Why You Should Never Take Kate Carraway to IKEA
Polling Booth: "Kick a Ginger" Controversy
Subway Suicide Statistics Released
Days of Carltons Past
The Daily Photoist: November 25, 2009
Friends, readers, commenters, lend us your ears. Torontoist has, for the past few years, moderated comments (that is, unpublished comments or banned commenters) rarely—only when those comments are in clear, unambiguous, and over-the-top violation of Gothamist's comment policy or when commenters repeatedly break those rules. At this point, we unpublish fewer than five comments a month, and ban commenters far more rarely than that. Often, that hands-off approach works well, but some times, for some topics (like, oh, say, graffiti), the conversation inevitably devolves into a bunch of ad hominem attacks and recapitulations of firmly entrenched (and tired) ideologies that stifle, rather than encourage, further conversation. It sucks, and we can't imagine you enjoy it any more than we do.
So, what works for you? Gawker publisher Nick Denton told Portfolio that he sees comments on his set of sites "as a party. We don't take responsibility or credit for individual comments, but we have the right to invite or disinvite guests and throw the best party we can." Is more moderation the answer? And if we do choose more moderation, how should it work: should it be the responsibility of someone on staff, or an independent comment moderator whose sole job on the site is that? Or, should we keep the comments as they are now, almost entirely unmoderated and free-for-all? What encourages you to or prevents you from commenting on Torontoist, and would moderation help or hinder that?
We'd love to hear not only from regular commenters, but from people who comment on Torontoist less frequently, and from those who haven't commented at all. Rather than discussing it internally, Torontoist staff have also been invited to participate in this comments of this entry; we want to hear from anyone and everyone who has an interest in making Torontoist's comments as good as they can be.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
My personal 2 cents is that comments should be moderated as lightly as possible. Readers don't need to be sheltered from opinions and you risk steering the conversation. Nothing makes a reader feel more unwelcome than having a comment deleted.
I like the Nick Denton analogy.
Step in if you have to (i.e. any kind of hate statements or over the top personal attacks and watch out for Trolls) but otherwise stay out and let the conversation evolve organically. Reading different opinions can be quite educational and entertaining.
I think trying to shape the conversations in the comments would probably turn out to be a lost cause. I am a healthy supporter of comment removal when it is considered off-topic, generally.
I think moderation would be a gargantuan task which would require daily consideration and analysis to ensure that simply contentious messages were not removed. Moderation in this instance is not an instrument which can be wielded carefully enough, and it is therefore likely best left alone.
I have come to enjoy posting in the comments on Torontoist articles because the general tone and quality of the discussions here are simply elevated when compared with comments' sections in newspapers, for example. And, I certainly regret it when the conversation is distracted by a comment or comments which only serve to replace that curious and dispassionate dialogue with invective, or static, dogmatic opinion. Some posters, it seems, only have two or three firm opinions, and are eager to insert them into any discussion, no matter the topic at hand.
But I don't think you can moderate it. At best, I believe we all need to manage our frustration with bothersome opinions and their vocal champions. It's rather like having a heated conversation in a bar: you're at a table with your friends and the discussion is moving smoothly. Suddenly, some random chap pops his head in and has a depressingly stale and ill-informed point of view. Everyone rolls their eyes, but there really isn't anything you can do about it, not really.
Again, let's thank our lucky stars that we're aren't dealing with the comments which trail any article on cbc.ca, or globeandmail.com.
As a final aside: for really over-the-top comments, etc. look up the article about Terroni and cheese on seafood dishes. That touched a nerve.
Because I'm both socially inept and unemployed, I have a limited number of opportunities for daily social interaction. The best way I can get a feel for the pulse of the city is through online commentary. Comments are one way to try to understand how the population at large views a topic, and for misanthropes like myself, probably the only way.
Online commentary is a welcome addition to democratic discourse. Anyone can participate. However, as Jonnyr00 rightly points out, that discourse descends rather too easily into muckraking and mudslinging. Reading commentary on the Globe and the mothercorp is a bit of a chore, even with moderated comments. The danger with moderation is that it's a slippery slope and often seems to peeve off more people than the original postings. That being said, look at the rants and raves section of Toronto Craigslist to get an idea of what an absence of an online Leviathan looks like.
Perhaps it's a reflection of the readership of the Torontoist that that rarely happens here. Have you done a demographic profile lately? I'm sure we can guess but it would be interesting to have some real numbers.
Anyway, I think the "report this" option is an acceptable tool for the time being. You're better off devoting resources elsewhere. Let your readers act as gatekeepers. I've been reading for just over a year now, fairly consistently, and they seem to be a reasonable bunch. Plus your own figures seem to support that conclusion.
Reading the comments is half the fun. Sometimes you have to wade through quite a lot of stuff that you may not find enthralling, but let's just say it's good eye exercise. I think Gothamist's very simple comment policy is the policy you should continue to adhere to.
I have a lot of thoughts about comments on websites, but I'll try to be brief. I think it's worth remembering that much of the 'content' on various sites is now mostly user generated through the comments section. It's a cheap (if not free) way for a site to generate hits/readers. I'm thinking here of M. Wente's columns that sometimes have over 200 comments - I imagine that makes her proud and is able to use this as 'proof' of her 'popularity,' even if most of the comments are opposing her.
The comments section of the G&M is particularly atrocious. I often tell people who think Canada is some enlightened liberal utopia to just have a look at the ignorance/idiocy of the comments at the G&M. That said, increasingly we find people advocating democracy, but then retreat into an authoritarian, I-know-better attitude when something democratic (e.g. the comments) becomes 'too much' and strays from 'the better,' 'the educated,' 'the enlightened,' etc. It's like democracy is fine until all the hardened ideologies come into play, especially the ones we don't agree with. And I often find myself guilty of this and have to remind myself to not be such a fascist! But this is the price of democracy, or at least the price of an honest democratic sentiment. (For a short, easy to read articulation of this paradox, see J. Ranciere, Hatred of Democracy.)
I tend to think it is up to commenters who feel a particular comment/commenter is 'bad' (however they determine that) to respond in a thoughtful way - which may mean just ignoring it altogether. If someone has posted 'yet another' short-sighted, ignorant, etc. comment that's only meant to rile people up, and isn't really part of a discussion (i.e. they never respond seriously) then it is really up to other commenters to just leave it alone and not get into an online 'shouting match.'
Since Torontoist commenters all have to register, maybe there could be a 'rate this post/person' with a plus or minus option. This would be more than just the 'agree/disagree' like the Star has since each user would build a good or bad reputation (which would be displayed beside their name in their comment post).
And, I think it would be fun if Torontoist hosted a party and invited its commenters, then we could all meet each other!
In short, stick with your current moderating policy, even if that means we have to read that which we don't want to read.
I'm in agreement with the posters above, David. At ~5 comments a month I don't think Torontoist has much of a need for moderation at this point. It might be annoying for comment columns to take a tangent, or get bogged down in black and white strawmen, or play host to a commenter's well-established and frequently-posted opinions on particular issues (I'm as guilty of that as anyone here), I think adding a moderator or enforcing moderation for those reasons would cause more grief than worthwhile discussion. Moderating for quality of discussion isn't as clear-cut as deleting a post for containing spam, and would open a whole new can of biased worms.
(Full disclosure: David emailed me about moderation a few days ago, letting me know this article would be posted and inviting feedback. The possibility of becoming a moderator was also raised.)
The discourse in Torontoist's comments sections is actually pretty damn good, compared to most of the internet. Moderation would only tick people off and make them feel unwelcome, no matter how lame their comment is.
Moderating the worst of the worst is okay, I mean there needs to be some control. But the "Report This" button is probably good enough. I like to believe that most people on here are mature enough for this place to sort of regulate itself, as long as there's someone on the other end who reads the "Report This" emails.
Sometimes discussions degenerate into strawman arguments or name-calling (I just read through the above linked Vandalist comment thread), but honestly, with input from so many individuals (good or bad), and with discourse that goes on for sometimes days, it's a great way to flesh out an argument, and sort of strip it down. It arms everyone who reads it with a perspective on what are the most substantial, and what are the most fallacious sides to a given argument.
Sure, it may get a bit low-brow from time to time, but where else can one see so many ideas (again, good and bad) on a particular subject? Not to mention it's fun to read through.
I vote to keep commenting the way it is. Although as has been mentioned in the past, maybe an option to turn nesting off?
mister j is spot on about the Globe and Mail, but I don't agree with the sentiment that no moderation is good moderation.
Slashdot is is the best example of a sophisticated, unobtrusive and effective comment moderation system. While the Toronto Star (agree, disagree, report) and CBC (recommend, report) both do better than the G&M, their systems are poorly thought-through.
Some of the benefits of Slashdot's system:
I can't see any reason this wouldn't work on Torontoist. Instead of being exasperated by endless ad hominem INTERNET FIGHTS, we can simply mod them down and thereby help other readers pick out the wheat from the chaff.
I have to disagree with you about mob-moderation schemes:
1. It's a popularity contest; unpopular opinions can be voted down regardless of how rational or on-topic they may be, and unpopular posters can be voted down regardless of what they say.
2. It breaks the flow of the conversation to have some posts hidden or pushed to the bottom.
3. It promotes herd mentality when differing opinions are discouraged because they won't be seen, and those posters stop posting.
4. The proportion of articles that generate more than a dozen comments is quite low, so it would only be really useful in one article out of a hundred.
I feel you're correct about #4 there. There's not usually enough comments to necessitate a moderation system. Signal is high and noise is low.
However, you're not wholly right about 1 and 3. They are definitely potential issues, but the Slashdot system on the whole is very well designed and mitigates most of these, which is not clear in the grandparent post.
Specifically, Sashdot doesn't allow everyone to moderate all the time. Individuals are given mod points sporadically which quickly expire. You must use your mod points immediately, making it unlikely that you will have a chance to moderate a topic you feel strongly about.
With respect to #2: In practice, this is rarely an issue. Posts which are wholly hidden tend to provide no useful insights.
If you or anyone else is interested I would suggest they check out Steven Johnson's chapter on the Slashdot system in his book, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. It is a great read.
With respect to #2: In practice, this is rarely an issue. Posts which are wholly hidden tend to provide no useful insights.
That may be true but it's still means other people are deciding what I should read.
I hate Slashdot's moderation system. For one thing, moderation shouldn't tell me how to interpret a post (most "insightful" and "informative" posts are neither). I also hate the scoring of posts because it promotes popularity contests (as TRex points out).
Most blogs with vibrant and interesting comment boards (like the Macleans blogs, or Gawker) operate quite well on the "party" model -- say whatever you want, but if you're a bad guest, you get kicked out.
@fearofcorners: Thanks for filling in those details—I don't actually have an account on Slashdot, so I wasn't sure of them.
@rek: My point was only that careful design of a moderation system can yield benefits. To copy the Slashdot system on Torontoist would certainly fail, because copying is not careful design.
It is counterproductive to label approaches as "moderation", "no moderation", "mob moderation". etc., and then dismiss them based on hand-waving about the labels. Instead we can discuss specific schemes, point out flaws and then fix them.
If you investigate and experiment, I think you will agree that #1-3 are non-issues. On Engadget, rather than excerpting, low-modded comments are dimmed; this is another alternative for addressing #2, #3.
On the other hand, as fearofcorners says, your #4 is a very good point. Perhaps moderation can be selectively activated by Torontoist editors for posts they think will be controversial? Or activate automatically after a certain number of comments are posted?
My criticism wasn't dependent on Torontoist copying Slashdot's or anyone else's specific implementation of user-moderated systems.
For any such system to be worthwhile (assuming #4 wasn't an issue) here, users would have to have mod points weighty enough to do the job. Torontoist doesn't have the membership of Slashdot and the average number of comments:article is probably closer to 5 than 500, so each person's point(s) for the day/article/*unit* will have to have a proportionately greater impact for moderation to happen at all.
(I've been an Anonymous Coward at Slashdot for a lot longer than I've been reading Torontoist.)
> but some times, for some topics (like, oh, say, graffiti), the conversation inevitably devolves into a bunch of ad hominem attacks and recapitulations of firmly entrenched (and tired) ideologies that stifle, rather than encourage, further conversation. It sucks, and we can't imagine you enjoy it any more than we do.
Recapitulation of firmly entrenched (and tired) ideologies...
Yet Torontoist keeps making posts on the subject? I think if you want to keep the comments 'safe' you also have to also produce 'safe' subject matter. You can't enable conversation which is predictable then get mad at the predictability of the conversation. It's a bit of flawed thinking there.
There is also the issue of moderation opinion. For example. Commentator A may not agree with Commentator B. Sometimes (on this site especially) there is accusations of trolling, which is being confused by a difference of opinion, especially when it's one opinion that may not jive with all the other opinions. This is the biggest negative on Slashdot. I've seen it many times (damn people can get testy when it comes to technology). If ONE user's opinion differentiates from the rest, the user can be 'modded down' even though they presented completely valid, albeit different opinions from that of the majority of the community.
Thirdly, it's technically almost impossible to 'moderate' comments w/o deleting them entirely. Banning users is hardly an option as anyone can access this site from a variety of sources (proxy, public computers etc). You would literally have to lock the registration down and have someone approve/disapprove all that apply, or take the Tribe.ca approach and only allow people with ISP based email addresses to apply for membership.
The issue you raise isn't specific to the comments system on Slashdot. It is one of democratic practice—should the tyranny of the majority be replaced with a right of minorities to say whatever they like? Where is the balance? No comments system will ever resolve such questions on its own.
I still believe the Slashdot system, on the whole, promotes dialogue. Very sharp criticism that is well-worded and consistent gets modded up as "insightful", and that is often what starts a long and involved—but civil—discussion. This would be an improvement over what Torontoist has currently.
I couldn't have written my response to you better than Rek above. So I won't bother to lol.
Silly, off topic or troll like comments can be annoying, but still I'm for little to no moderation. Sometimes I am discouraged from posting due to the rant-like take people respond to articles with, but I'd rather that than the alternative. As long as the comment sections stay at least moderately less hateful and more on topic than the ones on youtube I think you're okay.
IMO the "report this" option is good but one could probably benefit from the addition of a vote up/down option too. For example, on Engadget you can +/- a comment and that results in either nothing when voted up, or when voted down the poster's text is continuously lightened until almost invisible, rendering it effectively unreadable, though still there.
I've been reading here for around a year and a half and on any given day, given the option, there aren't many posts I'd vote down. That being said, after the first couple months I stopped reading comments from 2 users all together. I think that if an Engadget style voting system were in place it would provide users with an easier way to "self-moderate" the comment forums without resorting to name calling et cetera. On Engadget it has cleaned up the comments well. Now instead of one commenter saying something purposely inflammatory to incite 50 responses, that inflammatory statement simply gets voted into obscurity (literally).
I suspect Torontoist would benefit more from a redesign of the comment section than a moderation system for it. The short line-height, low contrast and lack of horizontal width make long threads unneccessarily difficult to read.
Please continue the moderating method you're doing. Even though I've had a post deleted, I recognize the value of keeping this a civil area free of attacks.
I'm suspicious of anyone who doesn't have an entrenched ideology and goes through life with aimless views.
I guess it depends on whether the comment has artistic merit, or whether it is posted by a corporation for profit. Either way it's my private property and once you get a real job you're gonna figger that out.
Just kidding.
I think the current moderation is fine, but maybe there could be a Wikipedia-style rule to be civil and assume good faith - with commenters and contributors (whose task I do not envy).
And let's not do anything that Slashdot does.
My suggestion isn't so much about how to moderate, but more about what can be done to give incentive to write quality comments. I'm a big fan of the NY Times' decision to highlight a few of the comments that it finds compelling in a 'top ten' or 'top five' list. They really help when there's 300 comments already posted.
Now, Torontoist doesn't get that many commenters for one single article, but something like the Anser post does get bogged down by the people who continually reply to one another. And, of course, this would require someone who is capable of selecting the oh-so-worthy comments, but I think it would beneficial once all the operational kinks are worked out. Maybe more people will write thoughtful commentary if they know it might be recognized?
I think that's a great idea.
I also think that's a good idea, but if I never get a featured comment I'm gonna feel like shit about myself.
I'd +1 you montauk, you're my favourite poster lately.
I agree that allowing us to flag comments as offensive/off-topic/duplicate/spam/etc is a good "first responder" method of moderation.
No need to email a mod to get his or her attention, which seems unnecessary (although you could have a field for comments, justifying the report); simply pool the flags for any given post and bring those to the top of the mods' toolbox when they login.
My main experience with moderation was on the Livejournal Toronto community. When I joined, it was lightly moderated, with a very small number of basic rules.
The community was large and extremely active, with a large population of contributors and commenters.
Then, under the guise of "making things more friendly for new people," new rules were brought into place and the amount of moderation was increased substantially. Many posts were deleted and members banned. I know this because I was one of the moderators, albeit one against the new policies.
Now, thanks to these Draconian rules, the community is essentially dead - it is little more than a place to ask "where can I find" or "who wants to buy" and the post count is down to one tenth of what it was 5 years ago, and posts rarely get more than a couple of comments.
So, the mods were successful in making it a place much more friendly for new people - because now no one wants to bother with it!
My suggestion? Do not get in the way of organic community growth.
Dude, I got banned from that community! Any way you could get me back? :)
LiveJournal? You deserve what you get there.