Plain Dealer editor acknowledges vitriolic reader comments, throws up her hands

[TheSportsPredictor]

At least she acknowledges the problem. Her solution is rather laughable -- ask people to be nice.

In short, I don't know what to do about the commenting conundrum, other than to urge reasonable people to participate to crowd out the hate. But talking about problems often helps bring forward solutions -- or at least interesting debate. I'm sure it won't be entirely civil, but I'd like to know what you think. Thanks for reading.

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/05/anonymity_of_the_internet_attr.html

 

[slappy4428]

So she's been to our politics board, then...

 

[pressmurphy]

Translation: We'd rather "interact" with our readers than act responsibly by setting up a more rigorous registration requirement and/or subjecting comments to an approval process before they get posted.

It would be a good start to prohibit posts from highly disposable free e-mail accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail. Yes, your comment traffic would decrease by 75 percent, but you would also rid yourself of perhaps 95 percent of dumber-than-your-mother's-tulip-plants fodder.

Quality, not quantity.

 

[SixToe]

Oh, the pits and pratfalls of having a "conversation" with your reader-viewer-consumer.

 

[lono]

But ... but ... it's free content!

 

[Some Guy]

Translation: We'd rather "interact" with our readers than act responsibly by setting up a more rigorous registration requirement and/or subjecting comments to an approval process before they get posted.

It would be a good start to prohibit posts from highly disposable free e-mail accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail. Yes, your comment traffic would decrease by 75 percent, but you would also rid yourself of perhaps 95 percent of dumber-than-your-mother's-tulip-plants fodder.

Quality, not quantity.

Except, when it comes to the Internet, it's quantity that pays the bills (er, at least in theory).

So this will not happen.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Reader comment threads should die, horribly, now.

 

[txsportsscribe]

Reader comment threads should die, horribly, now.

because we don't like them or because readers don't like them?

 

[lone star scribe]

Reader comment threads should die, horribly, now.

because we don't like them or because readers don't like them?

Because all too often they add nothing of substance to the debate. Better off without them.

 

[txsportsscribe]

Reader comment threads should die, horribly, now.

because we don't like them or because readers don't like them?

Because all too often they add nothing of substance to the debate. Better off without them.

but by whose judgement are they adding nothing? i hate them as much as anyone but then i see stories that draw hundreds of responses so someone, somewhere likes them.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Re: Plain Dealer editor acknowledges vitriolic reader comments, throws up her ha

Newspaper reader comments are used by people who are piggybacking on your brand name and hiding behind anonymity to make comments that couldn't be published IN A STORY!!! in reasonable newspaper usage. They HURT the newspaper as a business enterprise by damaging its brand. I mean, if an advertiser, and I read most comment postings, I want nothing to do with your Internet readers. They're either nuts, scum, or both.

 

[crusoes]

And at my paper, the yahoos who "comment" begin, within three posts, to reduce the "conversation" to a pissing match which has nothing to do with the original anything. Exactly what benefit is that to anyone?

One time, one of our "commenters" began with him calling me an idiot, saying we didn't cover College A. I replied, under my own name, rebutted his argument, and called him the idiot, citing the evidence. I got called into an office and told I couldn't call people idiots, with or without evidence. So you can say what you want, however you want, and there is nothing you can or the paper is willing to do about it. Lovely.

The guy was an idiot, though.

 

[NightHawk112005]

Re: Plain Dealer editor acknowledges vitriolic reader comments, throws up her ha

Translation: We'd rather "interact" with our readers than act responsibly by setting up a more rigorous registration requirement and/or subjecting comments to an approval process before they get posted.

It would be a good start to prohibit posts from highly disposable free e-mail accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail. Yes, your comment traffic would decrease by 75 percent, but you would also rid yourself of perhaps 95 percent of dumber-than-your-mother's-tulip-plants fodder.

Quality, not quantity.

I don't agree with that. Most people won't pay for e-mail accounts now, so you're going to almost eliminate all comments, even the good ones. I have a Yahoo account and my university e-mail. Once I graduate, I'm not getting a new address that isn't provided by my job, and why should I? Most people have that mindset. You can't block free e-mail accounts, or you might as well not allow comments.

 

[SixToe]

i hate them as much as anyone but then i see stories that draw hundreds of responses so someone, somewhere likes them.

Most often what you see are comments made between the posters, with little or nothing to do with the original story. The "conversation" becomes an angry pissing match.

 

[LongTimeListener]

but by whose judgement are they adding nothing? i hate them as much as anyone but then i see stories that draw hundreds of responses so someone, somewhere likes them.

To what benefit? How much money does the newspaper make from those hundreds of respones? I know newspapers have to sell their souls in these times (front-page ads, that "newsy" ad/TV review on the front of the LA Times etc.). What I've never been able to understand is why we give our souls away for free.

 

[As The Crow Flies]

Even if a story on our site has 100-150 comments, the vast majority are by five or six posters who just get in a pissing match.

 

[pressmurphy]

Translation: We'd rather "interact" with our readers than act responsibly by setting up a more rigorous registration requirement and/or subjecting comments to an approval process before they get posted.

It would be a good start to prohibit posts from highly disposable free e-mail accounts such as Yahoo and Hotmail. Yes, your comment traffic would decrease by 75 percent, but you would also rid yourself of perhaps 95 percent of dumber-than-your-mother's-tulip-plants fodder.

Quality, not quantity.

I don't agree with that. Most people won't pay for e-mail accounts now, so you're going to almost eliminate all comments, even the good ones. I have a Yahoo account and my university e-mail. Once I graduate, I'm not getting a new address that isn't provided by my job, and why should I? Most people have that mindset. You can't block free e-mail accounts, or you might as well not allow comments.

That's fine. But users will just have to treat a paid account (i.e., one that comes with their Roadrunner service, etc.) as the price of admission if they want to comment. It contributes toward bringing accountability to these comment threads.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Somehow, it became our obligation to publish worthless drivel?
What memo did I miss?
Write an actual letter to the editor, foofs.

 

[JBHawkEye]

Somehow, it became our obligation to publish worthless drivel?
What memo did I miss?
Write an actual letter to the editor, foofs.

I've wondered that as well. We're not adding anything by allowing these comments.

We have standards for letters to the editor. Those standards should apply to the comments.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Reader comment threads should die, horribly, now.

because we don't like them or because readers don't like them?

Because all too often they add nothing of substance to the debate. Better off without them.

but by whose judgement are they adding nothing? i hate them as much as anyone but then i see stories that draw hundreds of responses so someone, somewhere likes them.

Just a few moments ago I was looking at my local paper's website. A 52 year old woman was hiking, fell off the mountain and died. Tragic story, particularly on Mother's Day.

First comment:

Let me guess. Her husband was hiking with her, and now stands to make a huge life insurance claim for her so-called accident.

Yeah, that's adding a lot. I didn't look at the rest, but I'm confident within a few more posts they'll get around to blaming Mexicans. I would imagine her family enjoyed reading that. If it was someone I knew and I was a subscriber, I would cease to be a subscriber.

Don't think for a second this isn't turning off readers. It's just created a playground for idiots.