Bye bye, bile? Websites try to nix nasty comments
This article in the Boston Globe: Bye bye, bile? Websites try to nix nasty comments brought back thoughts of the discussions here on this forum on this topic. The Crier has implemented real name commenting (and seen the volume of comments go down dramatically), while the Patch continues use of anonymous commenting, and has seen the quality of comments go down dramatically.
I welcome your thoughts on the topic, subject, of course, to your using your real name.
Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 12-27-2013 at 03:19 PM.
Reason: to update the URL (as noted in post below)
1. Page 1 of the boston.com* article is here.
2. Here's a DF post about the Town Crier's new commenting system.
3. Here's an earlier DF post about the DF's policy requiring identification.
4. A DF post about an NPR article on this topic.
*With all due respect (and a lot of respect is due), the article is on boston.com, not in the Boston Globe. Had I been posting anonymously, who knows how nastily I might have made this correction. [grin]
Thanks for the other links, Jeff.
I updated my link to reflect your point 1 (no reason to leave the wrong link in there for any historical purposes)
As for your other correction about boston.com (v. Boston Globe), fair (and true) enough. And I am glad you kept it civil with your name attached! :-)
I'm not normally a fan of Jeff Jacoby (can't the Boston Globe find a thoughtful token conservative?), but to his point #4, I'm all in agreement.
Originally Posted by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe published another piece on comment sections I thought worth sharing:
Sick of comment sections? Say no more.
Allowing anonymous commenting is definitely "good for business", if by that you mean lots of people re-loading the same article over and over again to add unedited drivel into a conversation. There are no almost no comments at the Crier after a prior life as a hotbed of anonymous and truly vile commenting. The recently added anonymous comments section at Wayland Transparency is a great example of what you get with anonymous commenting - lots of unsubstantiated "facts" and innuendo interwoven with some constructive and thoughtful comments.
There's no perfect answer here. It would be great if people felt comfortable having open and honest discussion. When a more private venue is necessary and anonymous posting is allowed, it would be nice if people would remain as civil and thoughtful as if their name was being broadcast. Unfortunately, both ends of this spectrum prove difficult and challenging.
I just noticed that the Globe article that inspired this thread in the first place is no longer online.
It was actually an Associated Press piece and it can still be found online here: http://jacksonville.com/breaking-new...nasty-comments
Other pieces worth a read:
“Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments,” Suzanne LaBarre, PopularScience.com, September 24, 2013, read online.
“This Story Stinks,” Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele, The New York Times, March 2, 2013, read online.