Seeking right blog balance
The Washington Post last week announced a new commenting system that editors believe will improve the quality of discussion. This follows recent moves by other news organizations to address a growing concern that inappropriate website comments drive away readers.
Online interactivity is one of the great advancements of our age, and it’s been embraced by ajc.com. Commenting is not limited to news organizations, but since our mission includes fostering community conversation about public affairs, this is an especially rich area for us.
But as commenting has grown, so have the challenges of screening out stuff that doesn’t meet the mission. Like many news sites, we allow anonymous commenting to encourage candor and participation. Our more than 30 blogs receive an average of more than 175,000 comments each month, and that number is growing.
Our guidelines encourage civil conversation and forbid bullying, personal attacks, violent, racist or vulgar language and spam. To enforce guidelines, we use several techniques. Filters screen out the worst of the worst, but other comments do skirt the line.
For those, we use a system of escalating moderation: Comments are posted without advance review, but blog hosts and editors pull down items outside the boundaries. Readers can also report inappropriate comments. Comments that may violate guidelines can be placed into a moderation queue, to be published only after approval, or violators can be permanently banned, depending on the seriousness of the transgression.
We also generally limit commenting to blogs, rather than opening commenting on news stories, which would require even more moderating.
Hosting a blog is a true balancing act, says Maureen Downey, who hosts the Get Schooled blog on ajc.com.
“Comments are helpful as posters often expand the conversation and add to our knowledge of the issue, Downey says. “There are also posters who have nothing to add and use valuable space in doing so. I also don’t like posters who use blogs to lob anonymous and vitriolic attacks on people or commandeer the blog to advance a personal issue or cause. ”
Opinion columnist Jay Bookman agrees that comments offer both great value and great challenges.
“I get a real-time sense of how people are responding to certain events or trends, and often someone’s post will alert me to facts or a source I would otherwise not know about.”
“The biggest problem is the tone that people take. Partisans on both sides can descend to insults and name-calling instead of debate. I try hard to monitor that behavior and minimize it, but it doesn’t go away.
Moderation can take away from a writer’s time to report and develop issues of interest to readers. For that reason, news organizations are finding other solutions:
● Where approval is required for posting each comment, some organizations outsource this monitoring.
● Some require user registration and require commenters to post using their real name, or a registered screen name. Some require a real-name Facebook login.
● In systems like the ones announced by The New York Times, the organization identifies “trusted commenters” who have a history of strong, appropriate contributions. Those are posted without moderation, while more moderation is applied to untrusted comments.
● Some allow readers to vote on comments, elevating popular ones to the top of the page and pushing down ones that get few votes.
Bookman sees both advantages and disadvantages to the approaches.
“Making people register in order to post, or even requiring them to use their Facebook login, as some outlets have done, would strip anonymity from posters and force them to act more civil, but it would also make them less candid about their real thoughts. I’m not sure how I feel about that balance.”
Chris Kraft, leader of our team that publishes ajc.com, says we are considering some of the above options and are committed to improving the quality of discourse.
“We love the discussions on our blogs,” Kraft said. “They are insightful, informative, and engaging. We’re going to continue making sure they stay that way, and that a small percentage of our readers don’t ruin it for the rest.”
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wants to explain to readers what we do and why. Public editor Shawn McIntosh writes a column every other week to provide insight into newsroom operations and the newspaper’s role in the community. You may also discuss this column and coverage of other topics at editor Kevin Riley’s Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/ajceditor.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
19 comments Add your comment
Fred
February 6th, 2012
2:37 pm
Ban the “first” posts.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 6th, 2012
2:41 pm
I don’t mind the actual name deal. I hate the Facebook method though, how much power are we going to have over to a for profit company? I would be forced to register at Facebook to comment on the AJC?
I would like a rev limiter put on the comments. 4 comments per person per blog article is plenty. Some people live on the blog just to harass people. They kill open discussion rather than enhance it.
Steve - USA (I support "None Of The Above")
February 6th, 2012
2:43 pm
“hand over” …..rats….typo.
Paul
February 6th, 2012
2:56 pm
I find the current policy works well. Those who violate policy are warned, given a few days time out, and if the violations continue, are permanently banned. This ensures violators know when they are not in compliance. There are no surprises. Many respond positively to the correction, others who don’t find their words do have power when they are given the opportunity to spend more time elsewhere.
I see a significant disadvantage in the ‘voting on comments’ policy. Popularity in a relatively closed system is not a good gauge of accuracy, merit, or the strength of an argument. In fact, those who feel their safe assumptions are in jeopardy may band together and act to suppress challenges to what they want to believe. How will minds change and progress be achieved?
The ‘trusted commentators’ idea has merit, if the track record is long. Even then, their comments should be reviewed. Blog culture can cause even the most restrained bloggers from occasionally expressing themselves in an improper manner.
I would strongly oppose any registration systems that may reveal bloggers’ identities. Blogs should be about evaluating ideas, not giving merit or discounting based upon one’s education, profession or history.
Creativity is not based upon degrees attained or places one has worked.
Thanks for soliciting input.
Welcome to the Occupation
February 6th, 2012
2:58 pm
As in The Godfather, whoever posts first, he’s the traitor.
Fred
February 6th, 2012
3:00 pm
Personally I find facebook the be at best spyware and at worst malware. I won’t use it. To try to force someone to use facebook to post on YOUR forums seems to me to violate a little bit of journalistic integrity, or your papers own individualism as it were. You are forcing people to use a particular product they may or may not like in order to use yours. If I want to spatter crap all over facebook, then I will use facebook. I choose not to.
Registering a screen name seems pretty simple. It certainly prevents others from poaching a widely recognized screen name.
Determining what is and isn’t “vulgar?” Hmmmmmmmmm slippery slope. There is a bit of hypocrisy in a newspaper wrapped in the full protection of the first amendment censoring the speech and expressions of others isn’t there? Who is to determine what is “vulgar?” Would it be Larry Flint or Oral Roberts? Personally I’m already sick to death of the damn Baptists here in Georgia trying to tell me what I can and can’t watch on TV, listen to on the radio, do in my bedroom or when and how I can drink a beer. I sure as hell don’t need their hypocrisy shoved down my throat here. I don’t particularly care for some asshat like Jeff Schultz arbitrarily deciding what is in “good taste” just because he’s a controlling little pissant with a belly full of self importance to go along with his poison peen syle of “journalism.” And that brings up another matter……..
Those auto snaggers that come with your software are pretty neat. You can set them to filter pretty much anything you want. If you don’t want the word ass or asshat, then set it to be auto snagged. If it’s not on the auto snagger then it shouldn’t be pulled by some crusading blogger. Have one set of standards for the entire paper.
Do away with “tattletales.” Those are the folks who feel they have the “freedom” or the “right” to say any nasty thing to anyone they want but no one has the right to treat them the same. Their favorite technique is to “report” anyone who dares speak to them in the same manner which they speak. The person who looks at the post doesn’t look at the posts by the “reporter” now do they? Who has time for that? It’s a cowardly way of eliminating dissenting voices.
As to “voting?” Crappiest idea ever. Truth isn’t “popular.” It is what it is. Civil Rights wasn’t “popular” when it was incorporated. It didn’t need to be, it was RIGHT. Popularity posting leads to lynch mob mentality.
Boy howdy, I pushed a LOT of limits in this post didn’t I?
You should listen to Jay. He does a damn fine job of letting people talk AND reigning it in when it gets out of bounds.
If you decide to hire moderators, call me, I’m good at it
Welcome to the Occupation
February 6th, 2012
3:08 pm
I think that Jay’s approach is very effective, and I agree that a change to a Facebook-account-style approach to registration would radically change the nature of the discussion by removing anonymity.
That said, I do support – and have frequently voiced it on Jay’s blog – some means of ranking or classifying participants, but to do that it’s necessary to go beyond a simplistic notion of insults or name calling. Of course those things should be prohibited. But the real challenge is to weed out or discourage participation from those posters who over time refuse to concede points to the opposing side, no matter what, who refuse to grant to the other side in a debate any consideration that they might be operating in good faith, who are in other words dedicated to their side’s narrow talking points above all else.
A discussion that is made up of opposing armies in their trenches firing talking points at each other is no discussion at all. Some posters acknowledge their adversaries despite themselves, even when the believe they’re just spouting their side’s talking points, while others never yield an inch, no matter what. The quality of these discussion boards depends on being able to minimize the number of the second group.
Fred
February 6th, 2012
3:14 pm
@Welcome to the occupation: “But the real challenge is to weed out or discourage participation from those posters who over time refuse to concede points to the opposing side, no matter what, who refuse to grant to the other side in a debate any consideration that they might be operating in good faith, who are in other words dedicated to their side’s narrow talking points above all else.”
You have merely to ignore them. Now there is a good suggestion. i have been on blogs where they have an ignore button. When you “ignore” a person, they don’t even show up. Simple.
Look how rarely you see me reply to Doomy. Or Del. There just is no point. There is no “discussion” or debate. So what’s the point. Ignore them.
Brosephus
February 6th, 2012
3:21 pm
I have no problem with having to register using a legitimate email address. I don’t do facebook because of my line of employment. Likewise, I could not possibly contemplate posting with my real name, so those two options would silence my voice here. That said, I have no problem with monitoring and moderating posts. I have posted things, in anger, that I probably should not have posted in the first place. I’ve asked the moderator to pull posts for me that I thought might be offensive to others even before someone has complained.
I think the best solution is to make adults responsible for their own behavior, a kind of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” policy. If someone can’t act like an adult, then permanently ban them. I’ve seen people use different IP and email addresses to get around that, but they eventually out themselves after a while.
Fred
February 6th, 2012
3:26 pm
Something else I forgot Brocephus: An EDIT button. I too have had second thoughts after hitting the “enter” button but by then cowboy, it’s to late. That dog is hunting………..
Ivan
February 6th, 2012
3:32 pm
Count me in with those supporting a registered name and an ignore feature. I don’t post much, but I do browse often. And it’s terrible having to “self-filter” the posters just trolling the blogs.
Brosephus
February 6th, 2012
3:33 pm
Fred
Just take a deep breath, read what you typed, and take another deep breath before you hit submit. You will either find some mistake or misspeak you typed, or you’ll have a bit of fresh oxygen in your system before you hit submit. I always try to proofread before I hit submit.
Jm
February 6th, 2012
3:35 pm
A few thoughts:
1. I find the numerous sexual innuendos at Jay Bookman’s blog, in particular in regard to Santorum, or Newt’s sexual adventures, beyond tiresome. Surely some software can police this. Crude jokes and disgusting personal thoughts have no place on a civilized blog. The same goes for racist comments in my book. Which are harmful and enhance race divisions in this country. If people want to have a discussion about race, fine, set up a special blog about it. But race related dialogue doesn’t belong in every blog conversation. But maybe the AJC isn’t shooting for civilized.
2. Jay’s policing of personal insults is biased, like it or not. If you’re going to get a third party to police some of this, that’s probably not a bad idea, and would result in better quality policing, as well as balanced policing.
3. Facebook already has enough power. But reducing anonymity has value by making people stand by their views and beliefs and also behave in a more civilized manner.
4. Popularity voting is a bad idea. People should be able to rate comments if they want, but that shouldn’t change the order of the comments. Sequential posting of comments enables dialogue.
5. A possible innovative idea: let other people rate a poster’s comments on one of 4 criteria: socially liberal / conservative; fiscally liberal / conservative (for political blogs). Then, provide the poster’s profile as backup (a link) and show the poster’s ratings on each of those four metrics.
Good luck on this.
Slobby Bobby
February 7th, 2012
12:46 pm
Why, oh why, does EVERYTHING need to be civil? Yes, it’s true that people say things under the cover of anonymity, that they wouldn’t necessarily say face to face. That’s the beauty of it. It’s a way for them to expose their true feelings. It’s obvious human nature.
Slobby Bobby
February 7th, 2012
12:48 pm
By the way folks… my post above was the same one I posted on the FB page of the AJC editor, and it was deleted.
Shawn McIntosh
February 7th, 2012
12:54 pm
@Slobby Bobby, not so.. your post is on the editor’s Facebook page. I just checked.
Jm
February 7th, 2012
1:54 pm
Obama has successfully fought against the American interest
Canada is now talking to China about buying the oil
We will continue buying oil from Chavez dictators and terrorists when we could have bought from our good neighbor who might also recycle their profits back to our economy
Obama truly is against America
Jm
February 7th, 2012
1:56 pm
Wrong blog blah
Slobby Bobby
February 7th, 2012
2:29 pm
Thank you Shawn, I stand corrected. It wasn’t there a little while ago. I should have realized that FB has some quirks.
I apologize for rushing to judgements.