Comment moderation practices vary widely among news media
Here are some notes on comment moderation practices at AnnArbor.com and around the world, in light of our launch of a new commenting system on Tuesday. The comment handling at news media around the world vary widely, and introducing a new system is an opportune moment to note some of that variety.
Every news site wants readers to chime in with constructive and helpful comments, and no system has of yet been perfected where you can ensure that this always happens. That doesn't mean we don't try.
Details of the new system
The current AnnArbor.com comment system is from Pluck, which is part of Demand Media. It replaces a previous system which was built into the Movable Type system that we are using for editorial content.
Incoming comments go into a queue, and AnnArbor.com moderators review and approve or reject each of them as they come in. In the ordinary course of events, comments are posted immediately before review and then unpublished if they are found to not adhere to our comment moderation guidelines. Readers can flag comments as inappropriate, and that feedback goes into the comment moderation queue for moderators to attend to.
As with any new system, the work flow takes a bit of getting used to, both for readers and for moderators. The back end of this system makes it crystal clear that everything has been looked at and okayed, and it will help us better handle the inevitable question of "why was my comment removed?"
Wide variations in comment handling policies in the news media
If you look through the media landscape as a whole, you find a wide variety of approaches that online news sites use to handle comments.
The Las Vegas Sun announced in September, 2010 that they were going to change their comment policy so that readers would need to verify their identity, either by connecting their comment to a Facebook account or by a telephone call to the news room, before posting. Anonymous comments would still be allowed, but they would be deleted after 72 hours. Senior digital editor Rob Curley writes: "In watching how the comments have been on LasVegasSun.com for the last two years or so, we realized that it was too easy for people to anonymously just make fun of others or simply be mean as hell. The changes we've made we're done much more to target that sort of behavior than it was to keep people from being whistle blowers." On a recent story, 17 of 44 commenters had used their real names, and the remaining 27 comments were posted on a different "all comments" page.
A popular Czech news site, Novinky.cz, goes one step further, requiring commenters to register with their real names and wait for an access code in the postal mail. "This radical approach has worked. Readers' comments have dropped from 50,000 to 4,000 a day. But the number of page views has risen by a third because the quality of the content has shot up," writes Tomáš Bella in a post for the BBC "College of Journalism".
Some newspapers don't take comments at all on their online stories. The Marquette (Michigan) Mining Journal removed reader comments in 2008, writing in an editorial: "The roots of The Mining Journal’s editorial ethical standards go back some 163 years. In order for a letter to the editor to be considered for publication in our print edition, a name and other verifiable information must be included. Not so, however, with the Internet comments. Subsequently, on our Web site a small but persistent group of people threatened to tarnish The Mining Journal’s reputation for responsible journalism. A few Web comment submissions even consisted of cowardly anonymous personal attacks on local citizens. That could not be allowed to continue."
Readers wishing to make comments were directed to write letters to the editor; those online readers who were impatient with the editorial process migrated to WLUC TV-6, the local television station that recently got 80 comments on a story about Kennecott Mining Company's plans to abandon a project to build County Road 595 through woods and wetlands north of Humboldt, Mich. for a new mine. The controversy over this mine was the number one topic of commenters on the Mining Journal's site, and those readers are now writing to the TV station instead.
No easy answers, no simple decisions
"My readers know more than I do," writes veteran journalist Dan Gillmor, formerly of the Detroit Free Press, in an introduction to his regular column on Salon.com. That's a useful attitude when you are writing about local issues where very little has been written down in a place you can find it. I think of local pinball history, memories of history at a busy intersection, and other pieces I have put together where readers provided more information than I could ever write myself in a reasonable amount of time.
It's hard to have great ideas when you are reading comments in order to decide which of them not to publish. In a typical shift, a moderator will read from 40 to 80 comments an hour, on topics ranging from global warming to the new football coach to places to go sledding to the latest car crash.
Reading comments carefully and thoughtfully, and inserting yourself in the conversation where it's appropriate is challenging work, and it's always hard to get a team of people all making the same decisions about when to remove a comment. I'm hopeful that our new infrastructure will make some of these decisions easier to track, at least, and I'll continue to watch how the world's news media handle reader input in a world where news and rumor travel in milliseconds around the world.
Edward Vielmetti reads your constructive and helpful comments, and makes a few of his own, for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at edwardvielmetti@annarbor.com.
Comments
rusty shackelford
Wed, Jan 26, 2011 : 5:50 p.m.
I'm glad you've worked it out so you can all stop repeatedly deleting my account. Also, Ed, you now have a holiday in your honor! <a href="http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2010/12/20/second-annual-community-manager-appreciation-day-jan-24th-2011-cmad/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2010/12/20/second-annual-community-manager-appreciation-day-jan-24th-2011-cmad/</a>
David Briegel
Mon, Jan 24, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
It is a good thing that A2.com calls them guidelines and not rules. It truly depends who is moderating! Huge differences. Posts can be up for a day or two and the "----" shows up and deletes them all !! Ed is the best!!
schoolsmuse
Fri, Jan 21, 2011 : 1:35 a.m.
Ed, wouldn't it be possible to set up a system where you had to verify who you are on the back end (e.g., annarbor.com would need to verify that you are Jane Doe), but on the front end you could use a pen name? So, for instance, Jane Doe who lives at 100 N. Main St. in Ann Arbor is able to post as Mary Poppins? Her identity is not public to the public, but it is public to the moderators?
Rork Kuick
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
Also: Some folks have names that might make them worry about bias. Using your real name makes you unlikely to divulge touchy information or experiences. That has good points too I admit, but I've seen situations where it silences the very people I most want to hear from. It occasionally stops me from posting too. I'm torn on the issue of whether initial registration should be slow.
Will Warner
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
Andy --- Have you seen the New Yorker cartoon? Two dogs sitting in front of a computer. One says to the other, "On the internet, no one knows you're a dog..." I don't agree that anonymity is what makes the internet so great. In fact, I wish there was another internet, owned by someone (but definitely not the goverment), and that someone could set standards for its use and charge users to use it. I'd sign up, depending of couse on what the standards were.
AndyYpsilanti
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.
What the moderation policy really, really lacks is publication the actual guidelines used. Here's some examples of how that comes into play No comment length rules noted (thats changed now): A debate on the site between myself and an Ypsi City council person was removed for being too long. Never mind that we were both quoted in the article and that the exchange added information to the debate. This is now corrected by the built in length limit, but was pretty questionable at the time. What are the rules again? I saw a comment removed from a tread that directly questioned the author as to why information relevant to the story had been left out. Specifically, the author chose to use financial numbers that made it look like there was a story, while ignoring numbers that showed that there wasn't one. In this case, the comment was finally restored after an appeal to Tony, saying the moderator was "overzealous". These are a couple of examples I know of. I'm always told that "people" tell the aa.com staff all the time that they do a good job of moderation, and that its just a select few who complain. Can we see the evidence? We can (before the conversion, anyway) see around 400 comments on the moderation thread questioning the policy. Instead of letting this debate fester on and on, why not just create and provide a set of concrete rules? Wouldn't that help to provide a sense of integrity and help put an end to the moderation debate? Until aa.com lets us in on why they decide to moderate certain posts that don't appear to violate policy, the question of the integrity of their moderation will continue. As for using real names, I don't have a problem with it. I've given my identity several times. But I do understand the need/desire for anonymity, and don't think that any public website should demand the use of real names. Anonymity is part of what makes the internet great.
demistify
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 3:51 p.m.
The conversation about comments dwells on truth, civility and absence of bigotry on the part of the commenters, but omits the same criteria with respect to the text that is being commented on. Annarbor.com has at times published material deficient in those qualities, and the moderating then usually acts to protect the offensive material from criticism. Before you hold outsiders to a higher standard, you need to espouse one for what you print.
robyn
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 3:17 a.m.
Would NOT use my real name due to the fact that my privacy and the safety of my family means more to me than anyone's "right" to know exactly who I am. While I would LIKE to think that even those who engage in the most heated of debates here are good people that would never consider crossing the lines of decency and taking their argument 'outside', one can never be too careful. I do think that there could be some sort of verification process to prevent people from having mulitple profiles - a common "troll" practice - perhaps simply banning IP's that continuously post comments that are abusive, harassing or in constant violation of the TOS would be easier. I do notice - for the majority of regular posters here - the tone can become heated - but it never seems to get out of control. Those who post on a regular basis are fairly respectful of others, even while disagreeing. This place is much better than many that I go to.
SillyTree
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.
Has anyone else tried to click on the link that appears at the top of the page as their login? It seems to load and reload forever. I am guessing this has something to do with the new format. Whatever the reason, can that be fixed or eliminated? It's annoying.
SillyTree
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 10:52 a.m.
Thank you Robyn.
robyn
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 3:22 a.m.
YEP! But I have found that if you click on your name ON a post/comment - it will take you to your page.
loves_fall
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:37 a.m.
The other thing I have to say on real names is that it opens the door for discriminatory practices. We all know that it's illegal to discriminate against people for, say, housing, based on marital status, kids, race, religion, etc.. Check out craigslist sometime and see how many discriminatory postings there are. Even if you ban those postings, people will continue to employ discriminatory rental practices if they want to and can get the information. When you show up, they can see your skin color. They might pick up that you have kids or that you're a devout Muslim or who knows what else, and might not rent to you because they have someone better in mind. I'm using the housing example because it is so visible, but it's also illegal to discriminate against people for employment based on the characteristics above. When you go into an interview, you don't volunteer certain information that you don't want an employer to know (marital status, whether you're planning to pop out a baby in the next couple years, whatever) and they aren't allowed to ask you. But let's say you've plastered your name all over the Internet. All they need to do is search and the game is on to discriminate against you based on any of the above categories, or anything else they might not like about you. You could argue that maybe it's just not a good fit and that being passed over for a job is for the best, but I'm still wary. It might be different for older people in established careers, but for young people who have a lot of jobs to go through, it seems to me that it's best to play it safe. Just like I wouldn't make my Facebook fully public, I'm not going to use my real name for day-to-day chatter about the news. There's too much potential liability for expressing views that others may not share, even when there's nothing about the opinion that violates anyone else's rights or offends their sensibilities.
loves_fall
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
Continued from above. Apparently, AA.com also now gives this error: "We restrict rapid posting of multiple comments for quality reasons. You have already posted a comment within the last several seconds. Please try again later." AA.com FTW. The other favorite tactic is to say that since AA.com receives compliments on the moderation that it means they're doing it right. The few of us who complain are just a tiny minority whose opinions just don't matter. The problem with this is that a lot of people aren't fully aware of what's being moderated, and maybe this new system will help with that by showing just how many posts are removed in any given thread. (It already looks like more than it used to.) People might visit a site and find it squeaky clean and conclude that it's being moderated appropriately, but without their having seen what was taken off it's impossible to know whether they would have agreed that all those comments should have been removed. If comments are moderated too conservatively vs. just right, it still looks just as clean to the visitor. Speaking from personal experience, I wasn't one of the vocal minority until I took a good hard look at my posting history and realized that a ton of my comments were gone. Judging from the posts in the comment moderation thread, other users have this same "aha! moment" and complain, but their complaints are also basically ignored. It's a fact that most people won't go out of their way to complain, even if they don't like something or don't agree with it, and most people aren't going to invest the time and energy to continue to complain when their complaints have not resulted in any change. The whole moderation game almost guarantees that aa.com will continue to get the data they want because it's the only thing they want to see.
loves_fall
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
I'm not a fan of real names, and despite the fact that a large proportion of my comments are removed for undisclosed reasons or in overzealous moderation inconsistent with the stated guidelines (e.g., applying "tragic death" guidelines to run-of-the-mill crime stories and car crashes where no one was killed, let alone seriously injured), I don't think I have ever belittled or bullied anyone on this site. I think there are some people out there who act like elementary school kids and who make up new names so that they can say things under the cloak of anonymity, but what's to stop them from creating a pseudonym anyway? Just call me Angela Smith. Even if we were required to register by postal mail, our postal carrier will drop anything off at our door regardless of who's name is on it. Trust me, I've seen it in action. That's the beauty of living in a college town. I'm frustrated by the inconsistency in moderation, and by the simplistic explanations offered as the rationale for what essentially is poor decision making and heavy-handed control. Some of the mods cite the 3% removal rate like it's some kind of Gospel, but Stephanie has no problem saying that we should expect a 50-100% comment removal rate in some threads (crime, accident) because they're all bad. (See Comment Moderation thread for details.) They're ALL bad? If you're removing 100% of comments, that says to me that there are some serious flaws in your strategy. TBC, I'm approaching the end of my word limit.
Will Warner
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 2:05 a.m.
Tom: "Would we see the same level of give and take if -- for example -- AlphaAlpha or Edward R. Murrow's Ghost had to disclose their identities?" Put me down for requiring real names. Ghost is an example of someone with good points to make, but he so often impugns the intellegence or education of other posters. Perhaps with his real name he would not be so quick to do so. Probably because of the moderating at this site, the commenting here is generally worth reading; other sites are a complete waste of time.
David Briegel
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 1:46 a.m.
Maybe if we all used our real names we could get rid of the stalking, semi-literate Neanderthals that have destroyed our nation and our social and civil society! The worst I had was a semi-literate "letter writer" who could never get beyond third grade. Yet his letter was there the next day after mine was published. Obscene was the only language he knew! I probably received 8 or 10 phone calls from people who agreed with me! I wish A2.com would publish the rationale behind the A2News policy and their own so that we could all compare.
Tom Teague
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 11:16 p.m.
I use my real name, as do the other four commenters so far on this string, but I'm not convinced that requiring real names is a good idea. Mind you, I don't equate some of the unchecked ranting on this and other sites with Publius penning the "Federalist Papers," but anonymous political comment has a long and rich history in the United States. Would we see the same level of give and take if -- for example -- AlphaAlpha or Edward R. Murrow's Ghost had to disclose their identities? Some employers are notoriously touchy about their employees' comments; I think that requirement would dampen our debate. The Sun's approach seems overly nuanced to me and possibly would set up a two-tier system excluding some comments from reflection or fact checking when they disappear after 72 hours. (Believe me, I've written plenty of things that I wish would go away after three days, or even three minutes, but that's another story).
Cash
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : midnight
Tom, I've done many of those posts myself. LOL But the employer issue is an excellent one I'd forgotten about. I know I would not be allowed to post here if I used my real name.
Cash
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.
My guess is that the goal is civil conversations with as many people as possible participating. While I would have no problem being identified to Ann Arbor.com (and do identify myself when communicating with them always) in my situation with all of the crime going on right now, I would not post, if my real name was given here. I think the volume of posting would really drop. With a name given, an address and phone number is available easily. That's just not safe, especially for females living alone. Sorry you'd get the same handful of posters over and over and not much conversation.
loves_fall
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 4:15 a.m.
My mom used to write letters to the editor a lot when I was growing up. She voiced unpopular opinions regarding standards for elementary/middle school curriculum, and ended up receiving a lot of threatening phone calls from people who didn't agree. There are real risks to being identifiable.
Lola
Thu, Jan 20, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.
I do not use my real name for safety reasons. A wacko tracked me down from my Facebook account and phoned me at home. Also, several years ago a friend of mine wrote a letter to the editor of the A2 News. Someone who didn't agree with her tracked her down and put a note in her mailbox that said something about their gun being locked and loaded. As long as there are people like that in the world I'll continue to use an alias.
Tom Teague
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 11:35 p.m.
Cash - you make a good point. This week, I've begun to see phone numbers and personal email information on Facebook pages owned by folks who aren't watching their privacy settings carefully.
David Cahill
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
I think AnnArbor.com should adopt the Las Vegas Sun's comments policy.
Marvin Face
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 10:37 p.m.
Me too!
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.
Make people use their real name and it solves 99% of your problems. Thats what the old Ann Arbor news did. People who claim fear for their safety if they use their real names are often people who are both condescending and belittling to others.
Rod Johnson
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.
I agree with Craig--user real names or at least verified identities.
Tom Teague
Wed, Jan 19, 2011 : 8:58 p.m.
@Edward - Do you have a sense whether annarbor.com's comment policies are unique in the industry or pretty typical for news sites? Is there a site that you at aa.com feels is the shining city on a hill of comments? In the course of my reading I see the gamut - from stern moderation to anonymous anything goes. But I doubt that I'm reading a representative sampling.