually dominated by a few, and I definitely wouldn't have called it interesting. More like a finger flick workout from all the scrolling past.
Plus, if anyone wants the whole of humanity, this isn't the place. The grocery store would be better.
"No, it was usually dominated by a few, and I definitely wouldn't have called it interesting."
It was very likely that the same few names would be in the first few comments, and I think that discouraged others from jumping in. It was more like a regular hangout, already occupied, and some of those people would go back and forth, sometimes filling up the first few "screens" worth of comments with calling out to each other -- with greetings or insults -- and that affected the nature of what others would take the trouble to say.
Once I commented about how that had just happened and how I should just take those comments out. Then I decided I should do just that, and I hoped that the people who were doing that would try to help by at least waiting until later in the discussion to go off topic and do the back-and-forth. But what I got was one of the most aggressive commenters retreating to his own blog and denouncing me and encouraging others to hate me for that terrible thing I did that time.
Many of these same people are now camped out elsewhere and still ax-grinding about the time a year ago when I had to turn off comments because I had no operable moderation function and there was a troll posting every few seconds.
As miller said "moderation is required in comments as a blog gets noticed or notoriety." The platform of thousands of automatic readers is something some people exploit. I'm disheartened at times when seemingly intelligent people will not see what it's like from my perspective, so I appreciate these supportive comments.
Ann Althouse said...
I'm disheartened at times when seemingly intelligent people will not see what it's like from my perspective, so I appreciate these supportive comments.
Some of the posters in question said just appallingly ugly personal things about you and Meade. I can't imagine anyone wanting to put up with that indefinitely, but in the end the terrorists effectively won. It is hard to believe that Blogger can't come up with some technical solution to these particular problems. You should get your posters to write to Blogger to make them deal with these issues.
I think Blogger is designed to be simple, and the mechanism here is moderation.
I've refrained from asking them to change it. I'm sure they know it's a feature some folks would like.
I like sites with comments, but there are some people who should be banned from responding on all platforms... these are usually hard left progressives who use shouting, insults, unhinged anger and words by the thousands to somehow prove that they are, in fact, people you would never want to meet or help in real life. Moderating is used by adults to keep the brats from ruining a good dinner.
Late to this thread...
I'm sort of flabbergasted that some here are critical of the notion that moderation of forums is needed. Pretty much anywhere I look, it is badly needed. And too bad if this sounds elitist, but there are just too many jackasses out there who's only purpose is to drag a thread into the sewer. Blogs, forums, posting boards, etc. are all better without them.
I've yet to see a site decline because of fair moderation. This site included.
I agree with Freeman: There was far too much garbage before here. And it's the same pattern at other blogs; a community starts out well and successful, then idiots come along who's purpose is to fling sewage and destroy civility, and after moderation, the trolls are gone, and the reasonable segment of the community can return to normal, if they so choose. Some don't, and those forums never seem to recover.
Althouse's comments section is far, FAR improved after she put the hammer down. Heck, I personally feel she can go further, but the fact she's doing it at all helps make the site better.
"Many of these same people are now camped out elsewhere and still ax-grinding about the time a year ago when I had to turn off comments because I had no operable moderation function and there was a troll posting every few seconds."
And when this happens, it's exactly the sort of thing that ruins a commentary community. It was the right thing to do.
Thanks, Tibore.
I would add, however, that I don't think the problem commenting leaned left. The regulars who occupied the space with many back-and-forth comments in the first few screens, derailing the topic I had set up (which is always a new topic, while they would react as if it was a trigger to rehash old thing) were on the right.
Lefties would drop in and maybe be pugnacious, but that was because it was established that the comments were a right-wing hangout.
I wanted a mix of political opinion, and I am a political moderate, so it wasn't great for me to have the regular crowd making it look like a right-wing blog.
Of course, in real life, most of the people I know are on the left, and I got a lot of contempt for my blog, not because of me but because of the comments section, which tended to get called "a sewer."
(I note that Tibore used the word "sewer" too.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा