1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where do you stand on "reader comments"?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Dave Kindred, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    The worst thing about the reader comments is you wonder if anyone other than dumb-ass, juvenile, racist bastards even read the paper.
     
  2. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    I abhor the unattributable.
    But, now I will tell you why Reader Comments are going nowhere.
    The biggest fad is logging user's use. And right now that is "time spent" or "time logged."
    The latest numbers I've seen have the Arizona Republic (azcentral.com) and the NY Times leading the way with over 30 minutes per stay. Twice as much as anyone else. The Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and LA Times all between 9-15 minutes per stay.
    What advertisers want to avoid is "sniping" -- logging on for one story then shooting elsewhere. For example, hitting the NY Post website for the Yankees Notebook then hitting the next bookmark.
    Reader Feedback takes time.
    It should be a goal of all of us to want readers to spend more time on our sites and our sections. But at what price? The comments we're accustomed to seeing don't serve anyone.

    EDIT: (I realize this post came from "fishwrapper." I enjoy my anonymity on here for professional reasons and not fear of any comment. I refrain from attacks save Dean Singleton and Wendy McCaw. And, I would relish telling them my feelings in person. Sometimes others have had problems with a post and I've explained myself in PM. And am usually happy to do so, time willing.)
     
  3. JayFarrar

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Irony noted but unless Fishy is a super hot female soccer player with a taste for rough sex and cocaine, I don't much care that I don't know who you are.
    Now Fishy if you are a super hot female soccer player with a taste for rough sex and cocaine, well my PM box is open.
    The greater point, to me, is that most comments to a story are worthless or potential legal action.
     
  4. funky_mountain

    funky_mountain Active Member

    no ace, the dumb-ass, juvenile, racist bastards just post more often.

    i have found witty and intelligent comments on our site, much like the posts made here. i often cringe at the posts reference by ace, also comments similar to posts made on this site.

    comments on our site are anonymous. if i were in charge, i'd made people register and use real names. that would cut back on some of vile bile.

    i'm not so cynical to believe that an increased number of page views is the only reason to allow comments. on the surface, there's nothing wrong with finding ways to keep folks on your site and build communities. i'm also not so blind to think revenue/increased traffic isn't a reason.

    in general, i don't mind the comments.
     
  5. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I think any time newspapers behave like carnival barkers outside the Fat Lady's tent -- whether it's allowing the unmonitored rants of local crazies or first-person accounts of staff writers' debauchery -- they lose the professional tone that separates them from amateurs, leaving (dwindling) resources as the only advantage over the bloggers and message boards.
     
  6. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    I had probably two, too many scotches on Monday night.
     
  7. silentbob

    silentbob Member

    Just another example of newspapers still trying to figure out what they want to be.

    I had a source call and say that if we didn't remove the racist comments on a story he was quoted in he'd never talk to the newspaper again. Said he didn't want his name associated with that kind of garbage. That's the problem. We're providing a forum for a bunch of idiots to spread (usually racist) insults.

    If it were monitored better, it'd be fine, but who has the time and staff for that? I think it needs to be separated from the actual story. Put an online section called "The Water Cooler' and invite readers to discuss topics there.
     
  8. Monroe Stahr

    Monroe Stahr Member

    What newspapers, in their hysteria to hang on to readers, need to understand is that, nowadays, nobody with a computer is disempowered. Anybody can blog. Anybody can put up his own website. To allow a newspaper site to be littered with the comments/fecal matter cited here is beyond an abomination. But then, the industry knows no shame, as it reminds us every day.
     
  9. Captain_Kirk

    Captain_Kirk Well-Known Member

    I like the idea about having a link to the comments rather than have them directly below the story. Separates the two pretty nicely.

    I do think comments are here to stay: it's simply a major trend in how we communicate today, what with e-mail, blackberries, instant messaging and the like, where it's almost becoming the preferred mode of communicating: i.e. send an electronic text/e-mail rather than pick up the phone, for example.

    To me, the history around SportsJournalists.com provides some great insight into how to deal with comments. In the early days, the ability to post anonymously (whether folks knew an ip address could be traced or not) led to more vile comments than you'll see today where you have to be registered, even if it is an alias/pen name. And add to that the nice work done by the moderators, and (for the most part), it's a very civilized place around here.

    And to those papers who feel they are legally better off not monitoring the comments? Uh, right....Maybe that's a good legal position, I don't know, but it's a bad business position. Think a paper's gonna be able to avoid writing a check to someone like the family of the star player mentioned above when their website have those comments? I don't think so. Or at least I don't think too many papers want to be in a courtroom to find out.

    I'm guessing most papers are about 3-5 years behind SportsJournalists.com in terms of how to handle and control comments. My take would be you'll see them all move in the direction of registered users/moderated comments. Especially after they write a check or two with a good number of zeroes to pay for some of those comments.
     
  10. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    I don't live in Dubuque, Iowa, but I read the Telegraph-Herald online because I vacation out in Iowa for a few days in the summer. The TH uses reader comments... a while back, there was an attack outside a bar there, and once it was revealed the victim was white and the perps weren't, you can imagine the shitstorm that started on the boards.

    The TH finally had to shut the comment section down for almost two weeks while it figured out a way to monitor the posts.

    So yes, comments can be a painful process for that reason. Done correctly, it provides decent feedback. Not done correctly... well, you can imagine.
     
  11. fishwrapper

    fishwrapper Active Member

    You vacation out in Iowa? I take back my ability to refrain from personal attacks! ;)
     
  12. Simon_Cowbell

    Simon_Cowbell Active Member

    You have to charge people to have a comment membership.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page