4 Comments Add your own

• 1. the dude abides  |  February 23rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm

  [[Warning: Completely Repeated Comment Ahead…]]

  Can anyone on your staff explain the rationale/criteria behind allowing or disallowing comments on stories? Example: You allowed comments on the Richard Wanke murder story, but not the one about the recent 6 teens/gang murder. Of course, when I posted a comment about the discrepancy, the Wanke story’s comments were promptly turned off — not exactly what I was aiming for.

  If you’re only going to allow comments on the most mundane of story topics, how much discussion do you expect to stimulate? Do you think people really want take the time to discuss the day’s weather report, or proper sitting techniques? Of course not! They want to discuss the hot-button issues. So how much are you “involving your community” when the message you’re sending is, “We only want your opinion/discussion on boring, non-controversial stories.”

  I guess the overarching question is: Why do you have comments? What exactly is your aim? If it’s truly meant to encourage reader participation, to really connect with your customers, you’re going to have to take the good with the bad — which means doing a fair amount of monitoring. If it’s meant to increase page views, it would behoove you to allow comments on the more complicated/touchy stories. If it’s none of the above, let me know what it is. Really, it’s not the decision to disallow comments, but the lack of transparency/clarity on the “comments policy” that disappoints me.

  [[Warning: Completely Unsolicited Two Cents Ahead:]]

  As a reader, your unclear (or completely non-existent) policy on how and when you solicit feedback says a few things to me:
  You’re willing to increase page views by having a comments section, but you’re unwilling/unable to monitor their content, and that transparency is an outdated journalistic quality that I should no longer expect.

  I actually asked this question a year ago (to your managing editor, Doug Gass) and he responded with a dismissive, “There have been no guarantees that every item posted to rrstar.com will have comments available.”

  I know there’s no guarantees. I know there’s other venues for feedback. We can still send letters to the editor, etc etc. But it’s much more likely that when you make it difficult, people will just go elsewhere to discuss — craigslist, independent message boards, etc.

  I know this is a new playing field, and that you’re struggling to find your place. I understand it’s difficult (and somewhat dangerous) to open up your site to every yahoo with a keyboard and an opinion.

  What I don’t know is what you’re thinking.

  What’s your goal for “community involvement?” What is the policy?

  …

  hmm. Third time I’ve posted this & no answers.

  Community interaction much?

• 2. Anna Voelker  |  February 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm

  Dude: We disable comments on basic crime stories. Plain and simple. We have found there are certain topics, namely crime and accident, in which our Terms of Use are repeatedly abused. It’s unfortunate because comments are meant to encourage civil community conversation. We also reserve the right to disable comments on any story.

  Anna Voelker, assistant managing editor, rrstar.com

• 3. the dude abides  |  February 24th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  IMHO, letting the “abusers” set your agenda is a poor policy. You’re missing out on good conversation/analysis/connection with readers by giving up and assuming that abusive comments will inevitably outweigh the positive ones. It really shows a lack of faith in your “good” readers/commenters that you let the rudest commenters set the bar at the lowest level. I mean, why even have a “Report Abuse” button, if you’re not going to give readers the chance to utilize it?

  Now, I’m not suggesting that you hire a full time “Community Editor” to monitor comments (like the NY Times does), but stifling the conversation before it even starts just guarantees that people will take their opinions elsewhere. You’re sending a message that says “do not come here for civil conversations about the issues that affect you and the community you live in — we don’t trust you enough for that.”

  Why not enable your community, and encourage them to elevate their conversation? Why not try something progressive, instead of regressive? Take a cue from Digg.com — a site that literally thrives on user comments. Instead of just having a “Report abuse” button, you could have a “Like This” button too. Make it so that a comment with lots of “Likes” goes to the top, and one with more than X number of “Don’t Likes” or “Abuse” doesn’t even appear.

  I guess what really turns me off about all this is that you’re dumbing down the product for the lowest common denominator, and you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

• 4. dudessabides  |  February 28th, 2009 at 9:12 am

  I would like to know how to change the name I use to comment. At least one other person has mentioned wanting to change the name. Could somebody let me know how to do it?

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed