« Guilford incentives |
| Ars longa »
Anil's right about commenting culture, although, as Ben Hwang (politely) comments, personal blogs have some resource constraints.
Jul 22, 2011 at 03:21 PM | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It's why I stopped going to the Letters to the Editor blog on the News & Record site. Why go to a bar where the same six bullies are pushing each other around loudly with the same arguments every night? Check please. Haven't been back for a year.
Bill Yaner |
Jul 22, 2011 at 06:01 PM
That's a very good piece by Anil, especially the bit on identities and moderation.
I frquent a photography site where discussions often went off on political spins. The solution came when the site owner hired several more moderators, as well as publishing explicit rules of behavior.
Identity is important so we know who we are talking with. It doesn''t matter if you use your real name or a pseudonym, so long as you use the same name all the time.
Re: Bill's point: I have some sympathy for sites that attract large numbers of comments and don't want to hire people just to spend their days deleting comments from sociopaths. However, some sites seem to accept a maximum number of comments and then close the discussion. That seems a very reasonably idea. Papers like the N&O could pick some number of comments they can actually police, and close comments when that number is reached.
People running websites need to get over the notion that they have an obligation to allow anyone and everyone, for the forseeable future, to use their software to say anything they want.
Jul 22, 2011 at 07:27 PM
All hail the gatekeepers!
Jul 23, 2011 at 10:27 AM
Not sure what you're saying, Roch -- that all comment moderation policies are a bad idea, or that these particular ones are, or, what?
Ed Cone |
Jul 23, 2011 at 01:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.