Citizen Paine | Citizen Journalism

Greensboro N-R talks trolls with its readers

Greensboro (North Carolina) News-Record Editor John Robinson and readers are wrestling the question of message board moderation in "The Silence of the Trolls."

The discussion illustrates the challenge: One reader complains that reader comments containing profanity have been allowed to stay on the site, while another says that to remove such comments would be a heavy-handed "hall monitor approach."

The positive thing happening here is that Robinson and the site's readers are discussing this problem and possible solutions. That kind of interaction is what makes readers feel a sense of ownership and empowerment. Sorry for the buzzwords, but, hey, that's the difference between static shovelware (another buzzword) news sites and those that are making an effort to connect with readers -- not just for the sake of connecting but for building a better online experience.

More on Comments and Message Boards.

SFGate launches 'Culture Blog' ... no comment(s) ... yet

SFGate and the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday launched the Culture Blog, a collaboration of  web site and newspaper writers. The blog may be a first on SFGate; it doesn't say, but I don't recall another and it's the only one listed in the Blogs section on the home page.

According to the About page, the bloggers will "be posting daily items -- newsy, opinionated, critical or simply silly -- on our various arts, culture, media, and Web-related interests and obsessions."

This blog -- fun and irreverent -- seems to be a nice fit for SFGate.

But, deep breath, where are the comments from readers? The About page explains:

Input from you, our readers, is all important, and very soon you'll be able to post your comments directly to the Culture Blog.

I dunno. Whaddya think? It's a blog. For a hip, craigslist-happy Bay Area audience. Should we launch even though the comments aren't enabled? Sure. Grrr.

User comments: The ticket to defusing eBay-Live 8 battles

When eBay decided this week to halt the auction of freebie tickets to London's Live 8 concert, it caved to bad PR. I wonder whether eBay could have dodged this bullet if it allowed more direct user comments on auction items.

On one hand, we've seen that comments on news web sites can get out of control and be inflammatory. The flip side is that when people are able to express opposing views prominently, they feel empowered, which may make them less likely to use the sort of subversive tactics seen in the eBay-Live 8 case.

The 150,000 tickets for the Live 8 in London's Hyde Park were distributed via a text-messaging lottery. Musician Bob Geldof organized the July 2 event -- with concerts simultaneously in London, Philadelphia, Berlin, Paris and Rome -- to increase awareness about poverty in Africa.

Predictably, many winners of the tickets started selling them online. For high-demand events, it takes a photo ID system to put the tickets directly into the hands only of those who would actually use them. Faced with a problem he could have anticipated, Geldof slammed eBay.

According to BBC, he encouraged people to place ridiculously high bids that they had no intention of honoring, thereby sabotaging the Live 8 ticket auctions.

eBay initially refused to budge, saying the sales were legal, but then backed down. The company said its customers didn't think the sales were appropriate and should be stopped.

The screenshot on this post shows that stopping the sales hasn't been totally successful. Not only are they still showing up on eBay -- with sellers promising to complete the deals via email, thereby making moot the problem of £10 million bids ($18 million) -- but they've also migrated to craigslist. On Tuesday, the day eBay said it would stop the auctions, no Live 8 tickets were listed on craigslist; on Wednesday, there were 32 listings for Live 8 tickets on craigslist.

My point isn't to defend huge markups on tickets, especially those obtained free for an event intended to raise awareness about poverty. But for eBay to stop these sales, if they are indeed legal, sets a precedent and could encourage others to use similar underhanded tactics to sabotage auctions and pressure eBay.

Where eBay went wrong:

• eBay halted the auctions even though it conceded that they were perfectly legal.
• The explanation of eBay Managing Director Doug McCallum -- "We've listened carefully to our customers. Overwhelmingly the voice is that they would like us to take down the listing." -- doesn't jibe with the mixed comments on eBay's own message boards or elsewhere.
• Faced with a PR problem, it appears the company will buckle rather than stick up for the rights of its sellers.

One thing eBay did right: It suspended the accounts of people who posted the insanely high bids.

Now, let's take a page from web sites that allow users to post comments on articles: What if eBay, which has a great user feedback system, also allowed any registered user to directly post a comment on an item? So, not only could you post feedback when you've completed a purchase or sale, but also to comment about a specific item while the auction is still going. (Buyers already can ask sellers questions, but it's up to the seller whether to display the question and response.)

If the critics of the Live 8 ticket sellers could have posted comments on each auction item, they might have been satisfied. By having their dissatisfaction presented in a prominent way, they might have been less likely to enter £10 million bids and call for eBay to halt these ticket sales.

Even if a comment system wouldn't have stopped the heavy-handed tactics in this case, it would be a valuable tool for an auction site. It would enable buyers to share information about an auction item, and the feedback rating of the person commenting would give the users a way to judge the credibility of the person making the comment.

More posts about Comments and Message Boards

Morning Call publishing web comments in print

The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.) announced this week that it has started print publication of some reader comments that originated online.

Noting the differences between traditional letters to the editor and the new "E-Comments" feature that is published in print opposite the Opinion Pages, The Morning Call writes:

"... the E-comments come from on-line postings that do not need to be signed by full names (though posters do have to register). Moreover, we don't contact on-line posters to verify authorship, an important part of editing letters to the editor.

"Nevertheless, the advantage to be had is to further connect the important 'public forum' responsibility of the newspaper to modern modes of communicating. It might even draw into both forums people who previously had not bothered, and you can see where that might lead; more diversity of voices and viewpoints."

The editors at The Morning Call note that each advance in technology has raised fears: When the paper first started accepting letters to the editor via email in the '90s, "the concern was that the facility and speed of sending an e-mail would cheapen this important public forum." That didn't happen.

Today, some MSM publishers fear what may come when readers can comment on staff articles. As I've noted before, The Morning Call has taken the position that enabling reader comments on articles online is a priority. Online editor Russell Glitman describes the steps the site takes to keep the discussions civil in a post he made May 20 to Romenesko's letters section. He says that it is working. (I can't find a way to link directly to his post among the 1,100-plus letters, so the link is to Glitman's Poynteronline profile page, where it's easier to find the May 20 post.)

Moving tentatively into article comments

The Winston-Salem Journal is allowing article comments on some stories, the paper announced Tuesday on its web site. But the gatekeepers may have to ease up on the controls a bit to get the readers involved.

Several significant limitations:

• Not all articles allow comments. In fact, the site is starting with comments enabled for just a single column.
• Comments are limited to 500 characters, about 50 words.
• All comments are reviewed before they go live.

On the other hand, the reader does not have to register before posting. Oops. You have to register before you can even access an article page. I forgot I had bugmenotted before reading.

Blogger Jon Lowder asks that the character limit be bumped to 150 words and would prefer to see comments posted instantly. He's right about both, which means that other message moderation methods may need to replace the pre-publication review.

As of Wednesday morning, the column with comments enabled is not displaying anything from readers.

Despite flaws, Ventura makes progress with new comment system

Although there are some weaknesses in the Ventura County Star's new system for allowing reader comments on articles, the newspaper deserves credit for moving so quickly to restore the comments feature after turning it off last week.

The new set-up forces visitors to go through the paper's online registration system in order to post on a story, requiring use of an email address. If inappropriate comments are posted, the site can warn the person via email and then can block the user both through the registration and through IP addresses. They're also using a profanity filter. And users are encouraged to report inappropriate posts with a feedback email.

Assistant Managing Editor John Moore says, "By forcing people to use registered names (which should be their real names), we invoke the "Mama's listening" rule: Don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to hear."

Allowing reader comments on articles will help the Star solidify its connection with visitors. And I'm glad to see the Star reinstate the comments function even though this system isn't perfect.

The problems:

• Online registration doesn't force people to use their real names or for using shared logins via services like Bugmenot.com. Was that really "Seymour But" and "Neil Diamond" commenting on "Assembly dumps 147 bills for this year"? My problem isn't with the anonymous comments but with the Star giving the impression that it has taken a significant step to thwart anonymity. Be upfront: Encourage people to use their real names, but acknowledge that you can't stop people from using pseudonym.
• The method for reporting abuse -- sending an email to the web site -- is cumbersome. Readers should have a simpler, one-click option. The Star's method means that few abuses will be reported, so either the paper will have to accept the presence of some inappropriate posts or they'll have to monitor closely.
• Profanity filter? I'm sure people will find creative ways to curse it if they're determined.
• I wonder whether IP blocking will result in over-blocking, freezing out people who have done nothing wrong.
• Finally, posts are not shown on the article page but are linked and displayed in a separate window. I suppose that's a safeguard of sorts, ensuring that inappropriate posts won't immediately be displayed to everyone who reads an article but it also means legit posts are buried also.

Despite my criticisms, I'm impressed with the Star's ability to move quickly and all three of the articles I spot-checked today had comments. So, they're doing something right.

Greensboro to enable reader comments

Just as the Ventura County Star announced it will mothball reader comments on articles, the Greensboro News-Record says it will -- with some trepidation -- allow readers to post directly on articles.

News-Record Editor John Robinson says the feature will be part of the site's new publishing system.

The N-R wants to go to the next level of reader interactivity even though, as Robinson acknowledges, the site's blogs have received posts that "border on the obscene and the abusive." Only with a willingness to experiment will news web sites figure out the best practices that raise the level of discourse.

At morph: The Media Center Blog, Ken Sands of the Spokesman Review, responding to the Ventura decision, suggests that reader comments shouldn't be enabled unless you've got a system that will promote quality.

I agree with Sands to a point. Do some research so you know what successes and pitfalls others have experienced. But don't let a quest for a perfect system create paralysis. You won't know what level of moderation will be required for your community until you invite the readers to the discussion. Whatever you try at first will require modifications because it either will be too restrictive or too loose. So, try to start with a comment-moderation system that can be changed without much difficulty.

In his blog, the N-R's Robinson points to The Morning Call (Allentown, Pa.) as another news site that has seen inappropriate comments on articles. The paper has a cautious approach to the display of comments: The home page has a box of  "Recent Comments," a good way of letting readers know which articles are attracting discussion. The "Recent Comments" box also appears on article pages in the News section. Rather than display any text from the comments themselves, the box shows the headlines of the articles. Clicking the headlines in the box takes you to the article. At the bottom of each article page is a link to "View Comments," which pops up the reader remarks in a new window, rather than displaying them directly on the article page. Each post has options to "Ignore User" and "Report Post."

So, on the one hand, the site is making an effort to drive readers to articles with comments, but on the other hand is making the reader really work to get to those comments.

One other sign that The Morning Call is making an effort to be transparent: The site had a page that describes the philosophy of the paper's editorial board and includes links to bios on all the board members.

Ventura paper turns off comments on articles

The Ventura County Star, which has been making strong strides toward interactivity, has disabled reader comments on articles.

According to an article on the site, the comments function was turned on in January and was largely successful at engaging readers. However, "there have also been those who abused the system. Their comments were full of profanity. They personally attacked individuals, both persons related to news stories and others who were commenting on the website."

Fortunately, the editors recognize the value of direct reader input on articles and they're looking for ways to bring it back. They want a system with "controls that our readers need and don't require us to hire a fulltime babysitter to monitor the comments," according to a blog post by John Moore, AME for new media and technology.

It's not clear to me what level of moderation existed before, such as whether readers had to register before posting. As Leonard Witt suggests at the Public Journalism Network, using some form of citizen moderators may be at least part of the solution.

Meanwhile, the site still is running its forums for reader discussion that are independent from articles.

Allowing readers to comment on articles

Most news web sites don't allow readers to post comments directly on articles. That's a mistake. It's a largely untapped way to get the reader to be an active participant and to hold authors directly accountable for their words.

In response to a query to an Online News Association discussion group this week, I posted the following thoughts enabling reader comments:

The GetLocalNews.com sites have forums attached to all articles, and the sites allow readers to create threads independent of articles. We do see discussions deteriorate, a price we pay because we wanted to allow people to comment anytime anywhere.

The suggestions that Ken Sands and Robert Niles offer -- closing discussions after a finite period of time or being selective about which articles allow comments -- are worth considering if you want more control over the dialogue.

We've tried different methods of moderation. Currently, we use a system that allows people to click a "report abuse" button on any post that's not appropriate. If a message gets two abuse reports, it is removed. It's not a perfect system, but it certainly helps.

As for whether or not to allow comments on articles: That functionality was one of the first things we implemented at GetLocalNews, which started with two staffed pilot sites and today operates as a citizen journalism network.

Allowing comments on all articles has a couple critical benefits:
- It engages the readers, giving them a sense of ownership because their words appear prominently. It's not ownership in the sense of a wiki, but it's close to it.
- It holds the author directly and immediately accountable for what's published. If an author gets something wrong in an article, he or she hears about it right away. Readers also give positive feedback, and they suggest ideas for angles the writer may not have considered.

Side benefit:
When people are regularly adding their posts to articles, readers have an incentive to return to that article over and over to see the latest comments. Builds traffic.

For each article, our sites display the first four comments on the article page and then link to our discussion board for any additional commnents.