Ventura editor tired of "comment" cesspool

[SoCalDude]

Editor Joe Howry is going to do away with reader comments if commenters don't clean up their act.



http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/may/07/howry-cleaning-up-the-comment-cesspool/

 

[J-School Blue]

I checked back on my old shop's site a bit ago and they're now using some kind of system where posters comment via their Facebook accounts. It at least attaches a name to the damn things, which seems to have helped a lot.

 

[Bob Cook]

I continue to be amazed that no matter what the story, the comment stream, within five postings, becomes about how Obama is/is not a socialist destroying America.

 

[mpcincal]

Kind of the same thing with my paper, only the comments on every story seems to go to the "illegal immigration/Mexicans are ruining our town" variety.

 

[slappy4428]

I continue to be amazed that no matter what the story, the comment stream, within five postings, becomes about how Obama is/is not a socialist destroying America.

Around here, it devolves into a Bammer/Barner fight

 

[rmanfredi]

My favorite comment:

"One more reason not to buy the Star."

Yes. Because clearly you've been buying the Star if you are spending all of your time on the free online site making comments.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

If I ran a newspaper, my FIRST act would be to require names and addresses on Web comments. My second act would be a front-page editorial stating I'd rather go out of business than depend on gutless psychotic pukes to stay in business. Maybe losing anonymous commenters would drive down Web traffic to disastrous levels. But I doubt it.

 

[lcjjdnh]

On the other hand, there are many websites that have vibrant comment sections full of insightful, funny, etc. posts. There is definitely a way they can add value to a website. Not sure if it's just due to better moderation or what.

 

[Stitch]

Editor Joe Howry is going to do away with reader comments if commenters don't clean up their act.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/may/07/howry-cleaning-up-the-comment-cesspool/

Either get rid of comments or don't. Don't try to half-ass it.

 

[Mark2010]

Get rid of them. Serve little useful purpose. just a forum for morons with nothing else to do to vent their mindless dribble. I'm all for free speech but a newspaper website does not have to be that forum.

 

[fishwrapper]

Comments serve a big purpose. That's why there are comments.
First off, you can't half-ass it ... and for some legal reasons. You can't edit comments, or they then fall under editorial purview and an entity can be held civilly accountable. You can only delete offensive comments.
Comments are the onramp of reader engagement (for better or worse). There are dozens of options of software that flag, alert and monitor boards. Why not invest a couple-thousand bucks before disenchanting reader and viewership on another media?
And, of course, I know that answer.

 

[mrbio]

Comments must be allowed. They enhance the experience of reading the article. Unfortunately there are a lot of disgruntled people out there today. Rough times.

 

[I Should Coco]

Good article ... but sounds like the writer was forced into the half-assed "solution" by some corporate suit, or someone who mistakenly believes that online comments help sell online ads.

If anyone reading this post has proof that a higher number of comments spurred ONE additional online ad, I'd love to see it.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Comments help drive site traffic, which affects the price of online ads.
I know I check our paper's webstie several time a day to view the added comments.

I'm sure our site is no different than most.
Our story comments quickly degenerate into the same one-trick pony arguments (Obama, the city, the mayor, taxes, insert ***** here) by the same dozen or so posters, but people keeping coming back to read them.

 

[fishwrapper]

You're missing the point. The point is reader engagement and time spent on site. Average time spent by reader/viewer *is* a big deal and affects advertising rates.

 

[J-School Blue]

On the other hand, there are many websites that have vibrant comment sections full of insightful, funny, etc. posts. There is definitely a way they can add value to a website. Not sure if it's just due to better moderation or what.

All the comment threads I've read that are half-way intelligent and respectful are heavily moderated.

Newspapers don't want to moderate reader comments, however (yes, I understand the legal argument, but it's also about application of resources - or not).

So they are what they are.

 

[JayFarrar]

The best solution appears to be the one where you comment with your facebook log-in.

It seems to cut the crap down because (most) people don't want their names and faces attached to crazy keyboard ramblings.

 

[J-School Blue]

Agreed. In all the cases I've seen it used it seems to have really helped, and I am a pretty hardcore comment hater. I have no idea what a system like that does to traffic. On the one hand, the feces-throwing monkeys who constantly refreshed to fight with each other on the comment threads all day can no longer feces-throw in anonymity, which seems to quiet them. On the other, everybody and their mother has a Facebook account, so there's no registration bother to go through or specific Podunk.com password stuff to remember. In a lot of cases it might be considered more user-friendly.

 

[Brad Guire]

Online comments would be great if they always stayed on topic with the story at hand. But I've seen too many comment sections on local stories that turn into back-and-forth flame wars on national politics, Republicans and Democrats, all the same tired, endless debates with nothing but sweeping generalizations and name calling. Hardly a word to do with the actual story topic.

 

[Jesus_Muscatel]

What Jay said.