posted by Doyle
One of the great aspects of social media is the ability for far more people than ever before to get involved in communications, but this represents a fundamental change for newspapers. Instead of printing a few letters to the editor each day, representing a tiny fraction of the readership, nearly every online story on most newspaper websites features the ability to comment. Individual stories often receive dozens or even hundreds of comments, even in smaller markets.
That’s usually a good thing–but it can be a bad thing. Sadly, it seems our own Boulder Daily Camera is an example of how this is becoming a bad thing. This problem isn’t limited to the Camera, but because the paper is in our town and I try to read it every day, I’m throwing down the gauntlet: I’m challenging you, Camera: clean up your comments.
Simply, you’ve lost control of your own living room. The comments are often more ridiculous than valuable. It’s time to kick the serial smartasses out of the party and see if your community is able to conduct itself in a better way.
I’m not talking about profanity, threats or other egregious violations. If those things are happening, they do seem to be getting shut down. And I’m certainly not talking about honest, open and respectful disagreement. That is the very best part of an open forum. It’s the myriad of feeble attempts at comedy coupled with mean-spirited comments that don’t further the conversation, but ruin it.
Here are some recent examples:
The Emich sisters, former owners of Boulder’s Trilogy Wine Bar, are looking at opening a new business combining wine, yoga and other elements. Comments like this (taken from the Camera website) are just plain ridiculous:
“There are already too many yuppie Yoga places, coffee shops, and health clubs for egocentric stay home moms. Boulder men need to put down their man purses and run these wenches out of town.”
Or:
“What about tofu, granola bars and bean sprouts? Got to get all that no-MSG, all natural, range-fed, no artificial coloring, all organic, unsalted, no sugar, no preservatives food in order to survive in a world that will soon be crowded with windmills and solar machines. Haight-Ashbury, 1968. Bleeeeeeech!”
This is just a sampling of the mostly critical comments following this story. Are these thoughtful or an extension of a good discussion? The story talks about three women (full disclosure, friends of mine) who ran a business in Boulder, paid rent, employed people and contributed to the local economy for nearly 10 years, and you’d think from the comment thread they were planning to open an Opium Stand outside of a local grade school.
The point? I certainly don’t get it. Disagree with the concept, comment on the service–good or bad–once it opens or ask an honest question. But to just jump on and tell the world you hate something–to be clear, something that doesn’t even exist yet!–is narcissism at its worst.
Comments following the coverage of how cancer recently claimed rock legend Ronnie James Dio were mostly respectful. But Xenu007 (who seems to think none of the rest of us in Boulder can enjoy any story without his pithy input) left this gem:
“Who?”
Perhaps if you would have read the story (which is from the Associated Press) you wouldn’t need to ask. But really, it’s a waste of electricity to even fire up the computer and type that.
A June 25 article on the mosquito problem at a city softball facility has attracted 27 comments so far. Twenty-seven comments on mosquitos! Most of them are nothing more than snarky remarks, some even criticizing the players and the sport they choose. Bottom line: not much worth reading. Certainly not the best our community has to offer.
So what do I recommend? Let me stress again: differing opinions should be encouraged, not squelched, but there’s a difference between differing opinions and random ridiculous remarks. Honestly, an occassional, very clever quip can further the conversation, but I see precious few of those. Here are a few thoughts:
Eliminate anonymous comments. Nearly every newspaper requires that letters to the editor be signed. Occasionally the identity of the writer will be withheld from print, but such a decision is made with the consent and consideration of an editor and typically only when there is some sort of serious issue (whistleblowers still working at the target or similar). Allowing people to completely hide their identity behind names like Xenu007 (his/her avatar is a photo of John Travolta) practically encourages bad behavior.
Moderate more strictly. Let’s not just wait for profanity or the report of another user. Let’s use your skills as editors and reporters. Comments like “let’s run these wenches out of town” simply don’t have a place on the Daily Camera’s website. To wait until something really bad happens is a bit like pulling over speeders in a school zone only after a child is injured.
Set up a system to alert you to users that comment constantly, and watch their content. Readers leaving several comments on several stories every day are certainly engaged in the community, but are they good comments or simply random snark? It’s easy to jump on and leave a derogatory remark for nearly any story, and that seems to be activity of many of your most active users. Five good, conversational comments are far better than 50 dumb remarks. Encourage people to engage with quality content, not simply quantity of content.
Engage your community to help. I realize you’re facing shrinking revenue and lower payrolls, and here I am recommending additional work. Perhaps volunteers from the community could serve as a frontline defense. Try putting something inappropriate on Wikipedia and an army of volunteers will have it down in minutes. Again, the goal is not to squash disagreements, but to allow discussions of all kind to flourish in a respectful environment. I’ll bet there are many members of the community that would volunteer to monitor the posts and remove the stupidity.
Shut down comments on stories that get out of hand. When a string runs amok on any given article, shut it down and remove the offending string. This will make it clear you’re serious and will help strings stay on focus. I remember one string about a domestic incident resulting in death in Boulder that started out thoughtful and interesting and devolved into a running commentary on the couple’s tattoos. Shut that stuff off when it happens and before long it won’t happen near as often.
Some stories simply shouldn’t have comments available. Do we really need to accommodate the potential for issues with every single story? Turning off comments on certain sections would eliminate the need to monitor them. Take Milestones, for example. Do we need to open up potential problems for the announcement of an engagement or, worse, a death? This would allow you to focus on areas that deserve comments but require moderation.
Spell out the rules, and stick to them. You’re inviting people to your house. Insist on respect in your terms of use and eliminate those who don’t follow the rules. Set forth your behavior parameters and, just like a bouncer at a bar, remove the patrons that want to ruin it for everyone else.
The comments are far enough out-of-hand now that I carefully consider recommending to a client that we contact the Camera for a story, and that’s pretty sad. Your reporters are good to work with, and the coverage itself is often beneficial. I’m more than happy to have a thoughtful discussion about my client’s story follow–even if the comments are not all favorable. I’m not willing, however, to subject my client to thoughtless, often stupid comments from the most obnoxious among us.
Your thoughts, Daily Camera? I’d love to get this discussion started. I just ask that we all treat each other with respect in the conversation.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Erika Napoletano // Jun 28, 2010 at 11:30 am
Simply put, there's nothing wrong with having a comments policy. If someone craps on your front porch, you can either clean it up or leave it there…which demonstrates that it's OK for everyone else to crap there.
2 Tim Brauhn // Jun 28, 2010 at 11:42 am
FIRST!
3 Tim Brauhn // Jun 28, 2010 at 11:44 am
Also – When I read the comments sections in newspapers almost anywhere, I seldom find things of value. I don't know if the problem lies in the kinds of people who comment there or what. Naturally, I'd point to blogs as places where more reasoned dialogue can occur. That being said, once all newspapers become blogs, the problem will likely follow.
4 Jon Warren // Jun 28, 2010 at 11:49 am
All good suggestions, and I hope they are able to respond or (even better) apply some of your recommendations. Sadly, in this day and age of big corporations, I seriously doubt that your local arm of the MediaNews Group (who own and run the Daily Camera — or at least their site) will be able to make changes to how the corporate site is run. I see the same type of problems with Gannett owned and run newspaper sites in by own area as what you mentioned. Being a web applications developer for years, I am fairly certain that corporate IT at both of these large companies has their systems designed to not allow the individual papers the ability to control which stories have comments, or even to monitor those comments. I really hope I'm wrong. It's so bad back here (and where I moved from, both Gannett papers) that I don't even read the comments due to the trolls looking to do nothing but enrage people for the sake of enraging people.
5 bill // Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm
on the other hand, you may not want to moderate comments depending on your legal environment.
"A blog owner can avoid liability for user-generated content that appears on his site without being checked or moderated, the High Court has ruled. But fixing the spelling or grammar in users' posts could lose him that protection, it said."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comm...
6 jennyjenjen // Jun 28, 2010 at 12:21 pm
Maybe they should check out what 9news does. 9news hasn't completely gotten rid of the problem, but they do a good job of closing down particular articles that can't gain from any commentary whatsoever.
7 Dean Smith // Jun 28, 2010 at 12:31 pm
The Daily Camera does have an option for users to "Report" and flag any inappropriate comments. I hope that flagged comments are being dealt with appropriately, as I think allowing the public to help "clean up the porch" is the best solution here. Tighter censorship of comments on behalf of one or two individuals monitoring the posts may not be such a good thing IMO.
8 Gurl // Jun 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I agree. I had an informal policy for awhile, but have added a policy below the comments box that states what will get you hit as spam or just plain deleted. I don't like crap on my porch or in my yard..and that includes at my virtual homes as well.
9 Fiona Schlachter // Jun 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Well said, Doyle. I have stopped reading the comments since so many border on ridiculous.
10 Kevin_Kaufman // Jun 29, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Mr. Albee:
Thanks for the blog post and, well, the public flogging.
Commenting also has indeed been on our minds as well and a greatly discussed issue among many of us here at the Camera of late.
More on that in a minute.
Among my favorite lines of your post is this ironic snippet at the very end: Your thoughts, Daily Camera? I’d love to get this discussion started.
Hmmmm, I'm confused.
I don't recall myself or staff ever being unwilling to discuss this issue or any others, for that matter, with you. Heck, seems we've even sought you out from time to time over the years for your thoughts on various matters, discussion of our publications and expertise on other issues.
Anyway, I'll respond to your post in a private e-mail as it is indeed a worthy conversation to have, although my response is too lengthy for this space.
Going forward, might I ask that before you post a very public blog post attack you afford us the professional courtesy of an e-mail, or phone call or, heck, just walk around the corner and stop in at the office and visit me — I'll buy ya coffee or lunch — so that we can actually have that discussion beforehand. Then, sure, feel free to criticize publicly in your blog at will. At least you'll then have some facts to work with and an understanding of what we've been doing, what we are trying, what we're planning, what is working, what isn't, various challenges, resource allocation, etc., etc., etc.
In the event you don't have my contact info it is:
Kevin Kaufman
Executive editor
The Camera, dailycamera.com, buffzone.com,
mytowncolorado.com coloradokidssports.com,
biggreenboulder.com, fridayallweek.com and more
303-473-1349
kaufmank@dailycamera.com
11 Doyle // Jun 30, 2010 at 5:44 am
Kevin:
Thanks for both reading and for commenting. While I certainly didn’t intend for this to be a “public flogging,” it was my intention to publicly comment on a public site.
You are correct in that I didn’t contact you before I wrote this. That would have been appropriate if I was commenting on something private. The comment stream of your newspaper’s website is not private. When you or a member of your editorial staff writes a negative editorial about the public actions of a member of Boulder’s city government, do you walk around the corner for a discussion beforehand and give them a heads-up? Neill Woelk recently wrote a pretty pointed column about Baylor lobbyist Buddy Jones’ email comments on the Big 12 (which I thought was well done: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_15257376 ). Did Neill reach out to Mr. Jones personally to discuss his comments before writing the column? If a Camera theater critic doesn’t like a production at the Boulder Dinner Theater, does that writer call the director and discuss his concerns with the staging before writing a less-than-complimentary review? I doubt it. In fact, I kind of hope not. There’s a difference between news reporting and editorial writing, as you well know. Editorials are supposed to be opinions, and this was (and is) mine.
My intention here was not to write a news report on what you are doing at the Camera to deal with comments. Had that been the case, I would need to ask you to find out. My intention was, and remains, to point out that–in my opinion, as one who writes about social media issues–it’s not working. Is the Camera alone? Hardly. I believe that community moderation is and will remain one of the great challenges of social media for the foreseeable future. I wrote about the Camera because we are members of the same community, and I wanted to start a public discussion about what I see as an issue within our community. I offered possible solutions, and I asked for your comments. I’m sorry that you found my honest offer for a public conversation about public comments on a public website to be an “ironic snippet.” It wasn’t my intention.
In fact, Kevin, let me invite you here to send me a guest post. Make it as long as you like. I’ll be happy to post it. Also, we host social media discussions over breakfast every few weeks. I’d welcome the chance to have you lead a discussion on the challenges you face. And, sure, I’m up for a cup of coffee anytime. We can decide who buys when we get there.
Again, thanks for the comment. Let me again make an open call for further discussion from those who read this blog. It’s my opinion we’ve got some pretty smart folks in Boulder, and furthering this discussion in an open, public environment could lead us all to an answer that might just be groundbreaking in it’s approach. I’ll raise my hand here and now to facilitate and participate in such a conversation, here, or wherever it takes place.
12 Andrea_Meyer // Jun 30, 2010 at 6:33 am
Thanks for your post, Doyle, and the solutions you propose. I didn't see this article as a public flogging of the Daily Camera at all. Rather, you were simply using a specific example that local readers are familiar with. The issue you raise plagues many sites, and the solutions you propose are solid. I agree with Dean Smith's comment that enlisting the public's help in flagging inappropriate comments is a good thing. What happens over time, I think, is that people look at comments and get a feel for "the norm" — the flavor of the comments. If most of the comments seem to be written to shock or vent, then that reinforces those types of comments as "the norm," I think.
13 Kevin_Kaufman // Jun 30, 2010 at 8:54 am
Mr. Albee:
I didn't intend to engage in this discussion further here, but following your last post and one of those of your commenters I do feel compelled to set a couple points straight.
My position simply was that with a quick courtesy call or e-mail from you, I would gladly have addressed a couple of the fundamental questions of your position. Was I seeking to prescreen or even sway you? No. But I could have addressed some of the basics upfront.
Something like this:
You.: Does the Camera believe there are issues of concern regarding comments on its site?
Me: Yes
You.: Is the Camera doing or going to do anything about it?
Me: Yes
Q.: Like what?
We then could have engaged in a lively discussion of our strategies, efforts and plans, which in my humble opinion would have truly advanced your piece prior to publication.
That unfortunately didn't happen. No harm, no foul.
As to Mr. Warren's attempt to lay the blame on some evil, big corporation, the Camera isn't part of Gannett and as such I cannot speak to their practices and policies.
We are indeed owned by MediaNews.
The company does not, however, impose limitations on we individual papers/sites regarding how we manage commenting.
I don't speak for corporate MediaNews, but from them I know they believe there is value in commenting, that they realize commenting is an evolving arena and at times poses challenges.
Additionally, they do provide us with some very basic guidelines/rules for users, which are included in our user agreement.
Beyond that, we are free to choose the comment vendor that best meets our needs and we are free to work with said vendor, within ours and the vendor's limits, to best adapt their application to our needs.
We also are free to establish additional comment rules and guidelines — certainly within ethical and legal boundaries — that best enable us to manage comments.
And we are free to align our staff and resources to manage comments as we see the best use of those folks/resources.
Finally, as to your closing position Mr. Albee, about the Camera's editorial positions, etc.
As a matter of fact, we do endeavor to invite the relevant parties or officials to discuss the relevant issues/concerns, particularly on local topics, before we write and present our positions. Not everyone accepts the invitation or returns our requests but we do extend the offer. No we don't let them review our pieces beforehand but we do strive to hear them out as we weigh our position.
When we review a play or classical performance or rock show, yes, as our critics quite often have had interactions with directors, actors, conductors, performers, etc., previously — not always are they available or the opportunity afforded us, but we do try. No, we don't afford them the opportunity to prescreen our reviews, but we do our homework and strive to engage the relevant parties beforehand, during or after the show and prior to our writing..
Restaurant reviews? No, we don't alert the chef and wait staff beforehand, but we do sample multiple meals and conduct our research nonetheless before staking a position. And no, they don't get to prescreen the review — but that wasn't what I was asking of you, either.
Did Neill speak to Mr. Jones for the column you cite? I don't know and he unfortunately isn't available for me to ask. It wouldn't surprise me if he did or at least tried. And yes, it is possible he didn't. Certainly, I'm sure he made a number of calls beforehand. And certainly if he was taking on a micro-local issue, or Mike Bohn or Dan Hawkins or CU to task he would have had discussions with them, in some form or at least attempted it, first.
Editorials are indeed opinion, as you note. I believe the best are well informed and thoroughly researched.
Thanks for the discussion.
… kk
14 Amy Little // Jun 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Doyle, the Camera does allow a certain level of community comment moderation just like you suggested. Readers can flag any comment in any story for review. I have it on good authority that every single flagged comment is reviewed promptly, and most of the comments that are flagged are rightly removed. The problem is, hardly anyone flags comments.
I don't often read comments on Camera stories anymore because I am usually let down, offended, infuriated or some combination thereof by the discourse. I can't bring myself to flag a comment just because I disagree fundamentally with the commenter's perspective, and I doubt flawed logic is grounds for removal either (Kevin? Please correct me if I'm wrong!).
My problem with the comments on Camera stories has little to do with the software or comment guidelines. It's a classic case of PEBKAC – Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair. I keep reading about how Boulderites are among the most educated folks in America, but this statistic is very seldom (if ever) reflected in the Camera's comment threads. I guess that's a more polite way to say I think the majority of commenters on Camera stories are hapless mouth-breathers.
The suggestions you've made are all great ideas. I just wanted to remind you that the community already does have the option to police inappropriate comments via the flagging system. I like the notion of discouraging anonymous comments as well as a basic policy spelled out somewhere within the comment form, basically reminding the commenter that this is a public forum intended to foster community discussion about the story above, and being a douchebag is not allowed. If I wanted to sort through the uneducated opinions of a horde of nameless trolls, I'd go to 4chan.
15 Doyle // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:45 am
Amy:
You’re right, and it does seem like close monitoring of the flag button is at least keeping the profane, the threatening, etc., off the site.
That said, I’m recommending that the general tone be elevated so much of this never sees the light of day. If I go to a bar, for example, and every time I’m there a group of patrons is throwing drinks while the management does nothing, is it fair to say that behavior is OK there and if I don’t like it, I should go someplace else? Perhaps.
That’s my point with these comments. It’s not as though the Daily Camera isn’t used to being a public forum, whether on paper or online. Editors have had to decide which letters to print–and which ones not to print–for decades. Comments are an extension of that general philosophy.
There are very popular blogs that I don’t read because it’s obvious the philosophy is a community of disrespect. If that’s what the blog owners want to put out there, and it’s working for them, fine. I just don’t want to play. My point with the Camera is that I’m confident that’s not their intention, but it’s becoming the result. Should the community play a role? Absolutely, but in my opinion, the clean-up needs to start with the site owner, or the message is that the owners are fine with the status quo.
Thanks for weighing in!
16 Doyle // Jul 1, 2010 at 7:48 am
Kevin:
Again, I’m glad you engaged, and thanks for the insight. This is why I love what we do–there are very few concrete right or wrongs. For accountants, 2 and 2 is always 4. In our world, that might be a 20-minute discussion with no clear decision in the end! Again, thanks.
And the coffee offer stands… just say when!
17 brainchild // Jul 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The comment system that the Daily Camera (and perhaps some of its affiliates use) has a systemic problem. There is no way for the readership to rate comments up or down on a scale, other than to click on the thumbs up/down button that merely records the excess of people who agree over those who disagree. And then use a filter to suppress any comments below some threshold of karma, goodness, or whatever that scale is.
The ability to weed out the fluff/snark/dissing will make anonymity much less of a concern. Anonymity definitely fosters a harsher tone and content to posts, and allows those who feel disenfranchised to vent more than they otherwise would be able to. Nonetheless, there is still value to anonymity (although there are cases where it's possible to get around the Camera's system and figure out who's who).
The Slashdot website does a good job with this, because it weeds out much of the fluff/snark, leaving a lot of thoughtful meat for reading on any particular story. In which case, anonymity doesn't matter as much. On the other hand, it's not as involved with political/philosophical discussions that result from newspaper stories.
Another problem with the Daily Camera's site is this: If the absolute numbers of people who agree or disagree (thumbs up/down) were presented, commenters on the DC site would be disabused of the fantasy that they are reaching as large a readership as an actual published letter to the editor. But of course, if the actual absolute numbers (as opposed to the current relative numbers) were posted, it might negatively affect whatever readership numbers the Camera uses to charge advertisers for ads that appear on the very same comment pages. Just sayin'.
18 Priscilla // Oct 20, 2010 at 7:49 am
Thank you, Doyle, for this thoughtful take on what the Camera might do to moderate its comments better. Your post helped shape my own thoughts in The climate of online comments, my recent post about snarky online speech and what readers might do about it. I quoted you there, and I hope to continue the conversation.
You must log in to post a comment.