The idea is for all comments to go into moderation. I'll regard the comments submitted to moderation as private messages to me, and I'll only publish comments I think readers would generally enjoy reading — comments that are interesting, original, well-written, and responsive to the post.
I don't write anything in the posts that I don't think is new and worth reading. Sometimes I "front-page" comments that seem especially valuable, so this new approach to comments would be much more like front-paging, with lesser comments simply not published at all. I would still read the comments, but I wouldn't impose them on readers.
Why am I thinking of doing this?
1. There are many excellent comments, but they can get buried amongst lesser comments. With fewer comments and a guarantee that these are all chosen comments, the reader experience in the comments will be far superior. Right now, I know there are many readers who won't even look at the comments because the overall quality is too low. So, first, I want a better reader experience. You won't have to go searching for what's good.
2. When there are already a lot of comments, you might not want to take the trouble to write a comment that might actually be excellent. Who will read you? This hesitation will be especially strong where there are a lot of lesser comments or a high concentration of low-quality comments. I imagine that some of the best stuff is never written at all. In the new comments experience, you might show up hours after the post has gone up and see maybe a line of 10 really good comments. You might feel strongly motivated to contribute. What you write will be read.
3. Of course, I might not choose your comment for publication at all, but you'll know you're competing to hit my standard and that I'll at least read it. You'll see what does get published, so you'll have a chance to learn what it takes. I'm optimistic that the quality of comments will improve as commenters see what I'm saying is good. There are lots of ways to be good, and I'll be continually showing you examples.
4. It might make me better. If it doesn't, I can change back any time I want.
You might wonder what will happen to the cafés. What I can do, with the limited options Blogger gives me, is turn moderation off at the end of the day when I put up the café, and then you can write and interact spontaneously. That will also end the moderation for the other posts of that day, but I'll simply go through those posts the next morning and use deletion to get the effect I'd worked on for the day.
Doesn't this sound like a lot of trouble for me (and Meade)? We already spend a great deal of time reading comments. The idea is to use our comments-reading time to better effect. We love reading the comments. I have a way of reading and writing that flows very well for me, and I would really miss having comments. But I want better comments!
The new commenting experience has not yet begun. This is a post where you can talk about it and see your comments immediately. Feel free to try to talk me out of this. But aren't you interested in seeing what would happen?
IN THE COMMENTS: mccullough said...
I’m ready for my close-up.traditionalguy said...
Going to bring my A-game.
Do it! We have a long way to go to reach Althousehood,but we have to start somewhere. And we might surprise you.CJinPA said...
Will snarky baseball comments still make the grade?
More than most bloggers, you sometimes encourage readers to consider specific ideas before commenting on certain posts. It’s clear the quality of discussion generated by your writing means a lot to you. I make a conscious effort to post an original idea when I comment. I’m not always successful. This should be a worthwhile experiment. The big question: How many will stick around if their comments are never published, and what will that say about their (our) motivation for coming here?stevew said...
Sounds like a lot of work for you and Meade, but also that you are ready, willing, and able to do that work.Kent said...
I think is sounds like a fine idea, and would significantly improve the quality of the comments here. I'm one of those that doesn't come as often to the comment section lately as I once did; partly because of volume and partly because too many comments have been in the category of personal attacks.
Not sure if any of my comments will rise to level of fitting through your new filter - often I'm coming to the party after it is well underway and so don't have much to offer other than agreement with ideas already expressed - but it would be fun to try to win you over. I expect that I would spend more time thinking and composing, rather than just dashing off whatever comes into my head.
Try it for a while, you can see if it works and if you are really interested in doing the moderation work.
Brilliant! think it has great potential, less for limiting the dross (which is more easily done just by not reading comments) as for enhancing the gold; improving on something you've said or adding perspective you find useful. Does it carry the danger of enhancing an echo chamber? Of course. But every blog author does that by deciding what questions to tackle or how to frame them. The best antidotes are rival blogs but nothing you do with comments will limit that. Moreover, as you pointed out, it also gives commenters more incentive to add something you might find worthwhile and more assurance they won't be trolled.Ignorance is Bliss said...
Will it be possible to come to some sort of arrangement with Meade to get our comment in, maybe as a recruited athlete?Baelzar said...
You seem like you'd be a fair moderator. Give it a try.Lyle Sanford, RMT said...
1) - A huge thank you for managing to write this post not using the - beaten lifeless through overuse - word "curate".MayBee said...
2) - I feel I should read all the comments before making one of my own, so sometimes I just move on when there are a lot.
3) - Whatever you do, the effort you put into making this blog so special makes me feel better about the world.
I have low self esteem and always assume ideas like this are intended to keep me from babbling so much. So we'll see what I dare to do. I felt the same way about caller id....maybe nobody would ever answer my phone calls if they know its me? But after a few years, I got used to it.The Last Dragon Slayer said...
I think there is a risk of you being accused of censorship and favoritism. Althouse is already unfairly accused of things. However, the person who perceives that they are being unfairly censored will never have the chance to air their grievance publicly. They might go away in a huff, I suppose, but if they are the ones who are so likely to be accusatory of Althouse and her motives, maybe that is just fine.Phil 3:14 said...
I disagree with Althouse on a number of points, but I find her to be quite fair in addressing issues and letting people speak and disagree. She only asks that you back it up. I totally back that approach, so I have little fear that the comments will begin to slant only toward her point of view. I think Althouse knows that the value in the blog is the debate, and censorship would kill the goose. I expect she even finds us right-wing commenters interesting, if nothing else.
Banning people is very hard to do. I've had several "personas" on this blog it is is very easy to create a new one every day if I wanted. How can she ban someone determined to be a pest?
I don't like up-voting. To be honest, I trust Althouse to be more balanced than the general audience (not saying that any given member is less honest.) Thus, with up-voting, we will get more censorship in a way since contrary views my get down-voted based on point of view rather than quality. I think Althouse will filter for quality and relevance, not point of view.
I do hope she will let the tangentials through. The old Spatula was very entertaining even if not right on topic. There have been other colorful commenters that might not always advance a debate, but they were fun to read. But then, I think this is a reaction more toward to personal attack and back and forth bickering than it is for anything else, so I still see it as low risk to the quality of the commentary.
Is it possible to create a parallel comment section for those who don't make the grade so that we can wallow in our mediocrity, pettiness and name calling.Meade said...
I mean, without that, is life even worth living?...
Just know that as I disappear beyond the boundary of acceptable comments I will be standing outside, face pressed against the glass shivering and hungry but somehow still warmed by the wit and humor of my bettors.
(PS, are these better comments? .....oh please, please, PLEASE DON'T MAKE ME GO!! I'LL DO BETTER, I KNOW I CAN DO BETTER.)
Phil, you have a typo on "bettors."
Posts
480 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 480 of 480Virgil Hilts,
I used to post this when I first found it. It would be great to have available on blog somehow:
easyhyperlinks.com
I love Maybee's comments, FYI
And I love Aunty Trump's comments.
Drago wants to know why I was kicked off LGF, just before his insult.
My comment was pertinent to the early days of blogging when Charles Johnson, one of Pajamas Media's founders and a hero of conservatives for proving that Mary Mapes' documents surrounding Dubya's time in the Texas National Guard, as featured on"60 Minutes," were forgeries. Then Charlie inexplicably turned super liberal and the fights with Johnson picked up because his absolutely wild progressive ideas.
Here is some flavor.
should the opportunity not present itself in the future,
all of us here at 1 Ingachuck'stoothlessARM Plaza
would like to extend to fellow Althousians, both great and small, our sincerest
'thank you' for all the Pith & Vinegar, and Best Wishes for the future.
"May the odds be ever in your favor!"
"In that aesthetic line of thinking, I believe the comments sections -- like the internet itself -- have become more Twitter-like: quick to reactions, quick to the barricades. I can get Twitter at Twitter."
Yes, that's something Meade and I were talking about. This blog doesn't need to be a general free-speech free-for-all. You have other places to go to do that. I'm setting up something that you can bounce off of, and some people are using my platform in a way that makes it a worse place. Those people have other places to go. They are here to take advantage of me and to degrade the value of this place for others who really do want to use the specific platform that each post provides.
Gags galore no more.
This is what retirement is for, right?
Plus, I absolutely love the suggestion above that you charge commenters a dollar for every cliche they use! Somewhere, Orwell is looking on and smiling.
Thanks Walter, I've saved the link. - Virgil
"As mentioned by several above, I am interested in what happens when something might hit an Althouse sensitive nerve. A recent example would be the wind power comments kerfuffle: it would be interesting to see how that would've played out -- to see what was considered wheat and what was seen as chaff. Or chafing."
I have no problem with the questions being raised about what I said, and I responded to people and took the initial back and forth seriously. But then there was repetition and the issue migrated to other posts that were on other subjects — and that's what was abusive. It's not the substance or the opposition. It's the repetition and the hijacking of threads.
Laslo @ 8:38 PM
You put in those extra spaces. I do have a rule against that. I don't enforce it all the time and didn't enforce it this time, but people should know that offense is enough to merit nonpublication and in the past I have deleted comments for that offense alone. It's a way to grab extra attention to your post, but I know it's not always intentional.
"Blogger Merny11 said...
I enjoy the varied comments; everyone’s favorites and least favorites are undoubtedly not the same. I’ll miss the variety. I enjoy and learn from your thoughts Ann but also those of many of the commentors. I guess I’ll just have to wait and see."
Pretty much what I was thinking.
"I feel like there has to be a button or setting somewhere in Blogger (as there is in word or outlook) that will auto-convert urls within posts to clickable links. Am I the only one that doesn't know the shortcut?"
If you have your own blog, you can open a "new post" window and draft your comment there. Once you have the text (and keep it in HTML mode), you can copy and paste it in the comment window here.
Will this shrink the pool of people who can say Linda Greenhouse finds them charming?
A special thanks to the readers who are expressing their appreciation for the new policy by making a contribution through the PayPal button in the sidebar. That's very nice!
Drago wants to know why I was kicked off LGF, just before his insult.
My comment was pertinent to the early days of blogging when Charles Johnson, one of Pajamas Media's founders and a hero of conservatives for proving that Mary Mapes documents surrounding Dubya's time in the Texas National Guard, was featured on"60 Minutes," were forgeries. Then Charlie inexplicably turned super liberal and the fights with Johnson picked up because his absolutely wild progressive ideas.
Here is some flavor.
Fen said...
Geez. Wish you would have said that in the 100 or so times I asked why you simply didn't ban people. That silence left me little choice but to assume you were acting in bad faith.
What a strange assumption.
Have you considered how you will handle those unaware of your rather subjective rule set.
I can see unaware first-timers or even old-timers who rarely comment composing their first comment and it not showing up becoming somewhat irritated, and the longer the comment the more irritated they will become.
Will they be left entirely ignorant as to the reason their comment didn't appear? Leaving them in the dark is unlikely to encourage them to frequently return to your blog even to just read your posts, especially if they spent some time composing their comment.
Since some of them may not be coming directly to your main page, will you put up a wall of text in each post listing the rules and informing them they need to achieve a passing grade to get published? Short of doing that you might instead email those malefactors informing them their comment simply wasn't up to snuff for such a classy comment section.
Maybe.
Heh, since this may be last chance to post something off-topic and not additive to the conversion -- Is there an easy way to include hyper-links in comments?
Instead of Nearer My God to Thee, the theme music tonight should be the Navy Hymn a/k/a Eternal Father Strong to Save... whose arm has bound the restless commentswave.Who bidst the mighty comments deep its own appointed limits keep. Oh hear us when we cry to the for those in peril on the sea of Blogger.
For the first time in the 15 years I've been reading at Althouse, going to page 2 and later page three both threw up a virus quarantine alert. What's up with that?
Also, I like free-range comments and have no problem skipping various people.
"Drago wants to know why I was kicked off LGF, just before his insult."
First, what insult?
Second, those were indeed "heady timws" when the "guys in pajamas" (Little Green Footballs and Powerline) took down the second most corrupt media ploy to throw and election to dems in our history.
The first most corrupt being the dems/weaponized intellugence agencies/lefty media/establishment republicans "Insurance Policy" against Trump.
"What a strange assumption."
Why is it strange? If my repeated POLITE and CIVIL questions are ignored, why is it unreasonable to assume you are hiding something?
Happens all the time court. We give you every opportunity to explain your side of the story. If you refuse, then we have no choice but to act on what information is at hand.
Will be interesting if your statememt is published but my explanation and request to back up your statement does not.
Schoolmarm's gotta schoolmarm. You go girl!
FullMoon said...
Maybe.
Heh, since this may be last chance to post something off-topic and not additive to the conversion -- Is there an easy way to include hyper-links in comments?
I could use Althouse's blogger trick, but I just use:
https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_links.asp, get their example and cut and paste into it. It saves me from trying to remember some simple code.
You kids behave now or else I'm gonna make you listen in total silence while I read from the Oxford fucking Dictionary!
Althouse: "I have no problem with the questions being raised about what I said, and I responded to people and took the initial back and forth seriously. But then there was repetition and the issue migrated to other posts that were on other subjects — and that's what was abusive. It's not the substance or the opposition. It's the repetition and the hijacking of threads."
That's not what happened. For example, you had insulted people for asking a simple question. So in the next thread they were gun shy about asking new questions and stated so. That's not hijacking the thread.
I will be surprised if this correction goes published. I guess we will start collecting examples of all the comments that were cut for "quality" that coincidentally disputed your account of events.
Is this direction you intended? Quality control with the emphasis on control? It's sad to see you abandon a principle people always associated with you just so you can rewrite history. And hey, since you can whitewash anything wrong you've done in the past, you can go full authoritarian here without challenge.
Fen, it's a strange assumption because you assume you have a special claim when you do not. You then project a judgement of bad faith based on the claim you don't have.
I like experiments.
"when the "guys in pajamas" (Little Green Footballs and Powerline) took down the second most corrupt media ploy"
Don't forget Buckhead over at FreeRepblic. He was the one that caught it first and tipped them off.
I had the privilege of being online in the room when it went down. Though I hsd no idea what the big deal was till later.
Power Line sure has gone downhill since then. They remind me of the California GOP - preppy frat boys completely out of touch with the base. It always seems like they are trying to cool down the mark, telling us why our latest defeat really isn't so bad.
Gadfly: "Drago wants to know why I was kicked off LGF, just before his insult."
Why does this gadfly post which falsely asserts that I insulted him/her appear 3 times (!) but my response does not appear even once?
What set of rules/criteria accounts for this outcome?
"Everything passes everything changes
Just do what you think you should do."
“I can see unaware first-timers or even old-timers who rarely comment composing their first comment and it not showing up becoming somewhat irritated, and the longer the comment the more irritated they will become.”
Thanks for reminding me to change the message over the comments window.
Aha - now I see why my comment didn't post.
I think you're setting yourself up for too much work and fear burnout shortly.
Hope I'm wrong.
Don't forget Buckhead over at FreeRepblic. He was the one that caught it first and tipped them off.
I was on that thread. That and riding in an elevator with Johnny Unitas are my proudest moments.
"Fen, it's a strange assumption because you assume you have a special claim when you do not"
I don't understand what you mean by special claim?
If you complain someone is parking in your spot I'm going to advise you tow their car.
If you don't, I'm going to find that odd, but will assume you must not have heard me or that perhaps I wasn't clear. And mention it again more carefully.
If you still don't, I may wonder if you are shuning me for some reason and get someone else to mention towing as the solution.
If its an issue of standing, fine. But you need to communicate as much.
So if after all these polite and careful attempts aaking why not simply tow the car are ignored, its not unreasonable for me to note your behavior as odd and to speculate on why you are so resistant to call a tow truck.
Maybe its not really your spot. Maybe you know the guy parked in your spot? Maybe there you don't want to risk antagonizing him?
If you are unhappy with that, its on you for turning a simple question into a game of spy vs spy. If you set up a situation that nakes little sense, you can't blame other people for trying to solve it.
I was going to comment about this new policy, but then saw there were already 435 comments and I was hours too late.
Sad face.
"Why does this gadfly post which falsely asserts that I insulted him/her appear 3 times (!) but my response does not appear even once?"
Something similar just happened to me. It sets up an interesting question: if Meade greenlights a comment accusing you of something, does he have any obligation to auto-approve your response?
Are you a living human with rights on that end of the net, or a lab rat in an experiment?
I don't expect perfection from Meade. and I expect he will be unfairly criticized for things he missed or our out of his control, but this system is ripe for abuse.
Althouse,
I had the same challenge trying to manage psychologists as you seem to have in managing the commenters here.
It is essentially herding cats.
Late to the discussion, but I think it's better to just be a bit more active in zapping particularly egregious comments. The problem with moderation is the time delay. You lose the immediacy of the response. There's no dialogue. I've seen this with Tim Blair's blog, which I used to participate in a bit, before it went mostly behind the paywall. (I realize that dialogue can degenerate, but I'd rather put up with degenerate dialogue than none at all.)
When I comment on someone else's blog, (Okay, Althouse's blog. Let's be real. I don't comment on other blogs.) I think of it as throwing an idea out into the ether. Do other people like it besides me? Does it show up or not? Either way, it's fine. Make the words, release the words. No need to helicopter or snowplow the words. Independence day.
After reading today's comments, I'd like to add:
* no one advocates censorship, but:
* no one enjoys pissing contests filled with nothing more than invective
* after 200 or so comments, people drop out--especially if they are downstream of those pissing contests.
SO...
*why not limit each commenter to three or four per post ? It should not be difficult to set up your software to do that through IP address tracking. (Or am I wrong?)
*Yes, the bipolar/hopelessly obsessed/no life commenters might save up all their anger, hysteria and resentment toward people they disagree with, and consolidate their responses in one bitter vetch to evade the comment limit rule. So why not limit every comment to say, 300 characters to thwart their attempts? Yes, Twitter also has character limits, but it also allows people to continue their thoughts in extra tweets. A three-comment limit would deal with such an end run.
* Just sayin': if you make every commenter make every comment count, we might all sharpen our game and spend more time arguing "on the merits".
Good for Althouse, good for us.
I have written it before- moderating the comments isn't worth HouseMeade's time, but it is your blog and I do admit that it would definitely make me more likely to engage in certain threads. In particular, I would pretty much never write a comment in a threat that was already 435 comments long.
The Rotten Tomatoes Gambit.
There's an obvious problem needing immediate attention, and I think you'll find Rotten Tomatoes had a similar issue with the Captain Marvel fan reviews and that their solution was brilliant.
It's relates to how the frontpaged reviews are not representative of the ones posted. Now, obviously this experiment needs a good launch and you don't want a bunch of Negative Nancys spotlighted on the front page, that will only confuse group conformity. OTOH, can you risk that your readers are not intelligent enough to notice all the lukewarm and negative reviews? And will that damage your credibility at a moment when blind faith in your objectivity is paramount?
Simply employ the Rotten Tomatoes Gambit - declare that "trolls are review bombing" your proposal and tbat "to protect the integrity of this site and the user experience" you will be changing policy on how rsviews are evaluated to be frontpaged.
Then identify 80% of the negative reviews and delete them. That should makd the frontpage accurately reflect the expressed opinions.
If some fine-tuning is needed, identify any negative opinions posted by those who normally lurk and delete those to as "new accounts solely created to review bomb" the proposal. Don't about complaints as they must all filter through Meade and can easily be squelched. No one will ever know that the numbers were cooked.
Be sure to have some sockpuppet posts thanking you for expunging all the "fake" reviews and how mucb they admire your honesty and fairness.
Rotten Tomatoes performed this gambit admirably, losing only 42% of tbeir client base and almost all the credibility tbey had spent years developing with their fans. Worth every ounce as their newcomer login rose from 3% to 5.6 %.
Good luck!
(and poor Meade - I feel for ya, you're damned either way)
“Look at it from my point of view. In the current system, I have to look for what's bad so I can delete it. In the new system, I'll be looking for what's good. I want my experience to be positive! I don't want to be on cleanup duty all the time. I don't think that's the right thing to do to me.”
I can see that. You look at it from your point of view, and we do from ours. Unfortunately for us, there are only really two votes that count, since you are the ones doing the hard work. The good news is that I seem to, at east for a short while be on the nice list and not the naughty one, from your three responses to my comment. I have been called a grumpy old man (3 months older than Ann), though I am not sure about the judgement of the woman most often asserting that (we will have been together 20 years this coming August). So, I apologize in advance if the world, or at least this blog, changes too quickly for my likes.
Ah. Now I can see that moderation has been enabled. Off to the races.
Wait! How will this affect my drunken comments? I need those to appear for self-esteem issues.
I guess this is my last chance to say...Chuck and Inga hardest hit!
Oh and Meade you are hilarious, best wishes to you both.
“Alex said...
So basically Ritmo & Inga are fucked....”
Not necessarily. Usually one or the other writes something that triggers a childish squabble. That should be moderated out. Maybe then one or the other will post something relevant to the topic.
As far as ‘moderation is censorship’: not necessarily, although it can be a slippery slope. Althouse has demonstrated over many years that she is relatively fair and balanced. Over the past numerous years, we as a culture seem to put way too much into what people say rather than what they do (Twitter is a prime example). Althouse writes things that are (apparently) interesting to her, and has developed a lot of readers - some who don’t even comment at all - that find both those posts and the relevant comments interesting. She has always had the ability to remove comments after posting.
(Now, if we could get rid of clicking on bicycles, crosswalks and fire hydrants!)
I'm in - I fears no man - or moderator.
When I see certain names commenting, I know to just skip over them. For example, trying to decode Narciso's English or reading President Peepee Tape's nonsense are things I don't have time for.
I don't comment often because I don't have time to do so, much less read all of AA's posts. Any promotion of quality over quantity would be welcomed by me.
Whoa! Being held to a standard.
I will make every effort to rise to the occaision.
Here's a question: Why, after I told you I don't have the tools to do anything fancy like limit people to X number of posts per thread, did commenters keep suggesting that?
I suggest that after two weeks you poll the commenters to see what they think then. You might poll again after four weeks.
I'm thinking that, surprisingly, you just miss grading essays.
Didn't you try this before? It lasted about 3 weeks?
I like the comments here even if they do get a bit nutso at times. If you are going to moderate, I would suggest that you do so by deleting notes that you feel inappropriate after posting rather than before.
Your blog, your rules, I'll play along.
John Henry
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Here's a question: Why, after I told you I don't have the tools to do anything fancy like limit people to X number of posts per thread, did commenters keep suggesting that?
Because you do have the tools. Not to do it automatically, perhaps but you could certainly do it manually.
Perhaps as a guideline, not strictly enforced. Guideline is 10 (or 20 or pick a number) posts per thread. When you see someone posting 50 comments, cut them off
Easy peasy.
John Henry
"Because you do have the tools. Not to do it automatically, perhaps but you could certainly do it manually. Perhaps as a guideline, not strictly enforced. Guideline is 10 (or 20 or pick a number) posts per thread. When you see someone posting 50 comments, cut them off."
The suggestions were more like: Give each person 5 posts per thread. That would require counting. That would be ridiculously time-consuming and constant attention. Plus, I have no way to cut them off! There's no tool for banning. Just telling them they are banned doesn't work, because these are people who are deliberately making the place bad. It would only encourage them.
Reacting only to people who'd gone wild, like posting 50 comments, is only cleaning up after somebody who crapped up the place. Why do you think I should spend my precious time like that? I want to be free to write good posts and to enjoy my writing experience and I want to get some interaction with readers that is also rewarding for me.
I'm not a general place for people to be expressive. There's no great value in that in these days of Facebook and Twitter. You can link to my posts there and see if you can get people to talk with you, prompted by what I've written and without my moderation. Chances are if you're the kind of writer who craps up my place, you won't have people who want to interact with you or you'll have other abusers like yourself. Go there. Do that. But don't be crapping up my place.
Achilles said...
Never mind.
The censorship has already started.
We are now serfs on Ann's land.
3/17/19, 9:08 PM
It was important for her not to do this.
Wikipedia Search
Memory hole
Read in another language
Watch this page
Edit
For other uses, see Memory hole (disambiguation).
A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts or other records, such as from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.[1][2] The concept was first popularized by George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the Party's Ministry of Truth systematically re-created all potential historical documents, in effect, re-writing all of history to match the often-changing state propaganda. These changes were complete and undetectable.
Origins
Edit
In Nineteen Eighty-Four the memory hole is a small chute leading to a large incinerator used for censorship:[3][4]
In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.[5]
Nineteen Eighty-Four's protagonist Winston Smith, who works in the Ministry of Truth, is routinely assigned the task of revising old newspaper articles in order to serve the propaganda interests of the government. For example, Smith may be called to retroactively change a statement about food rationing to reflect new policies.
The memory hole is referenced while O'Brien tortures Smith; O'Brien produces evidence of a coverup by the Party, exciting Smith that such documentation exists. However, O'Brien then destroys the evidence in the memory hole and denies not only the existence of the evidence but also any memory of his actions. Smith realizes that this is doublethink in action, as O'Brien has actively suppressed his memory of both a politically inconvenient fact and his action taken to destroy the evidence of it.[6]
For what I wish could be the last time:
Nineteen Eighty-four was a warning, not a runbook.
The music, Emerita, is the space between the notes.
Also, please consider again allowing the mobile blog format. It was a definite user experience improvenent, overcoming many Blogger limitations. I believe you objected to this, the last time you briefly attempted it, as somehow interfering with your ability to monetize the blog? A little more transparency on that aspect would be welcome. I wonder if you are influenced by ads and AMZN to make this change i. The blog's complexion.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
For my $0.02, I hope this is a short-lived experiment. The rapid-fire exchanges available in the free for all model are worth putting up with the few annoying people who abuse their privileges.
My advice would be, you already have the power to delete comments, so use it more frequently. Because unless you plan to be chained to your computer all day everyday, this will dramatically slow down the conversation.
I want to be free to write good posts and to enjoy my writing experience and I want to get some interaction with readers that is also rewarding for me.
If this new system will produce that result, I’m all in.
(And that goes for both of you; Meade has been a laugh riot on this thread and more of that would be most welcome.)
I retired tim in vermont for excessive bloviation. Also he got involved too much in the back and forth, though I tried to keep it about the issue at hand and to avoid the real-time taxonomy AKA name calling. I began to feel like I was tracking mud through Althouse.
This character is more restrained.
First!
Sorry if anyone else beat me to it. I don't usually read other people's comments unless they're about me.
1. How in heaven's name did you get 465 comments on this?
2. Given that AA is a bit of a linguistics aficionado, does a misspelling (e.g., bettor) disqualify from print?
thanks
How often will you approve comments? Might I suggest a schedule? Not necessarily formal but perhaps a guideline. New, moderated, comments posted at, say, noon and midnight? Or 8, 16, 24?
So we know when to go look to see if we were good enough.
John Henry
"Given that AA is a bit of a linguistics aficionado, does a misspelling (e.g., bettor) disqualify from print?"
There's no sure way to know what will trigger rejection and what will garner approval. The best we can do is trust in her cruel neutrality and bullshit civility.
I thought I posted this before but in searching can't find it, so here goes: As to the topic, this is why Gab Dissenter was created.
Does anyone else find it amusing, ironic?, that a post about employing commenting moderation, said moderation ostensibly meant to keep threads on tract and nearer to the 200-comments-generally-means-quality-comments gold, is close to 500 comments?
I enjoyed the real time, rapid fire aspect of the comments because it mimicked conversation but must admit, there is much poo flinging that detracted - which I skipped.
Althouse's blog, Althouse's rules. I can see her desire to be proactive instead of reactive - but boy do I see a lot of work. Good luck.
Good idea, but it sounds like a lot of work for the moderator.
Please notify Crack of this new policy - I think it might encourage him to reappear, and while I don't always agree with his views, I find he makes me think more about things than many others.
The ramifications of mentioning brown M&M's* this far into the comment thread sends me down the rabbit hole.
*True story, by the way:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brown-out/
The one good thing about moderating this way from my point of view is that inappropriate comments are never seen by me or others who would have responded to them- thus I am never left reading and puzzling over a reply to something I never saw in the first place.
I hope it works out and reduces the amount of work you do with the comments rather than the reverse. I predict you will end up doing more work, though.
I find it amazing there are so many faulty keyboards being produced without scroll buttons.
Your blog. Your rules.
I’m for whatever commenting policy that gives me more thoughts from Maybee.
Aunty Trump said...
I retired tim in vermont for excessive bloviation. Also he got involved too much in the back and forth, though I tried to keep it about the issue at hand and to avoid the real-time taxonomy AKA name calling. I began to feel like I was tracking mud through Althouse. This character is more restrained. 3/18/19, 9:02 AM
--
You are free to identify as you like. Trans on.
Fascists have ludicrously called me a fascist and I've faced all kinds of insults for trying to think outside the box. But, I don't believe in locking the box to prevent discourse. True, I'd like to flush the deplorable, racist right-wingers down the toilet - look who they gave us for president. You were always free to delete particularly offensive, or libelous posts, and much of the comments were self-monitoring by the commenters themselves. I hope your experiment in censorship fails like I hope censorship fails in Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. I hope Trump fails in everything he does because he is a rotten, incompetent person, who does great harm to the country. He's the hater-in-chief bar none. If bland becomes the norm or right-wingers take full control of the blog that would be sad. This is a change for the worse, and I condemn it.
I am extremely late to the party, having given up reading online for Lent (yes I am cheating right now), but want to throw in the hopper that MayBee is a truly consistently excellent commenter (insightful, concise, entertaining) and one I always look for. I hope if this gets published she sees it.
I will almost certainly comment less as I know I talk about myself and my boring little life and family too much and I don't want the embarrassment of not being published but, that's probably a good thing. My Lenten fast of Althouse and other places has helped me examine the reasons behind my online reading addiction, what I am unconsciously gaining or seeking to gain and what is good and bad about that. Improved signal to noise (for the love of SWEET JESUS please let this mean less Ritmo) in what I make the time to consume, and less boring rambling about myself in what I make the time to produce, will help clean up the way Althouse functions in my life so it's fortuitous timing.
Thank you for all that you do, Mr. and Mrs. Meade.
Post a Comment