Des Moines Register to start using Facebook comments

[D-3 Fan]

I was going to bump up an old thread, but it's been over 6 months since the last comment was made on it. Nevertheless, the Des Moines Register announced today that starting this Wednesday, 8/10/11, all comments on stories, blogs, and columns online will require a Facebook account (with your real name).

The Register did a trial run of this concept with one of their columnists, Rekha Basu. Apparently, it helped cut down on the uncivil banter from anonymous posters.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110807/NEWS/110806038/DesMoinesRegister-com-move-Facebook-comments

 

[apeman33]

And the responses in the comment thread seem to go along the lines of:

1) People will just create fake Facebook accounts, so there will be the same problems.

2) People who have to use their real names will be harassed.

3) It's an attempt to control comments.

4) I enjoy reading the libelous carefully thought-out comments.

5) If I can't be one of the trolls speak my mind how I want, I don't want to be a part of it.

 

[D-3 Fan]

And the responses in the comment thread seem to go along the lines of:

1) People will just create fake Facebook accounts, so there will be the same problems.

2) People who have to use their real names will be harassed.

3) It's an attempt to control comments.

4) I enjoy reading the libelous carefully thought-out comments.

5) If I can't be one of the trolls speak my mind how I want, I don't want to be a part of it.

1). I would love to see people try that stunt. I hope there's a tracking system to find their email and IP address if someone gets out of line with their "the paper has a hidden agenda" manifesto.

2). People who have to use their real names (like I do when I blog for the Register and on Facebook) is likely to be harassed, but at least I'll know who the bastards are.

3). Duh, why do you think they are doing this for?

4). If I want to read the libelous carefully thought-out comments, I can either read it, or ignore it. There are more than enough assholes who feel the need to hear themselves and get attention.

5). See #4. You don't have to read it. Read it at your own risk.

 

[Armchair_QB]

Can't wait for the first post by Facebook users Johnny Gosch and Eugene Martin.

 

[Versatile]

And the responses in the comment thread seem to go along the lines of:

1) People will just create fake Facebook accounts, so there will be the same problems.

I thought facebook deleted fake accounts?

 

[Armchair_QB]

And the responses in the comment thread seem to go along the lines of:

1) People will just create fake Facebook accounts, so there will be the same problems.

I thought facebook deleted fake accounts?

What's a fake account though?

 

[Moderator1]

I think my old paper is doing this now - every time I read an article there it brings up my Facebook mug and a "leave a comment" line.

 

[Matt Stephens]

Granted, I'm probably too big a fan of transparency, but I don't have a problem with this.

 

[sgreenwell]

And the responses in the comment thread seem to go along the lines of:

1) People will just create fake Facebook accounts, so there will be the same problems.

I thought facebook deleted fake accounts?

What's a fake account though?

If I'm remembering correctly, it's more Facebook that has a problem with people having multiple accounts. Meaning, if you're creating a bunch of fake accounts to spam or troll sites, and they can tell via IP address, then they threaten to kill your real account. While this probably wouldn't dissuade the Mom's Basement crowd that has no real friends anyway, I think it's a pretty fair deterrent to most users.

 

[mrbigles01]

I've had this debate with several people, and I've never had anyone give me an answer that made sense to me. Why the heck does anyone even allow commenting. They are 90-95% drivel, rarely add anything to the story and often detract from it. Comments are in the same vein as citizen journalism, poorly written, uninformed and insulting to anyone who actually does this for a living.

That being said by exporting them to Facebook at least they aren't on the same page as the story itself which helps to diminish them.

(Before everyone jumps down my throat, yes I know there are here to stay, and yes there are some instances - like blogs - in which they can be a fun thing, but the news is not a user participation thing, IMHO)

 

[SixToe]

3) It's an attempt to control comments.

Yes, it is. It will work, too.

 

[Matt Stephens]

I've had this debate with several people, and I've never had anyone give me an answer that made sense to me. Why the heck does anyone even allow commenting. They are 90-95% drivel, rarely add anything to the story and often detract from it. Comments are in the same vein as citizen journalism, poorly written, uninformed and insulting to anyone who actually does this for a living.

That being said by exporting them to Facebook at least they aren't on the same page as the story itself which helps to diminish them.

(Before everyone jumps down my throat, yes I know there are here to stay, and yes there are some instances - like blogs - in which they can be a fun thing, but the news is not a user participation thing, IMHO)

I don't know, I feel like it's important to at least give the reader an opportunity to at least feel like they have a voice. Now on straight news stories or features, maybe there is less of a reason to have it, but I think reader comments should definitely be an option.

Now granted, over half are probably straight garbage with people crying because because a columnist's opinion differs from their own, but in a few instances it's nice to hear what the public thinks about a topic.

When it does come to news, however, it lets readers sound off about a decision city hall made (for instance). Like on our Website, one of the most commented stories is about the Fayetteville city council's vote on the town's smoking ban. There's comments supporting it (well, the idea of it) and those against it. Despite how ignorant a comment may, or may not, be, it gives the reader a chance to spout off about something.

To me, that's just like us here on SJ spouting off in a thread about Newspaper Company X laying off 50 employees. The only difference between commenting on a forum thread with the story linked and commenting on the actual story itself is that it will likely be 90 percent journalists who read it.

 

[Pilot]

I've had this debate with several people, and I've never had anyone give me an answer that made sense to me. Why the heck does anyone even allow commenting. They are 90-95% drivel, rarely add anything to the story and often detract from it. Comments are in the same vein as citizen journalism, poorly written, uninformed and insulting to anyone who actually does this for a living.

That being said by exporting them to Facebook at least they aren't on the same page as the story itself which helps to diminish them.

(Before everyone jumps down my throat, yes I know there are here to stay, and yes there are some instances - like blogs - in which they can be a fun thing, but the news is not a user participation thing, IMHO)

Why are comments allowed? Because idiots can't pass up the chance to be heard and the rest of us can't pass up the chance to watch the train wreck, and in the end it amounts to a ****load of page views, which apparently means "money" to someone.

We allow people to use handles, but required that they sign up with at very least their real phone numbers. (We call and check after they've registered). That's cut down on a little of the crazy crap, but only a little of it. I don't see us cutting back any more, either, as it's those stories with the crazy long discussions that always have the most page views. They bring people to the site multiple times a day and they keep people on the site, both of which I'm told is great for advertisers.

Online comments make me hate the world, but I can't imagine we'll change our policy any time soon.

 

[Pilot]

None of that is to the say there's no legitimate aspect to it, either. I think some of the discussions are interesting and important, and I question whether those would happen the same way if people had their real names attached to it (just like on this board.)

I'm not smart enough to figure out how to separate the trash from the worthwhile stuff. But I don't think the greater good is the real reason why most papers will continue to allow comments.

 

[mrbigles01]

Why are comments allowed? Because idiots can't pass up the chance to be heard and the rest of us can't pass up the chance to watch the train wreck, and in the end it amounts to a ****load of page views, which apparently means "money" to someone.
[/quote]

That is exactly my point. Matt, I agree with you that there is some place for comments, but straight news isn't it. On the smoking ban, for instance . . . the appropriate place to "spout off," is your elected official, not on the pages of a newspaper.

As far as columns and other opinion type stuff I understand comments, I think they are still drivel, but I get it.

Also the idea that comments drive pageviews seems about as stupid to me as the theory that if we put web stuff behind a pay wall, no one will pay. Every word on the website for the paper I work at is behind a pay wall, and that decision worked out just fine for us. We are making money, hiring new people and though we are tiny (10k circ weekly) it seems to me that it has worked out fine.

It might be harder to do on a large scale, but I would be willing to bet that if the major dailies in the US decided that there would be no more freebies at around the same time it would benefit all of them.

Napster was "the end of the music industry," until iTunes came along and gave people an easy way to pay. I think a similar thing would work for newspapers, it would just have to be a commitment from everyone at once, which is a pipe dream.

 

[wicked]

We went this route a few weeks ago. We hadn't allowed comments at all previously, so it added an interactive element to our site. As others have said, it eliminates a good deal of the crap you see elsewhere.

Is Facebook making any money off this, or are they rolling out the widget to further extend their brand?

 

[flexmaster33]

yes take away the ability for a random verbal assault and it gets quiet in a hurry...our paper did the same thing years back when we required confirmed emails for online comments.

 

[silvercharm]

Several papers are doing this. One I'm familiar with, it appears comments have dropped 75 percent, at least. It wouldn't surprise me that despite all the rhetoric from editors wanting to clean up the comments, that in a year they change the commenting policy because they miss the traffic and interaction.

 

[sgreenwell]

Several papers are doing this. One I'm familiar with, it appears comments have dropped 75 percent, at least. It wouldn't surprise me that despite all the rhetoric from editors wanting to clean up the comments, that in a year they change the commenting policy because they miss the traffic and interaction.

I'm not sure if it really brings that much traffic though. Yes, the raw numbers (overall hits) looks good. However, I think it dissuades unique visitors - normal people get annoyed that a bunch of people **** all over the bottom of articles, so most of your hits are coming from the trolls and others navel-gazing at their own comments.

 

[American Civilian]

It's such a great idea ... maybe this board should only allow Facebook members to comment.