Some of these methods have proven invaluable. Others less so.
August 17, 2016 1:05 PM Subscribe
As of August 23rd, NPR.org is discontinuing its Disqus-based comment system and will not replace it.
NPR's ombudsman, Elizabeth Jensen, was startled when she saw the numbers on how many commenters there really were:
NPR's ombudsman, Elizabeth Jensen, was startled when she saw the numbers on how many commenters there really were:
In July, NPR.org recorded nearly 33 million unique users, and 491,000 comments. But those comments came from just 19,400 commenters, Montgomery said. That's 0.06 percent of users who are commenting, a number that has stayed steady through 2016.... More than half of all comments in May, June and July combined came from a mere 2,600 users.
(except everybody else in a mirror is an asshole.)
The NPR comment sections were among some of the worst I've come across accidentally (like when I didn't go looking for trouble on local news sites); I think this is a good decision.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
The NPR comment sections were among some of the worst I've come across accidentally (like when I didn't go looking for trouble on local news sites); I think this is a good decision.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
I keep wondering why everyone says "there's no way to manage a comment section, it's never been done successfully..." I mean, we're RIGHT HERE on the Blue, do we need to toot our horn louder? MeFi does well at this, I feel like Matt and co. should be consulting.
posted by gusandrews at 1:13 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by gusandrews at 1:13 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
I wonder how many of the comments comefrom the Putin Ministry of Trolling.
posted by benzenedream at 1:14 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by benzenedream at 1:14 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I keep wondering why everyone says "there's no way to manage a comment section, it's never been done successfully..."
It has been. It's called letters to the editor. Yeah, moderation is not so hard.
posted by Melismata at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
It has been. It's called letters to the editor. Yeah, moderation is not so hard.
posted by Melismata at 1:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
I keep wondering why everyone says "there's no way to manage a comment section, it's never been done successfully..."
MetaFilter doesn't have a comments section, it has an articles section.
posted by Etrigan at 1:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [44 favorites]
MetaFilter doesn't have a comments section, it has an articles section.
posted by Etrigan at 1:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [44 favorites]
MeFi does well at this
Yes, but I doubt many sites would have an interest in devoting the time and effort to moderating that MetaFilter does. Also, the MeFi entry fee keeps out almost all the trolls.
posted by aught at 1:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Yes, but I doubt many sites would have an interest in devoting the time and effort to moderating that MetaFilter does. Also, the MeFi entry fee keeps out almost all the trolls.
posted by aught at 1:17 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Which makes me think NPR should perhaps consider a comment system that only allows member station contributors to comment. (Akin to the PBS Passport video streaming app.)
posted by aught at 1:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
posted by aught at 1:19 PM on August 17, 2016 [27 favorites]
Have news organizations never realized that their farmed-out comment systems are already broken for a good many of their users?
posted by lagomorphius at 1:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by lagomorphius at 1:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I don't know why you'd even dream of comments on your news site. Better to just let people say whatever dumb and awful shit they're going to say on FB and Twitter where you don't have to have any hand in it.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:26 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:26 PM on August 17, 2016 [16 favorites]
This is a good start.
posted by edheil at 1:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by edheil at 1:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, we're RIGHT HERE on the Blue, do we need to toot our horn louder? MeFi does well at this
Right, but it's the old easy/good/cheap thing -- you can only pick two. Sites that claim good moderation isn't possible aren't willing to put money into moderator teams. I work on a website that has more than one million registered users and ONE GUY on staff plus a bunch of volunteer moderators and GUESS WHAT it can be crazy toxic.
posted by kate blank at 1:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
Right, but it's the old easy/good/cheap thing -- you can only pick two. Sites that claim good moderation isn't possible aren't willing to put money into moderator teams. I work on a website that has more than one million registered users and ONE GUY on staff plus a bunch of volunteer moderators and GUESS WHAT it can be crazy toxic.
posted by kate blank at 1:33 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
More than half of all comments in May, June and July combined came from a mere 2,600 users.
And, distressingly, most NPR stories are sourced from only hundreds of staff and correspondents!
I can kindof see the point. Engaged high-quality in-band discussion has always required effort and attention that they're sure not going to be able to just buy off the shelf a lá Disqus. And that's before you consider the fact that we're talking about media that's still primarily radio/audio, and the rise of social networks like Twitter and Facebook as the de facto water coolers and virtual 3rd places.
But seriously... Twitter? This is your solution? If what you want is just "engagement" (no doubt gets along famously with its cousin the generic "content"), then sure, I guess, focusing on the numbers involved makes sense, particularly if you weren't doing anything else to make sure longer-form in-band stuff was part of a conversation worth having.
But that's not really the full potential of expanding the conversation in terms of gathering perspective, education, and insight.
posted by wildblueyonder at 1:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
And, distressingly, most NPR stories are sourced from only hundreds of staff and correspondents!
I can kindof see the point. Engaged high-quality in-band discussion has always required effort and attention that they're sure not going to be able to just buy off the shelf a lá Disqus. And that's before you consider the fact that we're talking about media that's still primarily radio/audio, and the rise of social networks like Twitter and Facebook as the de facto water coolers and virtual 3rd places.
But seriously... Twitter? This is your solution? If what you want is just "engagement" (no doubt gets along famously with its cousin the generic "content"), then sure, I guess, focusing on the numbers involved makes sense, particularly if you weren't doing anything else to make sure longer-form in-band stuff was part of a conversation worth having.
But that's not really the full potential of expanding the conversation in terms of gathering perspective, education, and insight.
posted by wildblueyonder at 1:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I do appreciate that many news sites have turned over the comments to their stories on Facebook to a collection of Russian spammers, pathological Islamophobes, activist MRA types, surprising antisemites (still around? What a great surprise!), and other types who apparently have found the sorts of jobs that allow you to spend the entire day turning the world in a cesspool.
I'm a newspaperman myself and just don't understand it. I mean, I get it, but I don't get it. I know they think it's engagement, and that all that stuff is in the hands of the digital marketing team, and so has nothing to do with editorial. But when I see comments under my byline that are like:
--Hey here's a marvelous new racist phrase
--This comment is written entirely in catch phrases from Ayn Rand
--In English but with Slavic Sentence Structure is written this support for the Donald Trump
--A macro I don't understand but seems to suggest certain minorities deserve what they get
I feel like, hey, now my story is a mechanism for building a nationwide hate movement! How nice that my publication has washed its hands of this!
Seriously, people complain about 4chan? Forget 4chan. Every media organization that has a Facebook page is now 4chan.
posted by maxsparber at 1:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [103 favorites]
I'm a newspaperman myself and just don't understand it. I mean, I get it, but I don't get it. I know they think it's engagement, and that all that stuff is in the hands of the digital marketing team, and so has nothing to do with editorial. But when I see comments under my byline that are like:
--Hey here's a marvelous new racist phrase
--This comment is written entirely in catch phrases from Ayn Rand
--In English but with Slavic Sentence Structure is written this support for the Donald Trump
--A macro I don't understand but seems to suggest certain minorities deserve what they get
I feel like, hey, now my story is a mechanism for building a nationwide hate movement! How nice that my publication has washed its hands of this!
Seriously, people complain about 4chan? Forget 4chan. Every media organization that has a Facebook page is now 4chan.
posted by maxsparber at 1:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [103 favorites]
I keep wondering why everyone says "there's no way to manage a comment section, it's never been done successfully..." I mean, we're RIGHT HERE on the Blue, do we need to toot our horn louder? MeFi does well at this, I feel like Matt and co. should be consulting.
My day-to-day is engagement systems (comments, forums, content distribution, etc.). My own armchair theory is that the fact that you have to pay (even a small amount) is enough of a bar to clear that most trolls don't bother. Additionally, it creates investment/worth for the ones who do want to comment.
The result is a community that is easier to moderate and establish a tone for; commenting has value because the community managers gave it value. Or, to bring in a Hamilton quote because WHY NOT: "When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game."
Decisions like this are of intense interest to me, thanks for posting Etrigan.
posted by offalark at 1:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
My day-to-day is engagement systems (comments, forums, content distribution, etc.). My own armchair theory is that the fact that you have to pay (even a small amount) is enough of a bar to clear that most trolls don't bother. Additionally, it creates investment/worth for the ones who do want to comment.
The result is a community that is easier to moderate and establish a tone for; commenting has value because the community managers gave it value. Or, to bring in a Hamilton quote because WHY NOT: "When you got skin in the game, you stay in the game."
Decisions like this are of intense interest to me, thanks for posting Etrigan.
posted by offalark at 1:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
I've never figured out what sites like that, or most sites, gain from having comments. It seems like one more of those "we can so we must" technology decisions that have guided most of the last couple decades.
posted by bongo_x at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
The NPR comment sections were among some of the worst I've come across accidentally (like when I didn't go looking for trouble on local news sites); I think this is a good decision.
This is a long time coming, agreed. I've been especially shocked at the ridiculous, angry commentary on their Monkey See and Code Switch blogs, which respectively cover (and receive criticism about) pop culture (garnering "Why don't you devote 100% of your resources to hard news?!") and race/culture (garnering "What about the whitemenz?!") topics.
But seriously... Twitter?
The NPR staff uses and loves Twitter, so it makes sense to focus on what they know & how they're best able to engage the audience, no?
posted by psoas at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
This is a long time coming, agreed. I've been especially shocked at the ridiculous, angry commentary on their Monkey See and Code Switch blogs, which respectively cover (and receive criticism about) pop culture (garnering "Why don't you devote 100% of your resources to hard news?!") and race/culture (garnering "What about the whitemenz?!") topics.
But seriously... Twitter?
The NPR staff uses and loves Twitter, so it makes sense to focus on what they know & how they're best able to engage the audience, no?
posted by psoas at 1:39 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Moderation is a skilled and time-consuming job that nobody really wants to do, I can completely understand why sites would consider it too much trouble.
I was surprised when commercial sites started to publish comments beneath the articles - don't they realize that each comment reflects on publisher (i.e.: themselves)? Farming the comment system off to a third-party doesn't fix the problem, except for maybe cutting down on certain forms of spam.
posted by AndrewStephens at 1:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I was surprised when commercial sites started to publish comments beneath the articles - don't they realize that each comment reflects on publisher (i.e.: themselves)? Farming the comment system off to a third-party doesn't fix the problem, except for maybe cutting down on certain forms of spam.
posted by AndrewStephens at 1:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
Which makes me think NPR should perhaps consider a comment system that only allows member station contributors to comment.
Contribution would have to be at least non-trivial. if I'm not mistaken, a newspaper here tried to do that at a point, but most people didn't care to subscribe it, while for astroturfing companies, 10 or 20 cheap trial accounts every week would be well within budget considering opposing voices were already a non-issue, and could have the whole commentary box to themselves.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:42 PM on August 17, 2016
Contribution would have to be at least non-trivial. if I'm not mistaken, a newspaper here tried to do that at a point, but most people didn't care to subscribe it, while for astroturfing companies, 10 or 20 cheap trial accounts every week would be well within budget considering opposing voices were already a non-issue, and could have the whole commentary box to themselves.
posted by lmfsilva at 1:42 PM on August 17, 2016
NPR has it right. The question is not: how do we make comments on our news stories non-horrible? It's: why the hell do we need them anyway?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:45 PM on August 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:45 PM on August 17, 2016 [19 favorites]
i think people once thought it might be a good idea that people would get to talk back to the people who are constantly talking to them, that those doing the talking would actually have to spend some time listening as well
posted by pyramid termite at 1:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by pyramid termite at 1:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
On "Well, we manage the comments here on MeFi pretty well...": let's break this down and consider what's different between NPR and MeFi.
MeFi's comments work in part because of having a few full-time staffers to moderate them. The entry fee probably doesn't hurt, either - that's a super-high barrier to entry compared to the usual comment box.
I dunno if "full time moderators" would scale - if we compare the Quantcast numbers (as suggested by this HN discussion referencing a tweet from Matt), MeFi reaches ~482k people/month, while NPR reaches ~5mil.
Let's put that into SI because I can never remember how many zeros are in a zillion. MeFi reaches 4.8x10^3 people. NPR reaches 5x10^6.
MeFi pays six and two-half people to moderate the people who comment. And has a system that severely lowers the percentage of visitors who can do that. And a very strong site culture of "hey, be chill". And is only a link aggregator and discussion place, so will never have all the comments on any particular article.
NPR, on the other hand, get about 1000 times as many viewers, who up to today could comment pretty easily - Disqus creates a tiny bit of friction, but it's a lot less than "pay $5". I dunno how many people they had whose main job was comment moderation. Plus they generate original content, so would attract a much higher percentage of instant reactions from anyone online, without necessarily having a specific culture of "NPR.org readers". I think they'd probably need more than 1000 times as many moderators to achieve a similar level of civility.
Aught's idea of only letting people who contribute to affiliate stations comment strikes me as interesting. The immediate question for that is "how much time and budget would it take to build that system and get it hooked up with Every NPR Affiliate?" Does every affiliate station even have any kind of web login system, never mind integrating logins from ones who do, or finding some way to mark your fb/twitter/whatever as being an NPR Contributor (and revoking that status if you haven't contributed this year/quarter?)
Now that I think about the numbers, yeah, I can see it being pretty easy for NPR to just throw up their hands and say "y'all keep shitting up the comment sections, fuck it, we don't have the resources to keep them civil, we give up."
posted by egypturnash at 1:52 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
MeFi's comments work in part because of having a few full-time staffers to moderate them. The entry fee probably doesn't hurt, either - that's a super-high barrier to entry compared to the usual comment box.
I dunno if "full time moderators" would scale - if we compare the Quantcast numbers (as suggested by this HN discussion referencing a tweet from Matt), MeFi reaches ~482k people/month, while NPR reaches ~5mil.
Let's put that into SI because I can never remember how many zeros are in a zillion. MeFi reaches 4.8x10^3 people. NPR reaches 5x10^6.
MeFi pays six and two-half people to moderate the people who comment. And has a system that severely lowers the percentage of visitors who can do that. And a very strong site culture of "hey, be chill". And is only a link aggregator and discussion place, so will never have all the comments on any particular article.
NPR, on the other hand, get about 1000 times as many viewers, who up to today could comment pretty easily - Disqus creates a tiny bit of friction, but it's a lot less than "pay $5". I dunno how many people they had whose main job was comment moderation. Plus they generate original content, so would attract a much higher percentage of instant reactions from anyone online, without necessarily having a specific culture of "NPR.org readers". I think they'd probably need more than 1000 times as many moderators to achieve a similar level of civility.
Aught's idea of only letting people who contribute to affiliate stations comment strikes me as interesting. The immediate question for that is "how much time and budget would it take to build that system and get it hooked up with Every NPR Affiliate?" Does every affiliate station even have any kind of web login system, never mind integrating logins from ones who do, or finding some way to mark your fb/twitter/whatever as being an NPR Contributor (and revoking that status if you haven't contributed this year/quarter?)
Now that I think about the numbers, yeah, I can see it being pretty easy for NPR to just throw up their hands and say "y'all keep shitting up the comment sections, fuck it, we don't have the resources to keep them civil, we give up."
posted by egypturnash at 1:52 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
I mean, we're RIGHT HERE on the Blue, do we need to toot our horn louder? MeFi does well at this, I feel like Matt and co. should be consulting.
NPR's main focus is creating content that sites like Metafilter link to. That isn't meant to be a slam, but rather to point a major difference between news organizations and sites like MeFi.
It makes no sense for any news organization to spend increasingly sparse resources on moderating comments because it brings little to their core business i.e. putting out news stories.
i think people once thought it might be a good idea that people would get to talk back to the people who are constantly talking to them, that those doing the talking would actually have to spend some time listening as well
Yeah, 'the conversation' used to be thought of as a big benefit, but it really hasn't shaken out that way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
NPR's main focus is creating content that sites like Metafilter link to. That isn't meant to be a slam, but rather to point a major difference between news organizations and sites like MeFi.
It makes no sense for any news organization to spend increasingly sparse resources on moderating comments because it brings little to their core business i.e. putting out news stories.
i think people once thought it might be a good idea that people would get to talk back to the people who are constantly talking to them, that those doing the talking would actually have to spend some time listening as well
Yeah, 'the conversation' used to be thought of as a big benefit, but it really hasn't shaken out that way.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [10 favorites]
MeFi reaches 4.8x10^3 people. NPR reaches 5x10^6.
Um. Doesn't 482k ≈ 4.8 x 10^5?
posted by howfar at 2:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Um. Doesn't 482k ≈ 4.8 x 10^5?
posted by howfar at 2:10 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean to say, aren't your calculations off by a factor of 100?
posted by howfar at 2:12 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by howfar at 2:12 PM on August 17, 2016
NPR.org is discontinuing is Disqus-based comment system
Mods, please fix typo on front page.
This should be "NPR.org is discontinuing its Disqus-based comment system".
It's apt that this shows one of the best things about allowing comments on web pages: readers can point out small errors so they can be corrected. Making the report visible to other users in-place saves multiple people from reporting the same thing.
posted by w0mbat at 2:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Mods, please fix typo on front page.
This should be "NPR.org is discontinuing its Disqus-based comment system".
It's apt that this shows one of the best things about allowing comments on web pages: readers can point out small errors so they can be corrected. Making the report visible to other users in-place saves multiple people from reporting the same thing.
posted by w0mbat at 2:21 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Good riddance. Not sure why NPR became such a prime target for the Keyboard Kommando Korps and Redstate Rangers. PBS is placid and serene by comparison. Hopefully it stays that way...
posted by jim in austin at 2:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by jim in austin at 2:36 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Smart move. I hope The Guardian follows suit. The rare times I hazard a glimpse below the article it's like staring into humanity's vast reservoir of seething resentment. And that's just the football section. The rest is much worse.
posted by Kattullus at 2:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Kattullus at 2:40 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Um. Doesn't 482k ≈ 4.8 x 10^5?
Yeah. If it's really MeFi ~482k people/month and NPR ~5mil, then NPR's scale of engagement is only about 10x what Metafilter's is (which actually surprises me, I didn't think Metafilter's reach was that broad).
That doesn't make the moderation-at-scale problem go away. If moderation resource needs grow in a linear fashion, then you'd presumably need 60-70 moderators. I suppose it's possible there are tricks to do better than that (training the community to some degree of self-policing, good tooling supporting existing mods, barriers that keep out drive-by lowest-common-denominator stuff), but I suppose it's equally possible that demands might grow more quickly.
posted by wildblueyonder at 2:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yeah. If it's really MeFi ~482k people/month and NPR ~5mil, then NPR's scale of engagement is only about 10x what Metafilter's is (which actually surprises me, I didn't think Metafilter's reach was that broad).
That doesn't make the moderation-at-scale problem go away. If moderation resource needs grow in a linear fashion, then you'd presumably need 60-70 moderators. I suppose it's possible there are tricks to do better than that (training the community to some degree of self-policing, good tooling supporting existing mods, barriers that keep out drive-by lowest-common-denominator stuff), but I suppose it's equally possible that demands might grow more quickly.
posted by wildblueyonder at 2:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd say signing up for a Disqus account is a higher barrier to entry than paying someone five bucks. Disqus is everywhere, and is used for tracking people across sites. Not something I want to voluntarily take part in.
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Roger Dodger at 2:53 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
If NPR paid me a living wage to moderate their comments I would GLADLY do so. I have daydreamed about policing Reddit and the like.
posted by gucci mane at 2:59 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by gucci mane at 2:59 PM on August 17, 2016
With great power comes great responsibility. Only we on the blue are worthy ;-)
Seriously, I think phase one of the comment experiment is over. Open commentary on every news story produces chaos, and the comment section quickly becomes a soapbox or trollbridge.
idea for phase two of article comments:
- any comment goes to a moderator first. No immediate gratification for the poster
- the contract between a writer and the site that publishes them includes X hours of moderation. Some may also be done by editors/moderators. Pain in the ass, but there are ways to screen prior to human moderation, and I expect that people will develop ways to go through the resulting comments more efficiently.
- NO CONVERSATIONS in comments, except as accepted and structured by the moderators. This limits comments to being direct responses to the OP, or to the comments approved and posted by the moderator.
Comments are an important and useful addition to most news sites, but free-form hasn't worked so well, especially for big 'traditional' media organizations like NPR, CBC, etc.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:07 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Seriously, I think phase one of the comment experiment is over. Open commentary on every news story produces chaos, and the comment section quickly becomes a soapbox or trollbridge.
idea for phase two of article comments:
- any comment goes to a moderator first. No immediate gratification for the poster
- the contract between a writer and the site that publishes them includes X hours of moderation. Some may also be done by editors/moderators. Pain in the ass, but there are ways to screen prior to human moderation, and I expect that people will develop ways to go through the resulting comments more efficiently.
- NO CONVERSATIONS in comments, except as accepted and structured by the moderators. This limits comments to being direct responses to the OP, or to the comments approved and posted by the moderator.
Comments are an important and useful addition to most news sites, but free-form hasn't worked so well, especially for big 'traditional' media organizations like NPR, CBC, etc.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:07 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I wish that 90% of newspapers and news sites would follow suit and shut down their comment sections. I've paid enough attention to the comments in my local paper to see that it's invariably the same maybe 15 to 20 people every day yelling at each other. I don't really see what the point is.
posted by octothorpe at 4:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 4:11 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
More than half of all comments in May, June and July combined came from a mere 2,600 users.
In July they had 19,400 commenters so if we assume that there were about 25,000 unique commenters for 3 months (extrapolating from MeFi's infodump data), this means that less than 10% of the commenters created 50% of the comments. The ratio for Metafilter is 6-7% (and hasn't changed from 2000 to 2015) so it's roughly in the same ballpark (in percentage of course ; there were about less than 4000 monthly commenters on MeFi last year, which is still quite good compared to NPR's 20,000).
posted by elgilito at 4:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
In July they had 19,400 commenters so if we assume that there were about 25,000 unique commenters for 3 months (extrapolating from MeFi's infodump data), this means that less than 10% of the commenters created 50% of the comments. The ratio for Metafilter is 6-7% (and hasn't changed from 2000 to 2015) so it's roughly in the same ballpark (in percentage of course ; there were about less than 4000 monthly commenters on MeFi last year, which is still quite good compared to NPR's 20,000).
posted by elgilito at 4:15 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I wonder how many of the comments comefrom the Putin Ministry of Trolling.
all of them
100% of the awfulness
external locus of control, baby!
posted by indubitable at 4:34 PM on August 17, 2016
all of them
100% of the awfulness
external locus of control, baby!
posted by indubitable at 4:34 PM on August 17, 2016
It's so cyclical too. I would never venture into the comment section of an online news article these days, even to read the comments, let alone post one. And so the people who do want to engage tend to be trolls/racists/misogynists/islamaphobes etc. making the comment section even worse, making it even less attractive, and the cycle continues.
posted by peacheater at 4:35 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by peacheater at 4:35 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, we're RIGHT HERE on the Blue, do we need to toot our horn louder? MeFi does well at this, I feel like Matt and co. should be consulting.
It needs to be said, to hold a candle for the benefit of some (not all) of the voices that are no longer with us....
Over the years, a lot of Metafilter members have melted down, to varying degrees of liquidity, and then flamed out in Talk, and they're not generally represented here. A few come back. I think not all of these people were bad, although some had a bad day and enough pride not to return. Some came back under different names. Some didn't quite melt down, but didn't like one moderation decision or another. People seem very apt to leave over those things.
The kinds of people referred to in the article are obvious cases. Sometimes though, it gets a lot harder to adjudicate. This is absolutely not intended as a complaint against the moderators here. Message board moderation is a hard problem, and I think it's actually impossible to do it right 100% of the time.
I do know that it hurts when a moderation decision goes against you, and it hurts a lot more if your comment was well-meaning. Sometimes this pain is the feeling of your unexamined privilege becoming visible to you. Sometimes it's not.
I guess what I'm saying is, internet is hard, for lots of people.
posted by JHarris at 5:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
It needs to be said, to hold a candle for the benefit of some (not all) of the voices that are no longer with us....
Over the years, a lot of Metafilter members have melted down, to varying degrees of liquidity, and then flamed out in Talk, and they're not generally represented here. A few come back. I think not all of these people were bad, although some had a bad day and enough pride not to return. Some came back under different names. Some didn't quite melt down, but didn't like one moderation decision or another. People seem very apt to leave over those things.
The kinds of people referred to in the article are obvious cases. Sometimes though, it gets a lot harder to adjudicate. This is absolutely not intended as a complaint against the moderators here. Message board moderation is a hard problem, and I think it's actually impossible to do it right 100% of the time.
I do know that it hurts when a moderation decision goes against you, and it hurts a lot more if your comment was well-meaning. Sometimes this pain is the feeling of your unexamined privilege becoming visible to you. Sometimes it's not.
I guess what I'm saying is, internet is hard, for lots of people.
posted by JHarris at 5:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [4 favorites]
howfar > Um. Doesn't 482k ≈ 4.8 x 10^5?
Oops. Yeah. How the hell did I manage that mistake. Typing too fast on the tablet, I guess. Thanks!
So by these revised back-of-the-envelope guesstimates, NPR needs 10x as many mods as MeFi, if we assume that the mods:viewers ratio scales linearly. It probably doesn't, what with other factors like "communal linkblog vs primary content source", different amounts of account-creation friction, and whatnot. I'm not gonna hazard a guess any closer than "around another order of magnitude as many mods, ±50%". Which is still a lot of folks to train and employ.
I think I'm still not gonna give NPR shit for deciding their limited resources are best focused elsewhere.
posted by egypturnash at 5:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oops. Yeah. How the hell did I manage that mistake. Typing too fast on the tablet, I guess. Thanks!
So by these revised back-of-the-envelope guesstimates, NPR needs 10x as many mods as MeFi, if we assume that the mods:viewers ratio scales linearly. It probably doesn't, what with other factors like "communal linkblog vs primary content source", different amounts of account-creation friction, and whatnot. I'm not gonna hazard a guess any closer than "around another order of magnitude as many mods, ±50%". Which is still a lot of folks to train and employ.
I think I'm still not gonna give NPR shit for deciding their limited resources are best focused elsewhere.
posted by egypturnash at 5:49 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do know that it hurts when a moderation decision goes against you, and it hurts a lot more if your comment was well-meaning. Sometimes this pain is the feeling of your unexamined privilege becoming visible to you. Sometimes it's not.
Obviously I'm a fan of free expression and interchange, but honestly, if a person's self-esteem can be seriously affected by comment feedback or moderation... that's a problem, possibly created by the prevalence of unmoderated comment sections.
On most newsy sites, only a few comments are generally worthy of publication, and people should expect that. The good editor/moderator should be able to pick out above-average comments that are representative or informative. Maybe even some sort of opinion summary with percentages...?
I think this is an opportunity for some news-site to innovate. Maybe MeFi could supply moderation advice and systems to other sites?
posted by Artful Codger at 7:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Obviously I'm a fan of free expression and interchange, but honestly, if a person's self-esteem can be seriously affected by comment feedback or moderation... that's a problem, possibly created by the prevalence of unmoderated comment sections.
On most newsy sites, only a few comments are generally worthy of publication, and people should expect that. The good editor/moderator should be able to pick out above-average comments that are representative or informative. Maybe even some sort of opinion summary with percentages...?
I think this is an opportunity for some news-site to innovate. Maybe MeFi could supply moderation advice and systems to other sites?
posted by Artful Codger at 7:31 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Comment sections are essentially 'letters to the editor', but every letter is published. Even the cranks. I'm not sure who in the media business ever thought that would be a good idea. Just because bits are cheaper than paper inches?
But why not still do letters (email) to the editors? Publish a handful of insightful comments and any error correction reports, discard the rest unpublished. It would encourage thoughtful emails, since essentially it's a contest to get published (for those who care about that.) The rest could at least believe the author at least read it.
posted by ctmf at 8:03 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
But why not still do letters (email) to the editors? Publish a handful of insightful comments and any error correction reports, discard the rest unpublished. It would encourage thoughtful emails, since essentially it's a contest to get published (for those who care about that.) The rest could at least believe the author at least read it.
posted by ctmf at 8:03 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Maybe MeFi could supply moderation advice and systems to other sites?
Time spent moderating other sites is time not spent moderating Metafilter, so not seeing the upside.
If a news site wanted to study Metafilter, that would work. It's not rocket science, mostly seems to be ongoing education about what is and is not acceptable behavior.
It's not MeFi's job to fix a problem they didn't create.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:14 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Time spent moderating other sites is time not spent moderating Metafilter, so not seeing the upside.
If a news site wanted to study Metafilter, that would work. It's not rocket science, mostly seems to be ongoing education about what is and is not acceptable behavior.
It's not MeFi's job to fix a problem they didn't create.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:14 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Comment sections are essentially 'letters to the editor', but every letter is published. Even the cranks. I'm not sure who in the media business ever thought that would be a good idea. Just because bits are cheaper than paper inches?
Partially it was cotowing to the form. Slashdot had comments, Mefi had comments, so blog systems allowed comments, and most bloggers found them minimally problematic even with only CAPTCHA gated posting.
But most bloggers were discussing the pros and cons of XML, or posting fan fiction and such. In contrast, public radio appears to be required to cover US politics. Even APM's Marketplace, run out of LA, might as well be another DC bureau. There were two presidential election non-stories and a piece about whether regulators should approve a merger in today's podcast for example. Out of all the merger news in the past week, they chose the one that intersects with the success or failure of the president's health care reforms. APM is not NPR, but when even ostensibly non-partisan reporters leans toward coverage with lots of partisans involved, it's a recipe for every thread being 'the election thread.'
Which sad. I'd rather hear about the subprime crisis before it's too late, and all we're getting is navel gazing, Monday morning quarterbacking, and book tour promotions.
posted by pwnguin at 8:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Partially it was cotowing to the form. Slashdot had comments, Mefi had comments, so blog systems allowed comments, and most bloggers found them minimally problematic even with only CAPTCHA gated posting.
But most bloggers were discussing the pros and cons of XML, or posting fan fiction and such. In contrast, public radio appears to be required to cover US politics. Even APM's Marketplace, run out of LA, might as well be another DC bureau. There were two presidential election non-stories and a piece about whether regulators should approve a merger in today's podcast for example. Out of all the merger news in the past week, they chose the one that intersects with the success or failure of the president's health care reforms. APM is not NPR, but when even ostensibly non-partisan reporters leans toward coverage with lots of partisans involved, it's a recipe for every thread being 'the election thread.'
Which sad. I'd rather hear about the subprime crisis before it's too late, and all we're getting is navel gazing, Monday morning quarterbacking, and book tour promotions.
posted by pwnguin at 8:48 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I don't think anyone's explicitly hit on the reason why "be like MetaFilter" won't work for news sites, which is rather simply that they wouldn't want to be like MeFi. MeFi staff is not impartial. They are allowed to make calls on topics that are "settled" (at least, they're tired of moderating) and it doesn't mean the whole topic is off limit--it means one side doesn't get the benefit of the doubt if they are playing devil's advocate or whatever and they just get told to shut up instead. There are an awful lot of more-or-less mainstream opinions that aren't at home here.
NPR needs to "listen" to everyone. They can't tell people to shut up. They want people who have all sorts of opinion to trust their reporting. They're is just no way they could apply the MeFi model. Can you imagine the fun people would have documenting which comments got deleted and "proving" how one sided they are?
As to why comments at all on news sites: There's a simple pragmatic reason and an idealistic one. The pragmatic one is people visit a story zero or one times, unless you have comments which keep them coming back, especially if they get sucked into an argument. And the idealistic one--maybe I'm being naive--but I think temperamentally good reporters and news organizations *want* to hear from people, their stories and their opinions, no matter what they are, in a way I really don't.
If you ask me what they should do, I like the letters to the editor idea people have floated. Most people will go elsewhere to comment but whatever, I don't make money off the comments.
posted by mark k at 9:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
NPR needs to "listen" to everyone. They can't tell people to shut up. They want people who have all sorts of opinion to trust their reporting. They're is just no way they could apply the MeFi model. Can you imagine the fun people would have documenting which comments got deleted and "proving" how one sided they are?
As to why comments at all on news sites: There's a simple pragmatic reason and an idealistic one. The pragmatic one is people visit a story zero or one times, unless you have comments which keep them coming back, especially if they get sucked into an argument. And the idealistic one--maybe I'm being naive--but I think temperamentally good reporters and news organizations *want* to hear from people, their stories and their opinions, no matter what they are, in a way I really don't.
If you ask me what they should do, I like the letters to the editor idea people have floated. Most people will go elsewhere to comment but whatever, I don't make money off the comments.
posted by mark k at 9:41 PM on August 17, 2016 [6 favorites]
Disqus is a troll’s dream. It allows near unlimited accounts, near zero-accountability and with a single UID, access to all sites that use the Disqus commenting system. Get banned for some hateful comment? No problem as you likely have 65 socks still in the drawer and can just jump over to a new one and continue. As you have no interest in an actual conversation, the troll tirade you were on before being banned can pick right up with a mere blip of inconvenience.
Disqus amplifies the avoidance of any measure of ‘community’ within any site. You have options to hide your previous comments and all associations with other sites. In some ways, that can be good as there is no end to the trolls who will mine your comments from 3 years ago to personally attack you on a subject that is completely unrelated. The only solution for the honest user is to have your activity fully hidden where any relationship to the user base is limited to the immediate thread…..and even that is often limited.
I would love to see Disqus get wiped away, but that is unlikely to happen. The service is too valuable to those site operators who care more for click-throughs (or however web $$ is generated) than providing a forum for discussion. Disqus is perfect as it provides the anonymous platform for online-socio-paths to engage in drive-by trolling with little consequence if they get the boot. At the same time, the site enjoys increasing traffic numbers and rarely employs anyone to monitor the activity. The ‘writers’ of forum posts tend to be newcomers to online authorship looking for a way to increase visibility and site turnover is high.
I could go on, but the point is made. Disqus is the worst thing to happen to online commenting since YouTube started their un-moderated comment areas way back when. It is, I am sure, by design and geared more for generating traffic than fostering discussing.
Dare I say, it is a little bit of PlannedChaos with every new thread?
posted by lampshade at 10:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
Disqus amplifies the avoidance of any measure of ‘community’ within any site. You have options to hide your previous comments and all associations with other sites. In some ways, that can be good as there is no end to the trolls who will mine your comments from 3 years ago to personally attack you on a subject that is completely unrelated. The only solution for the honest user is to have your activity fully hidden where any relationship to the user base is limited to the immediate thread…..and even that is often limited.
I would love to see Disqus get wiped away, but that is unlikely to happen. The service is too valuable to those site operators who care more for click-throughs (or however web $$ is generated) than providing a forum for discussion. Disqus is perfect as it provides the anonymous platform for online-socio-paths to engage in drive-by trolling with little consequence if they get the boot. At the same time, the site enjoys increasing traffic numbers and rarely employs anyone to monitor the activity. The ‘writers’ of forum posts tend to be newcomers to online authorship looking for a way to increase visibility and site turnover is high.
I could go on, but the point is made. Disqus is the worst thing to happen to online commenting since YouTube started their un-moderated comment areas way back when. It is, I am sure, by design and geared more for generating traffic than fostering discussing.
Dare I say, it is a little bit of PlannedChaos with every new thread?
posted by lampshade at 10:24 PM on August 17, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm thrilled - I often stream directly from the NPR site at work, where I don't have comment blocking on my browser, and I've scrolled below the line at Monkey See/Code Switch/etc so many times even knowing I was going to lose faith in humanity.
posted by Gin and Broadband at 10:40 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by Gin and Broadband at 10:40 PM on August 17, 2016
Maybe they should make the articles free-- but if you want to comment you have to pay. Solves a lot of problems at once.
posted by alexei at 11:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by alexei at 11:22 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I like that, alexei. Certainly would deter cheap trolls.
Anyhoo....I'm sick of "Just put your comments on Facebook and Twitter!" That is all.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:44 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Anyhoo....I'm sick of "Just put your comments on Facebook and Twitter!" That is all.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:44 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
I remember Andrew Sullivan getting a lot of flak for experimenting, and nixing, comments on his old site. One of the few areas where he was on the leading edge. I think comment sections are often seen as a draw from many sites. It might have been for Sullivan, but he was concerned about the shittiness associated with open comments, and decided his operation was too small dedicate editors to wade through it all, and for what end.
I can see the value of comment sections for getting visitors. They offer a place where any doofus can have a soapbox, and often seem to attract frequent fliers. However I can't see the value for entities that fancy themselves respectable. While it would hurt me none if respectable news organizations/blogs/etc jettisoned comment sections altogether, I can see blatant partisan sites successfully using comment sections as a distinguishing feature. This happens already. For example, much of the right already lives in its own echo chamber reality . It sort of intensifies under such a scenario.
All that being said, much of this drama associated with comment sections puzzles me. I've never has any trouble ignoring threads with dumb comments, or threads that simply don't interest me. Forum moderation often appears to me something that may appeal to people because they just can't help themselves about getting worked up over what others are saying.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:21 AM on August 18, 2016
I can see the value of comment sections for getting visitors. They offer a place where any doofus can have a soapbox, and often seem to attract frequent fliers. However I can't see the value for entities that fancy themselves respectable. While it would hurt me none if respectable news organizations/blogs/etc jettisoned comment sections altogether, I can see blatant partisan sites successfully using comment sections as a distinguishing feature. This happens already. For example, much of the right already lives in its own echo chamber reality . It sort of intensifies under such a scenario.
All that being said, much of this drama associated with comment sections puzzles me. I've never has any trouble ignoring threads with dumb comments, or threads that simply don't interest me. Forum moderation often appears to me something that may appeal to people because they just can't help themselves about getting worked up over what others are saying.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:21 AM on August 18, 2016
I've been involved with internet discussion boards since the mid-nineties and I may be the only person in the history of the internet who has never encountered a comment that I considered offensive or a derail. Metafilter discussions were much more lively when the moderation was looser and the "derail" discussions were my favorite part of this site. Yes, there are less "trolls" but that presupposes that every trolls exists in the negative sense, they don't, most are just trying out ideas and opinions they are not yet confident to explore in the real world.
I have noticed that the emergence of Facebook was the true turning point in the idea that free speech on the internet must be respectful. I see Facebook as AOL 3.0. Prior to AOL the discussions on the internet were amazing, then when AOL went unlimited it allowed "trolls" easy access to discussion boards, which allowed for higher volume discussion but contributed to the death of many sites because the users couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff and the moderators didn't have the time to deal with the complaints. Facebook allows what AOL did on steroids. Things that one would need to spend hours of research to find are now available to all. It's a marketers dream but it doesn't allow any true organic growth. The beauty of the internet prior to Facebook was that it could take years for a site to develop, now, if one has a good idea, they better have their ducks in a row from the beginning because a viral mention on Facebook could mean life or death.
posted by any major dude at 6:13 AM on August 18, 2016
I have noticed that the emergence of Facebook was the true turning point in the idea that free speech on the internet must be respectful. I see Facebook as AOL 3.0. Prior to AOL the discussions on the internet were amazing, then when AOL went unlimited it allowed "trolls" easy access to discussion boards, which allowed for higher volume discussion but contributed to the death of many sites because the users couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff and the moderators didn't have the time to deal with the complaints. Facebook allows what AOL did on steroids. Things that one would need to spend hours of research to find are now available to all. It's a marketers dream but it doesn't allow any true organic growth. The beauty of the internet prior to Facebook was that it could take years for a site to develop, now, if one has a good idea, they better have their ducks in a row from the beginning because a viral mention on Facebook could mean life or death.
posted by any major dude at 6:13 AM on August 18, 2016
I may be the only person in the history of the internet who has never encountered a comment that I considered offensive or a derail.
Yes, there are less "trolls" but that presupposes that every trolls exists in the negative sense, they don't, most are just trying out ideas and opinions they are not yet confident to explore in the real world.
Wait, are you seriously saying the person who routinely comments on my local paper's website with some variation of "Well, that's Democraps for you" whether or not it's relevant to the story is "trying out ideas and opinions they are not yet confident to explore in the real world"? Or the same for people who attack rape survivors because they think they're making the whole thing up? I can't even remember a time when I saw the Internet through such rose-tinted glasses.
posted by thegears at 9:12 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Yes, there are less "trolls" but that presupposes that every trolls exists in the negative sense, they don't, most are just trying out ideas and opinions they are not yet confident to explore in the real world.
Wait, are you seriously saying the person who routinely comments on my local paper's website with some variation of "Well, that's Democraps for you" whether or not it's relevant to the story is "trying out ideas and opinions they are not yet confident to explore in the real world"? Or the same for people who attack rape survivors because they think they're making the whole thing up? I can't even remember a time when I saw the Internet through such rose-tinted glasses.
posted by thegears at 9:12 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I may be the only person in the history of the internet who has never encountered a comment that I considered offensive or a derail.
So I'm gonna take a wild flying guess at your race and sex here...
posted by Etrigan at 9:15 AM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
So I'm gonna take a wild flying guess at your race and sex here...
posted by Etrigan at 9:15 AM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I spend a disproportionate lot of time thinking about the state of Internet communications, as in that's been one of my five-or-so biggest obsessions since I was thirteen years old, I worked on two start-ups as part of the community management team, nearly dropped out of school to launch my own, and see our ability to design systems for people to interact with one another as perhaps the key fulcrum on which a legitimately utopian society might be founded. The question of how you create spaces for meaningful conversation, where "meaningful" includes but is not limited to the relative comfort of its participants, the ability for new members to join in without disruption, and the impetus for discussions to evolve or discover new applicable regions of thought, is one of the most satisfying questions I can think to ask, from a psychological and sociological and philosophical and technological and ludic standpoint all at once.
As such, it is endlessly frustrating to me that it takes so damn long for new methods of communication to emerge, since the barrier is almost entirely imaginative rather than technological one. You can boil down 99% of all public online discussion to three basic modes: "everybody get in a pile", "everybody in a pile [sorted by ranking system], and "everybody talk at everybody else in a series of overlapping piles". MetaFilter is the first; Disqus and Reddit are the second; Twitter and Tumblr are the third. These are all ridiculously crude. The second one emerged because somebody thought that the same crowd that was shitting all over the comments sections could be improved by letting the same crowd vote on comments; the third one emerged totally by accident, and its only seeming "principle" is that we should let everybody see what everybody else has to say to them. Depressing stuff!
Blog comments, way back when, were a crude way of allowing individual writers to overlap with one another. Rather than using a blog callback (remember those?), a blogger could write on somebody else's blog, and include a URL back to their site for people to follow. This is great, if you have under a dozen people talking in a space at once! Why people thought that would work better if it was extended to millions of people simultaneously is baffling to me! Way to take a publishing environment that works best when posts are digestible in five-minute chunks and attach literal hours of discourse to it! No wonder comment systems are so goddamn awful; in virtually all cases, the only people who think there's value in them are either deluded about how the Internet works, or genuinely awful people themselves.
It's amazing to me how relatively small modifications to a system can yield tremendous changes. Take Tumblr, for example. Tumblr's reblogging system serves as a kind of mixture of Twitter's retweet/reply system and a typical comment section (because comments in a thread are preserved with every reblog). That yields a forest of responses that is difficult to consume in full, but within individual response threads, you can follow the line of conversation very easily—and, if you use Tumblr as your reader, you are clued into discussions taking place amongst your acquaintances because the same post pops up every time a new comment occurs. This is still an absurdly crude solution, one that could be iterated and improved upon in a few very simple ways, but even that results in much better feedback than a comment thread alone does.
I think it's a major disappointment that news organizations haven't dedicated teams to working out better ways of handling citizen discussions. I think that, if it's anybody's responsibility, it's been theirs. But the only organization I know of that's put any amount of effort into such a thing is Gawker, whose Kinja system has been all kinds of broken because it genuinely experiments with how discussions ought to work. It's a shame that now it looks like Univision will close Gawker for good, because the last year of Gawker comments has been something of a golden age for Internet commentary, on par with MetaFilter in a lot of ways but with a much more organic mode of discussion. (Which only makes sense! Their technology is nearly two decades more advanced than ours here is!)
One of my two great hopes is that we'll pass a threshold and suddenly everybody on the Internet will start hunting for the new best way for people to talk to each other. My other, more selfish hope, is that we all continue to act stupid about this, so my future start-up can land me millions and I can abuse my fame and fortune like I've always wanted to. So, uh, hopefully y'all find my input interesting, but please don't think about it too too hard, because I'd like another five years' worth of head start if it's alright with you. Anyway, comment sections are stupid, organizations using comment sections are stupid, and the only thing about NPR's choice that's weird to me is that they didn't see the writing on the wall literally ten years ago, the goddamn morons.
posted by rorgy at 9:50 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
As such, it is endlessly frustrating to me that it takes so damn long for new methods of communication to emerge, since the barrier is almost entirely imaginative rather than technological one. You can boil down 99% of all public online discussion to three basic modes: "everybody get in a pile", "everybody in a pile [sorted by ranking system], and "everybody talk at everybody else in a series of overlapping piles". MetaFilter is the first; Disqus and Reddit are the second; Twitter and Tumblr are the third. These are all ridiculously crude. The second one emerged because somebody thought that the same crowd that was shitting all over the comments sections could be improved by letting the same crowd vote on comments; the third one emerged totally by accident, and its only seeming "principle" is that we should let everybody see what everybody else has to say to them. Depressing stuff!
Blog comments, way back when, were a crude way of allowing individual writers to overlap with one another. Rather than using a blog callback (remember those?), a blogger could write on somebody else's blog, and include a URL back to their site for people to follow. This is great, if you have under a dozen people talking in a space at once! Why people thought that would work better if it was extended to millions of people simultaneously is baffling to me! Way to take a publishing environment that works best when posts are digestible in five-minute chunks and attach literal hours of discourse to it! No wonder comment systems are so goddamn awful; in virtually all cases, the only people who think there's value in them are either deluded about how the Internet works, or genuinely awful people themselves.
It's amazing to me how relatively small modifications to a system can yield tremendous changes. Take Tumblr, for example. Tumblr's reblogging system serves as a kind of mixture of Twitter's retweet/reply system and a typical comment section (because comments in a thread are preserved with every reblog). That yields a forest of responses that is difficult to consume in full, but within individual response threads, you can follow the line of conversation very easily—and, if you use Tumblr as your reader, you are clued into discussions taking place amongst your acquaintances because the same post pops up every time a new comment occurs. This is still an absurdly crude solution, one that could be iterated and improved upon in a few very simple ways, but even that results in much better feedback than a comment thread alone does.
I think it's a major disappointment that news organizations haven't dedicated teams to working out better ways of handling citizen discussions. I think that, if it's anybody's responsibility, it's been theirs. But the only organization I know of that's put any amount of effort into such a thing is Gawker, whose Kinja system has been all kinds of broken because it genuinely experiments with how discussions ought to work. It's a shame that now it looks like Univision will close Gawker for good, because the last year of Gawker comments has been something of a golden age for Internet commentary, on par with MetaFilter in a lot of ways but with a much more organic mode of discussion. (Which only makes sense! Their technology is nearly two decades more advanced than ours here is!)
One of my two great hopes is that we'll pass a threshold and suddenly everybody on the Internet will start hunting for the new best way for people to talk to each other. My other, more selfish hope, is that we all continue to act stupid about this, so my future start-up can land me millions and I can abuse my fame and fortune like I've always wanted to. So, uh, hopefully y'all find my input interesting, but please don't think about it too too hard, because I'd like another five years' worth of head start if it's alright with you. Anyway, comment sections are stupid, organizations using comment sections are stupid, and the only thing about NPR's choice that's weird to me is that they didn't see the writing on the wall literally ten years ago, the goddamn morons.
posted by rorgy at 9:50 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I've come to the conclusion that a knee-jerk freedom of speech defense, even in environments where there is no reasonable expectation of unmoderated speech, is primarily an expression of privilege. Maybe exclusively. Maybe. I don't have the energy to wade through the cartoons of antisemitic caricatures getting shot, the threats of sexual violence, the collection of 70 links to Phishing scams that promise free access to movies, the astroturtfing campaigns designed to smear political opponents, the bullying jokes, the Islamophobic support groups, and the raging homophobes to determine which wasn't aren't trolls but are just horrible, horrible human beings.
posted by maxsparber at 10:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 10:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Not sure why NPR became such a prime target for the Keyboard Kommando Korps and Redstate Rangers.For the same reason that the Guardian did, I think: these folks consider themselves Brave Fighters for Truth, and they think they are courageously storming the fortresses of liberalism and political correctness and taking on the SJWs and Libtards on their home turf. They don't want to talk to people who agree with them. They want to fell their enemies with their giant truth sticks.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:50 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not sure why NPR became such a prime target for the Keyboard Kommando Korps and Redstate Rangers.
Because people think they're right about X and need to tell that world. The internet opened up the lines of communication, but all of us are still little islands, seeing things from our very narrow perspectives, yet thinking everyone thinks the same as us or worse, should. We're very resistant to the idea that there are multiple ways to see things and that sometimes not any particular view is correct.
Personally, this is why I usually post about space or science stuff on MeFi these days, because it's often, but always, about an objective truth and there's less of need to argue. Though the internet does find a way!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:00 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Because people think they're right about X and need to tell that world. The internet opened up the lines of communication, but all of us are still little islands, seeing things from our very narrow perspectives, yet thinking everyone thinks the same as us or worse, should. We're very resistant to the idea that there are multiple ways to see things and that sometimes not any particular view is correct.
Personally, this is why I usually post about space or science stuff on MeFi these days, because it's often, but always, about an objective truth and there's less of need to argue. Though the internet does find a way!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:00 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I think it's a major disappointment that news organizations haven't dedicated teams to working out better ways of handling citizen discussions.
On what do you base your assumption that they haven't?
I so wish y'all could know how much work and money has been put into this and how much good-faith effort by good-faith humans you would really like and really sympathize with was expended trying to keep this from being the outcome. This assumption that nobody is trying is ... endlessly frustrating.
(Disclosure: I work at NPR.)
posted by Linda_Holmes at 12:06 PM on August 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
On what do you base your assumption that they haven't?
I so wish y'all could know how much work and money has been put into this and how much good-faith effort by good-faith humans you would really like and really sympathize with was expended trying to keep this from being the outcome. This assumption that nobody is trying is ... endlessly frustrating.
(Disclosure: I work at NPR.)
posted by Linda_Holmes at 12:06 PM on August 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
Linda Holmes of Monkey See!
I'd be curious to hear more about the work that has been put into this, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I'd love to know what NPR has attempted and why it hasn't worked.
posted by maxsparber at 12:17 PM on August 18, 2016
I'd be curious to hear more about the work that has been put into this, and I don't mean that sarcastically. I'd love to know what NPR has attempted and why it hasn't worked.
posted by maxsparber at 12:17 PM on August 18, 2016
On what do you base your assumption that they haven't?
The comments that I used to see allowed to stand under articles on npr.org.
I have no doubt NPR expended effort on the idea, at least with regards to pondering it and making decisions. But when I look at what used to survive undeleted under articles on NPR, or what continues to be under the articles at WashingtonPost.com, the only conclusion I can come to is that said outlet's efforts didn't include a willingness to kill the awful with fire. Either via the willingness to really stomp down on bullshit or the willingness to pay/enable employees to do it.
If the choice is between an un/under-managed cesspool and no comments at all, okay, I'm down with no comments. But as someone who values online communities and the possibilities of engagement I'm sad to see feedback methods go. And based on what I saw in those comments before this move it's hard for me to believe that there was ever a willingness to really be ruthless in the way that is necessary to keep public comment sections free of garbage.
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on August 18, 2016
The comments that I used to see allowed to stand under articles on npr.org.
I have no doubt NPR expended effort on the idea, at least with regards to pondering it and making decisions. But when I look at what used to survive undeleted under articles on NPR, or what continues to be under the articles at WashingtonPost.com, the only conclusion I can come to is that said outlet's efforts didn't include a willingness to kill the awful with fire. Either via the willingness to really stomp down on bullshit or the willingness to pay/enable employees to do it.
If the choice is between an un/under-managed cesspool and no comments at all, okay, I'm down with no comments. But as someone who values online communities and the possibilities of engagement I'm sad to see feedback methods go. And based on what I saw in those comments before this move it's hard for me to believe that there was ever a willingness to really be ruthless in the way that is necessary to keep public comment sections free of garbage.
posted by phearlez at 12:23 PM on August 18, 2016
And based on what I saw in those comments before this move it's hard for me to believe that there was ever a willingness to really be ruthless in the way that is necessary to keep public comment sections free of garbage.
Well, I think if it were this simple (if you want to get rid of garbage comments, you just get rid of them), the universe of news site comment sections would look really different, but I get that we may just disagree on that point.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 1:42 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I think if it were this simple (if you want to get rid of garbage comments, you just get rid of them), the universe of news site comment sections would look really different, but I get that we may just disagree on that point.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 1:42 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mefi is also running about, 1/10th of the "content" as most news sites.
But generally, I think unstructured many-to-many discourse modes are a proven failure. I think tumblr in many ways is going to have the same problems as twitter in a few years because it's easy to create a pseudonymous "sideblog" for the purpose of stalking and "call-outs" (which have become code for harassment), and unless you proactively play blocklist whack-a-mole there's little to prevent a post from being thread-jacked. Neither moderation or blocklists seem to scale as well as comment mobs.
Since comments beyond a certain scale are socially broken, I suspect one potential solution is to break the responsive user interface and make comments a limited resource. You get N a day. Alternately, each comment triggers an exponentially increasing timer. You no longer get to respond to every person you have political beef against with "bad post," or "sez who?," or trivially rephrased talking points.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:28 PM on August 18, 2016
But generally, I think unstructured many-to-many discourse modes are a proven failure. I think tumblr in many ways is going to have the same problems as twitter in a few years because it's easy to create a pseudonymous "sideblog" for the purpose of stalking and "call-outs" (which have become code for harassment), and unless you proactively play blocklist whack-a-mole there's little to prevent a post from being thread-jacked. Neither moderation or blocklists seem to scale as well as comment mobs.
Since comments beyond a certain scale are socially broken, I suspect one potential solution is to break the responsive user interface and make comments a limited resource. You get N a day. Alternately, each comment triggers an exponentially increasing timer. You no longer get to respond to every person you have political beef against with "bad post," or "sez who?," or trivially rephrased talking points.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:28 PM on August 18, 2016
Well, I think if it were this simple (if you want to get rid of garbage comments, you just get rid of them), the universe of news site comment sections would look really different,
No, it's not that simple. It's this simple: if you want to get rid of garbage comments, you just get rid of them by employing sufficient staff and/or freeing up and empowering existing staff to get rid of them. And then you live with the blowback generated - a lot of which might be from people you're asking for money and who, by their being in the group of people passionate enough to engage and comment, may be more likely to be within that group more likely to give.
I don't know that all of that applies at NPR, but I do know by virtue of one of my professional obligations that at one site (which I will not name because I like buying food), which is funded in no small part by contributions, they put up with a lot more commenter bullshit than they'd like precisely because they[believe they] can't afford to alienate their commenters. Maybe that's not a factor in NPR's decisions, but I'd bet a week's salary that the time and cost involved in moderation was a factor.
I do not dispute that I don't know everything or even most things going on inside the NPR mind, and I wholely admit that I ascribe to the Anil Dash philosophy. But I just can't reconcile what I have seen in the past on Code Switch and other NPR comment areas with the idea that a strident deletion policy was tried. I guess it could have been later, or by the time I saw what I saw the white flag had been waved.
Alternately, each comment triggers an exponentially increasing timer.
Even Reddit uses this scheme. You can't go into threads (or at least not in all subreddits, maybe it's a per-sub rule) and reply to a half dozen different comments. Don't ask me how I shamefully know...
posted by phearlez at 2:40 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
No, it's not that simple. It's this simple: if you want to get rid of garbage comments, you just get rid of them by employing sufficient staff and/or freeing up and empowering existing staff to get rid of them. And then you live with the blowback generated - a lot of which might be from people you're asking for money and who, by their being in the group of people passionate enough to engage and comment, may be more likely to be within that group more likely to give.
I don't know that all of that applies at NPR, but I do know by virtue of one of my professional obligations that at one site (which I will not name because I like buying food), which is funded in no small part by contributions, they put up with a lot more commenter bullshit than they'd like precisely because they[believe they] can't afford to alienate their commenters. Maybe that's not a factor in NPR's decisions, but I'd bet a week's salary that the time and cost involved in moderation was a factor.
I do not dispute that I don't know everything or even most things going on inside the NPR mind, and I wholely admit that I ascribe to the Anil Dash philosophy. But I just can't reconcile what I have seen in the past on Code Switch and other NPR comment areas with the idea that a strident deletion policy was tried. I guess it could have been later, or by the time I saw what I saw the white flag had been waved.
Alternately, each comment triggers an exponentially increasing timer.
Even Reddit uses this scheme. You can't go into threads (or at least not in all subreddits, maybe it's a per-sub rule) and reply to a half dozen different comments. Don't ask me how I shamefully know...
posted by phearlez at 2:40 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I honestly don't see how a paid staffing solution can scale with the kind of semi-organized, harassment and trolling mobs that we've seen over the last few years, at least not without having the authority to shut down the whole thing down. These campaigns snowball over a matter of hours.
And is it really the mission of NPR (or any other news organization) to invest so much work into policing the posting behavior of such a small fraction of their audience? If NPR really wants to acknowledge how people are responding to their work, they can pick up an intern, call them a "Social Media Ombudsman" and run a daily feature collecting and curating responses to the top articles of the day.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:42 PM on August 18, 2016
And is it really the mission of NPR (or any other news organization) to invest so much work into policing the posting behavior of such a small fraction of their audience? If NPR really wants to acknowledge how people are responding to their work, they can pick up an intern, call them a "Social Media Ombudsman" and run a daily feature collecting and curating responses to the top articles of the day.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:42 PM on August 18, 2016
I've never has any trouble ignoring threads with dumb comments, or threads that simply don't interest me. Forum moderation often appears to me something that may appeal to people because they just can't help themselves about getting worked up over what others are saying.
Leaving aside the issue of various kinds of offense that can drive people out, there's also a thing that happens where discourse can become either rigid or dumb. So predictable or banal that people who want more out of a forum or have more to give simply lose interest. I've seen formerly vibrant spaces for conversation hollow out and then become ghost towns over this.
posted by wildblueyonder at 3:46 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Leaving aside the issue of various kinds of offense that can drive people out, there's also a thing that happens where discourse can become either rigid or dumb. So predictable or banal that people who want more out of a forum or have more to give simply lose interest. I've seen formerly vibrant spaces for conversation hollow out and then become ghost towns over this.
posted by wildblueyonder at 3:46 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This problem has been studied since the 1980s with university listserv discussions where there was minimal anonymity. And it's fairly consistent that women disproportionately are driven out by flamey discussions.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:17 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 4:17 PM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh, of course the costs were a factor. They were totally transparent about that. I didn't mean to hide the ball about that. When I say I think people tried, I don't mean they showed willingness to divert unlimited resources away from journalism and over to deleting comments.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 4:35 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Linda_Holmes at 4:35 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I honestly don't see how a paid staffing solution can scale with the kind of semi-organized, harassment and trolling mobs that we've seen over the last few years, at least not without having the authority to shut down the whole thing down. These campaigns snowball over a matter of hours.
If every comment has to pass a gauntlet of automated and human oversight before it gets published, that problem goes away. Just having such a system would stop most troublemakers from submitting, leaving a much smaller set to review.
Again, it comes down to: do you want to get intelligent comments on the article, or do you want to babysit a debating club at the bottom of the article?
BTW I'm all for open discussion on the internet (eg here), but I don't think that every comment section under every news article needs to be that.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:11 PM on August 18, 2016
If every comment has to pass a gauntlet of automated and human oversight before it gets published, that problem goes away. Just having such a system would stop most troublemakers from submitting, leaving a much smaller set to review.
Again, it comes down to: do you want to get intelligent comments on the article, or do you want to babysit a debating club at the bottom of the article?
BTW I'm all for open discussion on the internet (eg here), but I don't think that every comment section under every news article needs to be that.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:11 PM on August 18, 2016
Just had another idea: there could be a comment field under every article (usual conditions for signup, etc), but these post to a separate forum section (also linked from the article), and only the comments selected by a moderator would get placed underneath the article. This provides commenters with an arena for discussion/debate, but keeps the article page itself noise-free.
posted by Artful Codger at 8:18 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Artful Codger at 8:18 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older Pac animal | Jeffrey Wood Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It's like looking in a mirror.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:09 PM on August 17, 2016 [52 favorites]