Search: Site   Web
The Newsroom ~ Where readers and editors discuss how the Gazette covers the news.

Archive for the 'comments' Category

Spoiling it for everybody

July 22nd, 2009, 3:39 pm by Jeff Thomas

The News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., is up to here with the lunkheads who take online discussions into the sewer. Editor John Robinson tells readers that the news website will not permit any comments whatsoever “on stories that tend to bring in the most offensive, inappropriate and starkly off-topic comments. We’re talking crime stories, stories about immigration, and almost anything about race and sex.”

Here in the Springs, gazette.com editors already have developed a sixth sense about what kinds of stories will bring out the trolls.

Immigration is a sure firestarter. So is any move by any kind of religious institution. Sexual-identity politics. Doug Bruce. Traffic enforcement.

Red meat, all of it.

We aren’t prepared to shut down comments on stories we know will bait the trolls. We default toward more discussion, not less.

But there are days . . .

I remember former CBS newsman and now NPR commentator Daniel Schorr telling NPR’s Scott Simon a few months ago that, as the barriers to instant global communication have fallen away thanks to the internet, so has the internal discipline of communication that had forced each of us to consider what we say and how it will be received. Just as health insurance has insulated patients from the financial costs of their treatment decisions, so has unmoderated digital communication insulated us from the impact, to say nothing of the clarity, of our words. We blather. We don’t focus. We abandon grammar. We’ve forgotten how to think critically. And we don’t seem to care who gets hurt in the process.

I’m not ready to shut down the comment boards. But believe me, I understand.

. . . .and a good time was had by all

March 12th, 2009, 12:03 pm by Jeff Thomas

Six people who anonymously trade sharp comments and occasional insults online met face-to-face Wednesday at the Colorado Springs Gazette.

No one was injured in the 2-hour meeting.

Another 47 people participated in the meeting via Internet hookup, posting 275 comments and each staying logged on for an average of 30 minutes. The two groups — those in the room and those participating via liveblog — traded questions and comments about the current state of online discourse.

Only those in the room, however, could nibble on the modest spread of cookies provided by the Gazette.

The meeting was the brainchild of Gazette columnist Barry Noreen, who had, two weeks earlier, mused about the tone of online debate at gazette.com. He struck a nerve. The comments about comments became one of the longer online discussions ever at gazette.com. Along the way, a participant wondered whether face-to-face debate would be any less heated and more productive than the flame wars that typically erupt in anonymous online forums.

Noreen took up the idea and invited folks to a face-to-face meeting, at the Gazette. The date was set and the invitation extended.

Much hemming and hawing ensued among the commentariat. Some regular participants in gazette.com forums expressed eagerness to meet the faces behind the avatars. Others, who wrote that they preferred to remain anonymous, vowed to stay away.

Wednesday evening, the Gazette doors opened and a half-dozen folks slapped on nametags with their online handles, such as Pondfrogz, Retrofunk, and Jillann.

“Do any of them have fangs and look like axe murderers?” asked an Internet participant logged in under the handle “moonshine.”

“*Laughter* no, just regular folks,” was the reply from the group in the room, whose discussion was transcribed by Gazette online staffer Jackie Myers.

That was followed by an online comment from a participant logged in as “Loring:” “I am seriously interested in attending future events if there are others. Dang, everyone sounds normal.”

That’s the way Myers saw it, too: “The discussion is fairly general… but very relaxed and respectful,” she posted.

Noreen said Thursday that future face-to-face sessions ought to be arranged. Next time, he said, computers should be made available to those who show up, so they can converse directly with those participating via the Web.

Red meat

January 19th, 2009, 7:25 pm by Jeff Thomas

Nothing like a news story about speeding enforcement to bring out the commenters. Story was posted at 12:49 p.m. I’ll be surprised if it’s not in the “most commented” segment of the home page by quittin’ time.

UPDATE: 5 hours later, it’s in both the “most commented” and “most viewed” categories.

Don’t make me turn this car around

September 11th, 2008, 12:02 pm by Jeff Thomas

Just took a spin through the comments under the story about the Peyton Elementary School principal who made the schoolkids handle a bag of human feces that had been scraped up from one of the school’s bathrooms — apparently left there by a student. The principal intended to drive home a lesson about the inappropriateness of it all, but a lot of parents thought his method was inappropriate and the principal issued an apology.

More than a few of the comments played off the scatalogical element of the story a bit too graphically. I’ve deleted them. A couple folks got entirely too worked up about the story and started hurling insults at others.

Four-letter words are not permitted, folks. Neither are their clever approximations. Keep it clean.

Personal attacks likewise are against our rules. You are free to ignore our rules — elsewhere.

Thank you. Carry on.

Deleted comments

August 11th, 2008, 5:40 pm by Jeff Thomas

On the previous post, a few contributors dropped the following comments. I thought I’d get a new post started to handle the topic. Here are excerpts of some of the comments:

Multitudes of comments and opinions are being deleted..within minutes of the posting for no apparent reason. I have sent an email to pluck..copying your managing editor(didn’t know just who I should contact about this ridiculous situation). Do you think someone at the Gazette could look into this situation? thanks

. . . [T]here was a flood of deletions over the weekend of opinions and posts that were not even in any way offensive or inflammatory.
It almost appears as though someone went through and deleted nearly every post of certain individuals and practically anyone who was communicating with them. This is most certainly overkill.
If you could check into this on our behalf or forward our inquiry to the appropriate party, we would be very thankful.

. . . We are having a consistent problem in the Forum section as well as in the story section with several comments being removed for no reason— but then a few weeks ago when someone posted blatant profanity it took some time to get it removed (and the user, although posting very pornographically in the middle of the day, still has an account!)

It seems that some users have multiple accounts- as they post a comment on a story and suddenly have 4 or 5 recommendations. I suspect that they are doing this as well as flagging things over and over again.

Now I see that a lot of legitimate posts were removed for almost no reason. This is getting out of control. For the most part, you have many wonderful users who enjoy a spirited debate and do so respectfully- but there are a few who are incapable of posting anything without including personal insults and they should be dealt with. One user in particular has had 2 accounts suspended and now is on with multiple accounts causing constant problems. This person now claims to have made a friend at Plunk and it seems like that may be the case as many people who have disagreed (respectfully, I may add) seem to be having their posts targeted and removed.

We use a program called SiteLife to provide the ability for visitors to leave comments, post photos, create blogs, and participate in forums. SiteLife is made by a company called Pluck.

Part of the SiteLife program is the “report abuse” function that appears underneath any kind of material contributed by a registered user. If the “report abuse” link is clicked by anybody, the associated content — whether it’s a comment, a photo, a blog post, whatever — is copied and placed in a central administration area where all abuse reports can be reviewed in one place. Gazette editors can review all the comments, etc., that have been flagged by the “report abuse” link, and decide whether the comments indeed should be removed or whether they should stay.

We do not spend our entire days in that admin tool, waiting to adjudicate every click of the “report abuse” link. We’re busy trying to cover the news and get the newspaper out.

For that reason, we also give you and your fellow gazette.com visitors a self-policing tool that can be used until the sheriff arrives. A comment will be temporarily removed from the visible discussion thread if five different registered users independently click the “report abuse” link on the same item. That way, if visitors spot a flagrantly inappropriate comment while editors are busy doing other things, they have the ability to temporarily remove it, and not have to wait for a Gazette editor to come across it.

Comments that receive five independent “report abuse” clicks are placed in the same SiteLife admin tool for review. After we review it, we can restore the comment if we think it does not violate our terms of use, or we can delete it for good if we agree that it was right to flag the comment as inappropriate.

If comments are literally disappearing within moments of being posted, one of three things is happening:

  1. SiteLife is malfunctioning
  2. Five independent people are working together, pouncing immediately on particular comments
  3. A Gazette editor happens to be reading the post at that moment and has decided it should be deleted.

For the record, I don’t think No. 3 has ever happened.

If you think your comments are disappearing for no good reason, send me the details — story name, date, time, etc. — and we can see if it’s a simple malfunction.

Whenever someone clicks the “report abuse” link, their user name also is attached to that report. So, we can see whether there are gangs of registered users banding together to wage deletion campaigns. I’ve never found evidence in the admin tool that any group of users is ganging up on anyone else. But we’ll stay on the lookout.

As Gazette editors, we tend to give contributors the most latitude possible within the bounds of our terms of use. Almost any comment is fair game, as long as it is on topic, suitable for family viewing, and is devoid of personal attack. As a business, it’s not in our interest to restrict comments. More comments = more pageviews, which is what we want.

No one at Pluck has the ability to change or remove any comments at gazette.com.

I agree that in general, people are too quick to click on the “report abuse” link. Most often, what is flagged as abuse is nothing more than an opinion. It’s not abuse, under my interpretation of our policy anyway, to say “that’s a stupid idea.” It is abuse to say “Your’e stupid.”

Silent no more

July 25th, 2008, 8:34 am by Jeff Thomas

We’ve dropped our policy of keeping reporters, photographers and editors out of the “comments” threads under each story at gazette.com.

Much of our staff already blogs anyway, and they interact with readers in the comments under their blog posts. That ability to communicate directly with readers is now extended to the story-comments threads. As others have said, news is a conversation, and we’re trying to keep journalists at the center of the community’s conversations.

Our staff will post under their real names, or transparent approximations such as my own handle, jthomas. They will attempt to clear up questions about news events and stories, provide new facts, direct readers to additional resources, and just generally explain how information was verified.

They will not share their opinions about the news.

A comments record

May 12th, 2008, 1:57 pm by Jeff Thomas

KOAA TV was just here to ask me some questions about the number of comments that readers have posted under the John Newsome story. At the time of their visit, the comments numbered 539. I don’t have logs at hand, but that’s got to be a record for any single story. Even 60 or 70 comments is pretty unusual.
Aside from the inherent news of videotape capturing the district attorney down a lot of beer and then get behind the wheel, twice, the story has prompted intense discussion about the responsibility of public servants to live up a higher standard, about the role of the news media and the hidden-video method KOAA used to get this story, about the reaction — or lack of one — from the (inconveniently named) bar association, attorney general, and the local Republican Party.
This story rang a lot of chimes, and readers who have taken the time to log on and comment at gazette.com have been discussing them all. And if the discussion at gazette.com is only a small fraction of discussion across the community at large, then this story has been biggest talker of the year so far.

Profile = bias?

May 4th, 2008, 6:58 pm by Jeff Thomas

A reader sent me a note saying he will drop the paper because of “your distortion of NEWS in favor of your ideological and political values.”

The reader claims our news stories betray a conservative bent. In particular, Sunday’s front-page story about Peyton resident Krsiti Burton’s attempt to place an anti-abortion measure on the Colorado ballot is an example of “playing to your evangelical right wing readers.”

“Hopefully they will be enough to keep you in business,” the reader says.

As of Sunday night, the story was the object of a lengthy and intense debate among readers, judging by the online comments. A good number of them have a very low regard for Burton’s initiative. If we were biased as accused, we would delete criticism of the measure.

Point is, we don’t use our news pages to make a play for conservatives, liberals, Whigs, Know-Nothings, anarchists or people of any other political persuasion. Some stories deal with topics that appeal to various groups. But publishing a story whose topic is appealing to a particular group is not the same thing as carrying that group’s water. A few weeks ago, we published a story about a local Jewish teen who didn’t like the fact that her school had scheduled its prom on Passover. The story didn’t claim one or the other was correct. It was simply an interesting issue that pitted some basic values against each other — the kind of conundrum that pluralistic societies have to work through.

The Burton story is a profile of a local person responsible for a citizen initiative that, should it qualify for the ballot, promises to be the most controversial measure placed before Colorado voters since Amendment 2. What the story is not, is a complete analysis of the pros and cons of her idea. That story will come later, if the measure makes it to the ballot. That’s the way we, and any other newspaper I can think of, does things. People in the news, especially local people, get profiled. Ballot measures get examined closely, once they’re actually on the ballot.

Sociology 101

April 18th, 2008, 11:43 am by Jeff Thomas

Nothing like a story about traffic and parking tickets to bring out the comments. Sometimes I think we could construct a profitable new model of online journalism on the back of nothing but news of traffic enforcement.

Case in point: Pam Zubeck’s story on the spike in parking-ticket revenue is getting the most hits of any news story so far today.  The comment board is buzzing.

I did some quick measurements, and found that yesterday’s uplifting story by Justin Shaw about Candy Bergst, who survived a near-fatal scare from a viral infection to become one of the best soccer players in high school, got much more readership at first than did Pam’s story about tickets.  In the first six hours it was posted, Justin’s story had been viewed 1,851 times. Pam’s story about tickets was viewed 127 times in its first six hours online (though readership has since grown quickly and the growth in views has had more staying power than did the story about Bergst, which tailed off quickly).

What’s interesting, though, is the scores of comments that the parking-tickets story has attracted. The heartwarming story of Candy Bergst, much more widely viewed at first, ultimately attracted only a handful of comments from readers.

My theory: People will speak up about topics and experiences about which they feel they have a stake. Or some first-hand knowledge. Or a healthy dose of self-righteousness.

Or, perhaps, stories with the ingredients to spark a lively debate will encourage people to jump in. No one was going to take a position about Candy Bergst other than “good for her.”

But a good debate, it seems, attracts its own audience. When the story involves facts that can be used to support various arguments, people will log on and spout off. The discussion becomes more about the debate among readers, and less about the story itself.

Until the Internet arrived, these are the kinds of observations that editors could only glimpse through the fog of the occasional phone call or letter. Now we have monitors on our newsroom walls watching our web traffic minute-by-minute.

The return of the Metro section and other changes

March 24th, 2008, 9:51 am by Jeff Thomas

This column was published in Sunday’s print edition: 

Metro is back.
On Tuesday, March 25, the Metro section returns, separated from the A section.
But that’s only the first of several changes coming to The Gazette on Tuesday.
The most sweeping change will be the paper’s size. Our pages will be one inch narrower. The top-to-bottom length of the pages will not change.
The change is meant to save money, of course. After payroll, newsprint is our largest single expense, and this change will reduce newsprint consumption by about 8 percent.
Newspapers have been cutting costs for several years to offset declining print-advertising revenue as the news business migrates from paper to pixels. Publishers are shrinking their newsrooms and their delivery territories, outsourcing where they can, and reducing newsprint consumption.
Last year, for example, the agency that publishes the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post hired The Gazette to deliver their papers in our region. Our newsroom shares stories with the Rocky and the Greeley Tribune. My gut says these kind of partnerships will become more common.
Editors are taking a hard look at all the forms of news and information they put on the press. That brings me to the other changes you’ll see in your Gazette starting Tuesday:
- The Business section will move into the Metro section. The move saves newsprint, and it gives business a later deadline, so news can be updated later in the evening.
- On Saturdays, stocks and mutual-fund listings will be replaced with a page of market summaries, as is done currently Tuesdays-Fridays.
- On Sundays, the Travel section will be merged into the Life section.
- The daily TV programming grid, which has appeared on the Pop page Monday-Saturday, will be eliminated. Almost every listing in the grid also is contained in the Sunday TV guide. We will publish, on the Pop page, any programming changes or updates.
- The opinion pages will appear in the final two interior pages of the A section. Obituaries will precede the opinion pages, as they do now.
- The weather report will be published on the back of the metro/business section.
Any time changes are made, we get calls from readers who say the type has been made smaller. I promise, we are not changing the size of any type.
Finally, you’ll notice one change that should make the Gazette easier to read. We will display the continuation of the lead front-page story on page A2. No more thumbing to the back of paper. Most other story “jumps” will be confined to the very front section.
Our daily calendar will be expanded and moved to page A3. Also on A3, you’ll find a robust roundup of the best reading and viewing now appearing at gazette.com.
For generations, newspapers didn’t change much. They didn’t have to. Those days are gone, and change is the new constant. More are sure to come, and all of our changes will be made with the objective of being an essential provider of, and guide to, local news and information.

ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site