Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: rogerd
Members of the blogosphere were up in arms Friday after The Washington Post turned off comments on one of its blogs.Storm in the blogsphere [news.com.com]
We all know that good moderating can save a public blog or forum from poster problems.
But, do we have a similar issue as usenet had when it comes to public blogs? The only difference is the fragmentation.
there are things that we said we would not allow, including personal attacks, the use of profanity and hate speech. Because a significant number of folks who have posted in this blog have refused to follow any of those relatively simple rules, we've decided not to allow comments for the time being. It's a shame that it's come to this. Transparency and reasoned debate are crucial parts of the Web culture, and it's a disappointment to us that we have not been able to maintain a civil conversation, especially about issues that people feel strongly (and differently) about.
Unusual, profane and sick comments ought to be tolerated.
There are plenty of places on the Web (or on talk radio, for that matter) where rude, nasty people can blow off steam. There's no reason why the POST should feel obligated to let such people take over its Web site.
apparently the owner of the blog, The Washington Post, disagrees and they have every right to do so. I wouldn't tolerate them either
There's no reason why the POST should feel obligated to let such people take over its Web site.
I agree, though it's yet another example where small abuses of the medium wind up diminishing it a lot.
It's also a small part of the censorship debate that's heating up now. Where do we draw the line between good vs bad commentary? Subjectivity rules that roost.
I wonder if some form of open moderation where abusive/advertising comments could be zapped out after x complaints would work? The problem there is that politically offensive stuff gets treated the same as simple spam.
It's too bad that they chose the no-comment route instead of moderation.
Nasty/hateful/whatever comments = Bad PR (public relations, not page rank), and Bad PR costs money.
Moderation costs money.
Turning off comments may be purely financially driven.
I hate to see it, but then again, personally, I can't really blame them. I've thought about shutting down a website or two because of that kind of thing. Eventually, I went to a moderated format, but it is expensive in terms of time and effort.
The few bad apples always seem to spoil the basket.
I am Admin on a popular geo-political forum that is part of a large online newspapaer in Asia. Our biggest problems with the board seem to be the exact reason that the WP closed theirs.
As Admin I have been called all manner of obscenities for making decisions, closing threads, warning people etc. We seem to attract a lot of religious and political extremists.
I have turned new registrations off for the last few months, only turning them back on today ... I hope it doesnt turn into hell online again!
I think that is inevitable on any forum or blog that covers politics. In the old days, these people would be on a streetcorner standing on a box yelling speeches; now, it's much easier to do the yelling online.
It's too bad... there are lots of people who are willing to listen to what others have to say and to comment in a polite manner. A minority of extreme posters, though, can make the community less pleasant for everyone.
instead of deleting accounts or banning people, you trick the bad apples such that they think they can still post and they see their posts with everybody else's posts, but in fact they're the only ones who can see their posts.
Hahaha! That has actually occurred to me. Put them on "ignore" globally and then just let them wonder why no one responds to them.
Of course, the jig's up when either their friends visit the site or they visit the site while not logged in.
It's still tempting, though.