Apologies if my title isn’t as textually delectable as others, but my point stands, and as I use profanity in this instance not to degrade but to show emphasis as I soooo love to, I say again… Carolyn Wood, you’ve texticulated something great here! Well Done!!!
One of the comments to your inspiring article inspired me to change the comment form on my own blog. It no longer says ‘post a comment.’ It now says ‘what can you contribute?’ I’ll be interested to see if this produces any change in the tone or quality of comments.
As I wrote about this article on my blog, one of the reasons that the change in focus that Carolyn recommends transforms the conversation is that “like and dislike” are judgments. By their nature, judgments are personal… and as such tend to lead to an emotional response.
I’m not trying to be Rousseau, but I believe a lot of conversation – not just conversation online – could benefit from a dash of reason before a kick from the gut. But as @Lea notes, critical thinking skills are required. And how well are those skills “taught”?
@Carolyn – I moderate a politics forum. Ugh. I’ve tried a variety of ways to move participants from shouting matches and sniping to reasoned but spirited discussion, without a great deal of success, I might add. Well, sniping is down, but so is traffic. Members complain that I want to have a “tea party” when politics is a “wrestling match.” I disagree, but haven’t been convincing. I’m going to let this article sink in a bit and then see how I can (a) change our posting guidelines and (b) change how I make suggestions to participants.
@Ben … I “learned” in my late 20s that my reaction to traffic said more about me than about other drivers … in that I “heard” this at a conference and went “wow!” However, it was a decade or two later before I learned it again … and then I was able to actually act on the knowledge. Rather than the letting other drivers “make me angry” … I finally learned that I am in power. I am the mistress of my emotions.
So when I cringe at a barb in comments on a post I’ve made, I ask myself, “what’s really going on here” before I post a response. In that, I’m kinda like @Drew … I try not to respond in haste. But I rarely wait 24 hours! But if I do respond in haste (hey, I’m human), I try to follow the advice here: when you’re wrong or acting hot-headed, apologize.
The article is very particular, laudably, about how commenting on the Web can be entered into in a positive way (I especially appreciate the advice to blog writers as to how to deal with commenters). However, this is essentially simple stuff (that not enough people adhere to, albeit). Even the expectation that a commenter read the article in question carefully and allow it to mull around is far too prescriptive, really. The model for commenting on blogs etc is fundamentally schizophrenic (does it comprise a multi-headed conversation or is it a set of virginal comments on the original article?) and broken – this is essentially a design issue. If I haven’t given a blog entry much especial time or thought, yet make a perfectly positive, constructive comment in the context of the conversation (didn’t mean all that alliteration!), it’s not my fault that someone else, or even the blogger themself, might then opine that I’m not playing ball. I’m a user, trying to “kick ass” as Kathy Sierra would put it, and you’ve got to try and help me, remember?
I have plans for how to improve the situation, and remove the ego projection that seems to comprise the base material of 90% of online commentary. Anyone who’s interested in talking about how one might go about slaying that particular dragon, do drop me a line! (Clue: threaded comments are, indeed, a hellish as you think they are.)
@ Douglas Thanks for your comments. I tried to emphasize that I was talking particularly about magazine and organizational sites, rather than blogs, and also that my first list of pointers was just the basics and that I wanted to suggest that we go beyond the basics.
Thus, my second list, and call for more ideas for the second list that take us beyond not being a jerk to actually collaborating or getting somewhere more important. As I said, the first list was just the basics. Yes, you are right. That list reminds us not to be jerks, even in unintended ways. I needed to cover those before moving on in the article, since so many of us ignore the basics.
Writing about individual blogs would be difficult, since each one is unique, and the author has the right to do anything he wants….and will reap whatever responses he earns from his choices. If you can develop plans for improving the situation for magazines and community sites and/or blogs, that would be wonderful!
@Michiel (#17) – I like that idea of a split between actual commentary/discussion and the “good job” type of comments that dilute the value of an article’s comment section. Rather than a rating, though, how about two different ‘piles’ of comments; one a list of thanks (so the commenters still get to leave their name and URL), and the other a list of longer comments? (Not an original idea, I borrowed it from the mininova.org torrent site.)
One thing this article didn’t address for me (unless my mid-morning skim reading let me down…) is how to encourage this kind of commenting in the first place. A few months back I spent quite a while hacking up a commenting system for my site, integrated with our forum so a comment on a news story starts a thread in our forum with a link to the story in question. I took time to tie it into pages and try to spark off discussion, and despite a largeish userbase (30K unique visitors/month) nobody uses the damn thing. How can we persuade apathetic users to get involved?
@Matthew I’m not keen on ratings, either, but on discourse or at least ideas. However, most of the responders here have not only said positive things, but also included ideas or their experience. They don’t look like they’ve included a comment in order to sort of advertise their name and URL (though that may not be what you were implying). If people have something to say, even if it’s positive :) I say, let’s hear them out. If a topic strikes a chord, it’s helpful for us to know that, and good for people who want to be able to say more than “i liked it” to have the freedom to express themselves. But, give it a whirl over in your neck of the woods. It might serve you well, and I’d be interested to see the results. Reducing the number or length of positive comments was not the purpose of this article. :) By the way, for those who might still be visiting this discussion section, Matthew Pennell is a frequent commenter on blogs and at magazines, and while not one of us is perfect, he often leaves comments that show some depth. Keep an eye out for his.
@Matt Funny you should say that. A few months ago I asked someone to write an article on that very subject, or something close to it. It will be great to get your input when we raise that topic. I completely agree that it’s a concern for many people, and really discouraging when things aren’t working.
@Carolyn: I wasn’t referring specifically to magazine-style sites like ALA, more thinking of personal blogs or top-ten style lists where there are a large proportion of “hey, great” comments that don’t add anything to the discussion. Separating out those from the constructive entries would make consuming that content easier.
@Matthew Now I see what you mean. Since the article was specifically not about blogs, my mind focussed in that direction. Yes! I’ve seen blogs with literally 100 comments or more, most of which say, “Cool!” or something along those lines. In that case, it’s just one long list of uninformative affirmations. Combining methods of commenting within one blog—well, it would be challenging to explain it really clearly in only a few words, since you wouldn’t want to encourage people to just give a rating, let’s say, rather than add a good, juicy comment, but it would be very welcome at some of the places that you’ve mentioned. Another path to take would simply to trying to find a way to elicit more from people in their comments than “Fanboy here!” Er, not so simple. :) Thanks for the clarification.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Frederic Saladin
I some what understand people starting to flame at each other. Some times one needs to express his frustration. In forums it may would help trying to isolate the flaming from the discussion by offering a “offical flaming area” as well as obligating moderators to move flame entries into that special area.
Another idea: Let people rate entries as flames (the opposite of rate them as good). I guess people would like that since it would give them an opportunity to express their frustration while providing a filtering possiblity to the others at the same time.
(Sorry for my english skills. I’m not natively speaking english)
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Richard Fink
Ad hominem arguments usually stink. And they are doubly treacherous in an online forum where you can’t look someone in the eye, gauge their body language, none of that.
But that said, there are many occasions when it’s perfectly appropriate to voice an opinion about the motives, intentions, and credibility of those with whom you are interacting.
Judges and juries do this thousands of times every day all over the world and it is both a pertinent and crucial that they do so.
If someone has a hidden agenda, or is being duplicitous, they should be called out on it. Pure and simple.
@Richard You raise a good question, particularly for forums and blogs, where the rules of the game are determined by the people who run them. My article’s focus isn’t on forums or blogs (though I believe that both would benefit from many of the ideas in the article), but rather on online magazines and, really, the few of them that take pains to “vet” articles. So, credibility is rarely an issue.
Motives and intentions seem beside the point to me for the type of articles I discuss. The thing to judge is the article itself and its issue. My advice is to stay focussed on the issue and move it forward, rather than getting sidetracked trying to determine the motivations or intentions of other people in the discussion area. Attorneys, judges and juries have an entire trial to present cases, pro and con, to determine, among other things, motive. Cases built purely on motive are usually called circumstantial. Too, the the purpose of a trial is usually that there is good reason to believe that someone has done something wrong, and our goal is to figure out who. That’s not the purpose of a magazine article, and I’ve tried to point out that when we take trail-like adversarial positions, the result is usually unproductive for everyone involved. If you think an article author is duplicitous, in that their article is a case of plagiarism, your best bet is simply to contact the editors of the magazine (providing proof, of course).
In discussing an article’s issue, what does it matter what the other person’s motive is? What matters is the quality of his or her point about the issue being discussed. As for how to respond to people in the discussion area for a well-vetted article, if you think they are duplicitous or have a hidden agenda? I would have three answers to that: 1) If you think they are duplicitous or have a hidden agenda (and it would be extremely unusual for us to know that for a fact), react only to what they’ve said about the issue. Discuss the value of the point they make, pro or con. I see no reason to comment on them personally. 2) If they are, indeed, duplicitous or have a hidden agenda, such as throwing off or destroying the discussion, they are likely a troll, in which case, those of us with a great deal of experience on the web know that the best course is simply to ignore or delete the comment. Engaging them in discussion is almost never fruitful and only helps them succeed in attempts to throw us off course. 3) If they are simply wrong about a point, and you now that for sure, I addressed that in my article, right after the “Cool Kid’s Table” list. Say what you have to say as graciously as possible. Be open to the idea that you might be the one who is wrong, so that you are still able to continue the dialogue. I have found that even in the sometimes wild and virtually endless forum discussions that I think you are talking about, refusing to be thrown off course or sucked in often starts with firmly refusing to make it personal. As I say to the authors in my article, don’t be too concerned about nasty people. They are self-indicting. Is my article a cure-all for problems in the discussion sections of high-quality magazines (or other places online, as well)? Absolutely not. Impossible. It’s simply a reminder for those who have slipped into bad habits (most of us, at one time or another) and a call for more collaboration. When we’re discussing articles about CSS, JavaScript, IA, Content, PHP, Design, and other subjects related to creating websites (and my article was specifically about the web standards world) in public, I see little reason to get personal. Discussing other issues in other areas of the web, which may be more likely to touch on, say, moral, political, or personal issues, may call for the “calling out” you suggest. I still suggest it be done with civility.
@Frederic Thank you for commenting. Most of us are usually very impressed by people who enter a discussion that isn’t in their first language!
While online forums aren’t really the focus of my article, your comment about rating flamers had me smiling. I believe that 37signals puts dunce caps next to people who seem to be trolls. Although you idea of rating comments as flames is very imaginative, somehow I think that rating flames would just encourage more flaming. Your idea of moving flames to another area in forums (not magazine articles) might actually work. :) I believe that simply venting frustration is probably best to do in emails to friends, in very small private discussion lists where everyone agrees that the list is for venting, in non-personal Twitters, or in our own blogs, etc. Of course, stating our frustration about a subject in an article is fine, if we aren’t personal about it, and we aren’t venting—that’s my opinion, anyway.
Please excuse the typos I just discovered in my last two replies. :) I’m supposed to be on vacation this week, and apparently my spelling is on vacation, too.
I was a bit taken aback to show up on ALA and find an article about a subject I had just covered in a rant on my own “blog”:http://goteama.com/fwiw/articles/19/a-diatribe-or-maybe-just-a-tribe from a different perspective.
I work in film as well as on the web, and I have been really dismayed by the lack of substantive that goes on around films, particularly independent projects. There seem to be many folks who love film out there who are deeply concerned with ridding cinema of anyone who is not yet a perfect craftsman, noob or not.
On the whole I have found that the web community is a bit more tolerant of noobs, and experimentation. This medium really allows people to articulate what works and does not about any product in as much or little detail as they like, yet those thoughts are rarely presented as a way to open discussion. Only a way to stick one’s tongue out, finger up and turn the cold shoulder to the rest of the community.
This was a fantastic article (certainly more coherent than mine) and will hopefully lead to some new ideas in this area. Maybe all of us web heads can come up with a new interface to make commenting more collaborative and less bellicose.
Carolyn, it’s been said better and with fewer words, but this is a terrific piece, one with equal parts head and heart in it. So thank you for that.
I thought readers might be interested in a slide deck NY-based agency Bond Art & Science (disclosure: we’re collegial but share no working relationship) made public this week around braving and engaging the commentariat. It’s here:
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
Erik Reppen
One of the greatest tragedies of the internet is Craigslist’s Rants & Raves, which blew a good thing by allowing users to censor content by flagging it. What was once a brilliant board full of crazed vitriol, unabashed bigotry, and occasional moments of inspired brilliance is now mostly about the unabashed bigotry (and Sox/Cubs fans posting a lot of penis pictures while calling each other “gay” here in Chicago). Nobody wants to open the obviously racist posts (or the baseball posts with pictures attached) so they never get flagged. But if you say something smart or incisive enough to piss somebody off they’ll flag that stuff into oblivion.
You have to allow for some blowing off of steam, I think. When I get my forums up and running, I expect I’ll have one completely anonymous 18+ section that lets people blow their tops and get stuff off of their chests with the one rule being that you don’t get to attack individuals.
When you give users too much control of anything, you provide nothing.
@Erik Sure, build as many forums and blogs as you’d like. The “rules” or lack of rules at each is up to the person or group who builds them, as I said in my article. If you’d like them to be places where people blow off steam, that’s up to you. I agree with you (if I understand one of your points correctly) that unmonitored anonymous rating systems can end up as free-for-alls that yield absolutely no information. Good point.
My article, however, clearly was on a different topic: Sites where carefully crafted, vetted articles are written for people who make websites, and they offer an opportunity to collaborate (even when that means cordially disagreeing). My point was that blowing off steam in these specific places gets us nowhere, doesn’t garner any respect for the “steamer” (in fact, they almost always embarrass themselves), and is a missed opportunity.
Copy & paste the code below to embed this comment.
carlos mosqueda
Granted this article was written a few months ago, but someone suggested it in another comment area. Great piece. To often do I visit someone’s article on how to do something on the web, a new trick, new technology, new way to do things and people come in like they are the Masters of the Web and just criticize the author or people who right meaningful comments about the article. Like I say in many articles, no one forces them to read the article. It is the web, you can choose another site to go to.
I really liked this article because it brings to light so many things that people do all over the web. With the comments section open to all opinions there seems to be people who like to start a slugfest and offer no real substance on how to improve something. Case in point is this article
http://css-tricks.com/smashing-sitemap/comment-page-1/#comment-49709
where the author offers a new way to do something and people come swooping in like the Web police or villans and start bashing the article and offer no ideas of their own to show how something could be different or how they would do it. Just how they think it is pointless, it sucks, or some other bash they can think of.
Great stuff. Love the articles on this site. Very top notch.
Thank you!
41 Reader Comments
Back to the ArticleLloyd Africa
Apologies if my title isn’t as textually delectable as others, but my point stands, and as I use profanity in this instance not to degrade but to show emphasis as I soooo love to, I say again… Carolyn Wood, you’ve texticulated something great here! Well Done!!!
Virginia DeBolt
One of the comments to your inspiring article inspired me to change the comment form on my own blog. It no longer says ‘post a comment.’ It now says ‘what can you contribute?’ I’ll be interested to see if this produces any change in the tone or quality of comments.
kathy gill
As I wrote about this article on my blog, one of the reasons that the change in focus that Carolyn recommends transforms the conversation is that “like and dislike” are judgments. By their nature, judgments are personal… and as such tend to lead to an emotional response.
I’m not trying to be Rousseau, but I believe a lot of conversation – not just conversation online – could benefit from a dash of reason before a kick from the gut. But as @Lea notes, critical thinking skills are required. And how well are those skills “taught”?
@Carolyn – I moderate a politics forum. Ugh. I’ve tried a variety of ways to move participants from shouting matches and sniping to reasoned but spirited discussion, without a great deal of success, I might add. Well, sniping is down, but so is traffic. Members complain that I want to have a “tea party” when politics is a “wrestling match.” I disagree, but haven’t been convincing. I’m going to let this article sink in a bit and then see how I can (a) change our posting guidelines and (b) change how I make suggestions to participants.
@Ben … I “learned” in my late 20s that my reaction to traffic said more about me than about other drivers … in that I “heard” this at a conference and went “wow!” However, it was a decade or two later before I learned it again … and then I was able to actually act on the knowledge. Rather than the letting other drivers “make me angry” … I finally learned that I am in power. I am the mistress of my emotions.
So when I cringe at a barb in comments on a post I’ve made, I ask myself, “what’s really going on here” before I post a response. In that, I’m kinda like @Drew … I try not to respond in haste. But I rarely wait 24 hours! But if I do respond in haste (hey, I’m human), I try to follow the advice here: when you’re wrong or acting hot-headed, apologize.
Douglas Greenshields
… not being a jerk?
The article is very particular, laudably, about how commenting on the Web can be entered into in a positive way (I especially appreciate the advice to blog writers as to how to deal with commenters). However, this is essentially simple stuff (that not enough people adhere to, albeit). Even the expectation that a commenter read the article in question carefully and allow it to mull around is far too prescriptive, really. The model for commenting on blogs etc is fundamentally schizophrenic (does it comprise a multi-headed conversation or is it a set of virginal comments on the original article?) and broken – this is essentially a design issue. If I haven’t given a blog entry much especial time or thought, yet make a perfectly positive, constructive comment in the context of the conversation (didn’t mean all that alliteration!), it’s not my fault that someone else, or even the blogger themself, might then opine that I’m not playing ball. I’m a user, trying to “kick ass” as Kathy Sierra would put it, and you’ve got to try and help me, remember?
I have plans for how to improve the situation, and remove the ego projection that seems to comprise the base material of 90% of online commentary. Anyone who’s interested in talking about how one might go about slaying that particular dragon, do drop me a line! (Clue: threaded comments are, indeed, a hellish as you think they are.)
Carolyn--Wood
@ Douglas Thanks for your comments. I tried to emphasize that I was talking particularly about magazine and organizational sites, rather than blogs, and also that my first list of pointers was just the basics and that I wanted to suggest that we go beyond the basics.
Thus, my second list, and call for more ideas for the second list that take us beyond not being a jerk to actually collaborating or getting somewhere more important. As I said, the first list was just the basics. Yes, you are right. That list reminds us not to be jerks, even in unintended ways. I needed to cover those before moving on in the article, since so many of us ignore the basics.
Writing about individual blogs would be difficult, since each one is unique, and the author has the right to do anything he wants….and will reap whatever responses he earns from his choices. If you can develop plans for improving the situation for magazines and community sites and/or blogs, that would be wonderful!
Matthew Pennell
In the spirit of productive discourse:
@Michiel (#17) – I like that idea of a split between actual commentary/discussion and the “good job” type of comments that dilute the value of an article’s comment section. Rather than a rating, though, how about two different ‘piles’ of comments; one a list of thanks (so the commenters still get to leave their name and URL), and the other a list of longer comments? (Not an original idea, I borrowed it from the mininova.org torrent site.)
Matt Andrews
One thing this article didn’t address for me (unless my mid-morning skim reading let me down…) is how to encourage this kind of commenting in the first place. A few months back I spent quite a while hacking up a commenting system for my site, integrated with our forum so a comment on a news story starts a thread in our forum with a link to the story in question. I took time to tie it into pages and try to spark off discussion, and despite a largeish userbase (30K unique visitors/month) nobody uses the damn thing. How can we persuade apathetic users to get involved?
Carolyn--Wood
@Matthew I’m not keen on ratings, either, but on discourse or at least ideas. However, most of the responders here have not only said positive things, but also included ideas or their experience. They don’t look like they’ve included a comment in order to sort of advertise their name and URL (though that may not be what you were implying). If people have something to say, even if it’s positive :) I say, let’s hear them out. If a topic strikes a chord, it’s helpful for us to know that, and good for people who want to be able to say more than “i liked it” to have the freedom to express themselves. But, give it a whirl over in your neck of the woods. It might serve you well, and I’d be interested to see the results. Reducing the number or length of positive comments was not the purpose of this article. :) By the way, for those who might still be visiting this discussion section, Matthew Pennell is a frequent commenter on blogs and at magazines, and while not one of us is perfect, he often leaves comments that show some depth. Keep an eye out for his.
@Matt Funny you should say that. A few months ago I asked someone to write an article on that very subject, or something close to it. It will be great to get your input when we raise that topic. I completely agree that it’s a concern for many people, and really discouraging when things aren’t working.
Matthew Pennell
@Carolyn: I wasn’t referring specifically to magazine-style sites like ALA, more thinking of personal blogs or top-ten style lists where there are a large proportion of “hey, great” comments that don’t add anything to the discussion. Separating out those from the constructive entries would make consuming that content easier.
Carolyn--Wood
@Matthew Now I see what you mean. Since the article was specifically not about blogs, my mind focussed in that direction. Yes! I’ve seen blogs with literally 100 comments or more, most of which say, “Cool!” or something along those lines. In that case, it’s just one long list of uninformative affirmations. Combining methods of commenting within one blog—well, it would be challenging to explain it really clearly in only a few words, since you wouldn’t want to encourage people to just give a rating, let’s say, rather than add a good, juicy comment, but it would be very welcome at some of the places that you’ve mentioned. Another path to take would simply to trying to find a way to elicit more from people in their comments than “Fanboy here!” Er, not so simple. :) Thanks for the clarification.
Frederic Saladin
I some what understand people starting to flame at each other. Some times one needs to express his frustration. In forums it may would help trying to isolate the flaming from the discussion by offering a “offical flaming area” as well as obligating moderators to move flame entries into that special area.
Another idea: Let people rate entries as flames (the opposite of rate them as good). I guess people would like that since it would give them an opportunity to express their frustration while providing a filtering possiblity to the others at the same time.
(Sorry for my english skills. I’m not natively speaking english)
Richard Fink
Ad hominem arguments usually stink. And they are doubly treacherous in an online forum where you can’t look someone in the eye, gauge their body language, none of that.
But that said, there are many occasions when it’s perfectly appropriate to voice an opinion about the motives, intentions, and credibility of those with whom you are interacting.
Judges and juries do this thousands of times every day all over the world and it is both a pertinent and crucial that they do so.
If someone has a hidden agenda, or is being duplicitous, they should be called out on it. Pure and simple.
Carolyn--Wood
@Richard You raise a good question, particularly for forums and blogs, where the rules of the game are determined by the people who run them. My article’s focus isn’t on forums or blogs (though I believe that both would benefit from many of the ideas in the article), but rather on online magazines and, really, the few of them that take pains to “vet” articles. So, credibility is rarely an issue.
Motives and intentions seem beside the point to me for the type of articles I discuss. The thing to judge is the article itself and its issue. My advice is to stay focussed on the issue and move it forward, rather than getting sidetracked trying to determine the motivations or intentions of other people in the discussion area. Attorneys, judges and juries have an entire trial to present cases, pro and con, to determine, among other things, motive. Cases built purely on motive are usually called circumstantial. Too, the the purpose of a trial is usually that there is good reason to believe that someone has done something wrong, and our goal is to figure out who. That’s not the purpose of a magazine article, and I’ve tried to point out that when we take trail-like adversarial positions, the result is usually unproductive for everyone involved. If you think an article author is duplicitous, in that their article is a case of plagiarism, your best bet is simply to contact the editors of the magazine (providing proof, of course).
In discussing an article’s issue, what does it matter what the other person’s motive is? What matters is the quality of his or her point about the issue being discussed. As for how to respond to people in the discussion area for a well-vetted article, if you think they are duplicitous or have a hidden agenda? I would have three answers to that: 1) If you think they are duplicitous or have a hidden agenda (and it would be extremely unusual for us to know that for a fact), react only to what they’ve said about the issue. Discuss the value of the point they make, pro or con. I see no reason to comment on them personally. 2) If they are, indeed, duplicitous or have a hidden agenda, such as throwing off or destroying the discussion, they are likely a troll, in which case, those of us with a great deal of experience on the web know that the best course is simply to ignore or delete the comment. Engaging them in discussion is almost never fruitful and only helps them succeed in attempts to throw us off course. 3) If they are simply wrong about a point, and you now that for sure, I addressed that in my article, right after the “Cool Kid’s Table” list. Say what you have to say as graciously as possible. Be open to the idea that you might be the one who is wrong, so that you are still able to continue the dialogue. I have found that even in the sometimes wild and virtually endless forum discussions that I think you are talking about, refusing to be thrown off course or sucked in often starts with firmly refusing to make it personal. As I say to the authors in my article, don’t be too concerned about nasty people. They are self-indicting. Is my article a cure-all for problems in the discussion sections of high-quality magazines (or other places online, as well)? Absolutely not. Impossible. It’s simply a reminder for those who have slipped into bad habits (most of us, at one time or another) and a call for more collaboration. When we’re discussing articles about CSS, JavaScript, IA, Content, PHP, Design, and other subjects related to creating websites (and my article was specifically about the web standards world) in public, I see little reason to get personal. Discussing other issues in other areas of the web, which may be more likely to touch on, say, moral, political, or personal issues, may call for the “calling out” you suggest. I still suggest it be done with civility.
Carolyn--Wood
@Frederic Thank you for commenting. Most of us are usually very impressed by people who enter a discussion that isn’t in their first language!
While online forums aren’t really the focus of my article, your comment about rating flamers had me smiling. I believe that 37signals puts dunce caps next to people who seem to be trolls. Although you idea of rating comments as flames is very imaginative, somehow I think that rating flames would just encourage more flaming. Your idea of moving flames to another area in forums (not magazine articles) might actually work. :) I believe that simply venting frustration is probably best to do in emails to friends, in very small private discussion lists where everyone agrees that the list is for venting, in non-personal Twitters, or in our own blogs, etc. Of course, stating our frustration about a subject in an article is fine, if we aren’t personal about it, and we aren’t venting—that’s my opinion, anyway.
Carolyn--Wood
Please excuse the typos I just discovered in my last two replies. :) I’m supposed to be on vacation this week, and apparently my spelling is on vacation, too.
Aris Blevins
I was a bit taken aback to show up on ALA and find an article about a subject I had just covered in a rant on my own “blog”:http://goteama.com/fwiw/articles/19/a-diatribe-or-maybe-just-a-tribe from a different perspective.
I work in film as well as on the web, and I have been really dismayed by the lack of substantive that goes on around films, particularly independent projects. There seem to be many folks who love film out there who are deeply concerned with ridding cinema of anyone who is not yet a perfect craftsman, noob or not.
On the whole I have found that the web community is a bit more tolerant of noobs, and experimentation. This medium really allows people to articulate what works and does not about any product in as much or little detail as they like, yet those thoughts are rarely presented as a way to open discussion. Only a way to stick one’s tongue out, finger up and turn the cold shoulder to the rest of the community.
This was a fantastic article (certainly more coherent than mine) and will hopefully lead to some new ideas in this area. Maybe all of us web heads can come up with a new interface to make commenting more collaborative and less bellicose.
Lucas Andrés Torres Abella
That’s a great article, thank’s for taking the time to write it, it really changes the perception I had about comments section on a website.
Jeffrey MacIntyre
Carolyn, it’s been said better and with fewer words, but this is a terrific piece, one with equal parts head and heart in it. So thank you for that.
I thought readers might be interested in a slide deck NY-based agency Bond Art & Science (disclosure: we’re collegial but share no working relationship) made public this week around braving and engaging the commentariat. It’s here:
http://www.slideshare.net/BondArtScience/content-commentary-how-media-brands-invite-manage-and-benefit-from-user-commenting-and-participation-online-presentation/#
Erik Reppen
One of the greatest tragedies of the internet is Craigslist’s Rants & Raves, which blew a good thing by allowing users to censor content by flagging it. What was once a brilliant board full of crazed vitriol, unabashed bigotry, and occasional moments of inspired brilliance is now mostly about the unabashed bigotry (and Sox/Cubs fans posting a lot of penis pictures while calling each other “gay” here in Chicago). Nobody wants to open the obviously racist posts (or the baseball posts with pictures attached) so they never get flagged. But if you say something smart or incisive enough to piss somebody off they’ll flag that stuff into oblivion.
You have to allow for some blowing off of steam, I think. When I get my forums up and running, I expect I’ll have one completely anonymous 18+ section that lets people blow their tops and get stuff off of their chests with the one rule being that you don’t get to attack individuals.
When you give users too much control of anything, you provide nothing.
Carolyn--Wood
@Erik Sure, build as many forums and blogs as you’d like. The “rules” or lack of rules at each is up to the person or group who builds them, as I said in my article. If you’d like them to be places where people blow off steam, that’s up to you. I agree with you (if I understand one of your points correctly) that unmonitored anonymous rating systems can end up as free-for-alls that yield absolutely no information. Good point.
My article, however, clearly was on a different topic: Sites where carefully crafted, vetted articles are written for people who make websites, and they offer an opportunity to collaborate (even when that means cordially disagreeing). My point was that blowing off steam in these specific places gets us nowhere, doesn’t garner any respect for the “steamer” (in fact, they almost always embarrass themselves), and is a missed opportunity.
carlos mosqueda
Granted this article was written a few months ago, but someone suggested it in another comment area. Great piece. To often do I visit someone’s article on how to do something on the web, a new trick, new technology, new way to do things and people come in like they are the Masters of the Web and just criticize the author or people who right meaningful comments about the article. Like I say in many articles, no one forces them to read the article. It is the web, you can choose another site to go to.
I really liked this article because it brings to light so many things that people do all over the web. With the comments section open to all opinions there seems to be people who like to start a slugfest and offer no real substance on how to improve something. Case in point is this article
http://css-tricks.com/smashing-sitemap/comment-page-1/#comment-49709
where the author offers a new way to do something and people come swooping in like the Web police or villans and start bashing the article and offer no ideas of their own to show how something could be different or how they would do it. Just how they think it is pointless, it sucks, or some other bash they can think of.
Great stuff. Love the articles on this site. Very top notch.
Thank you!