10 Ways Newspapers Can Improve Comments

The other day Bob Garfield had a good kvetch about dumb comments on newspaper websites on his show, On The Media, and I posted my two cents, but I still don’t feel better. I think that’s because Bob’s partly right: comments do suck sometimes.

So, instead of just poking him for sounding like Grandpa Simpson, I’d like to help fix the problem. Here are ten things newspapers could do, right now, to improve the quality of the comments on their sites. (There are lots more, but you know how newspaper editors can’t resist a top ten list.)

  1. Require Accounts

    Anonymity is important in journalism, but not for comments.

    There are a lot of good reasons to allow anonymity, especially in the news. Sometimes a source needs to speak out against an employer or the government without being named. Fine. But there is no reason, really no reason at all, to allow people to post comments without having to first sign up for an account.

    Simply requiring an account will remove 80% of your comment problems. If allowing anonymity is important, you can allow the user to remove their name on a specific comment, while still requiring them to be logged in. (In other words, the user must log in so the system knows who they are, but they can opt to leave a comment as “Anonymous” if they choose. Anonymous comments could then be held in a special moderation queue for approval to guard against any bad uses.)

  2. Set and Enforce Rules

    Nobody likes finding out about a rule after they’ve broken it. Write a human-readable set of community guidelines (Flickr’s are excellent). Make all new members agree to it when they sign up, and link to it prominently from every comment form. This way, if you have to take action later, you can say “We warned you.”

    Then enforce the rules. Delete bad comments and publicly promote the ones that are great. There’s a common misconception that moderating comments makes you more liable. This is not true. Managing your community does not have any baring on your DMCA compliance, safe harbor standing, or any other legal issue.

  3. Employ a Community Manager

    If you can’t name your community manager, it’s probably you.

    You wouldn’t let a writer put their work in the paper without having someone check it, so why let commenters do so? If you’re going to have people posting comments to your site, it should be someone’s job to moderate them. Think of them as the editor of the Comment Desk.

    You don’t have to read every comment before it goes online, but it should be somebody’s responsibility to remove any comment that runs afoul of the posted community guidelines. Like graffiti in an urban space, bad comments lead to more bad comments. But the Community Manager should be more than a cop - they should be a vital connection between the staff and the community. They should lead the community by example, participating in the discussion and being helpful, and also do a daily “community weather report” for the staff, feeding the community’s input back into the newsroom.

  4. Sculpt the Input

    Just because your users can post comments doesn’t mean you can’t help them shape them.

    Back in the day, when we had people posting comments to Fray, we were constantly tweaking the form’s automated responses. If you tried to post something too short, it asked you to expand on it a bit. If you posted something too long, it asked you to edit yourself down. If you posted in ALLCAPS, we de-capitalized it (Flickr does this now). These are easy things for computers to do, and they make a huge difference.

  5. Empower the Community to Help

    If you think bad comments bug you, they bug the good commenters twice as much.

    Yes, you should be paying someone on staff to be the Community Manager. In addition, you can also enable the community to help. Give every post a “This is Bad” button. Then give the community manager a private page where they can see the comments with the most bad votes and take appropriate action.

    For bonus points, give each post a “This is Good” button, too, so they can also tell you about the good ones. Remember that your members are not the enemy: they want to help you keep the place clean, too.

  6. Link Stories to Comments

    The worst thing you can do is separate the “community section” away from your content. That creates a backchannel, where people feel safe being inappropriate because, why not? They’re at the kids table, anyway.

    So link stories to community conversations as closely as possible. This will give the conversation a central topic.

  7. Enable Private Communication

    The internet didn’t create the angry letter to the editor, but it definitely put it into overdrive. And that’s okay - sometimes people need to vent. Your job is to direct the venting.

    Some papers’ comments are so crazy because there’s no other way for the reader to respond. People will gladly communicate with you privately if you gave them a way to do so.

    So create a form people can use to email the editors, and link to it from the comment form. Say: “If you’d like to say this privately, go over here.” (Props to Vox, where there’s a “Send private message instead” link on every comment form.)

    You may get some angry email this way, but it’s better in your inbox than on the website where it will just start, or add to, a fight.

  8. Participate …

    Get your writers involved in the conversation. People chill out a lot when they know they’re being listened to by the writer (and they act out a lot more when they think no one’s listening). I know, writers can find this an onerous addition to their workload, and have probably already decided that they hate their comments. Too bad. This is part of journalism’s evolution, and you’re either on the boat or you’re not.

    One great way to get writers on board is to give them the ability to moderate comments on their own stories. They can do this on their blogs, they should be able to do it on their stories, too. (With supervision by the Community Manager, naturally.)

  9. … But Don’t Feed the Trolls

    Members participating with good intentions are generally pleased when the authority figures are participating. Unfortunately, that can also bring out the trolls - bad users who are playing a game called “suck up as much of your time as possible.”

    School your writers in the ways of online community. If someone is trying to get a rise out of you, don’t fight back, no matter how tempting. A good Community Manager can help train writers on how, and when, to join the fray.

  10. Give Up Control

    Newsrooms are top-down places, but the internet is not. Get used to the fact that people online won’t do things just because you told them to. In fact, the only thing you can absolutely count on is that something will happen that you didn’t expect. When it does, you’ll be defined by what you do next. Be ready to be surprised.

As you can see, embracing community tools on your site takes work. If you just turn on comments with open-ended tools and no oversight, of course the result won’t be pretty. That’s because you haven’t done the job of an editor - to lead by example, direct the conversation, and sculpt the results.

The real reason comments on newspaper sites suck isn’t that internet commenters suck, it’s that the editors aren’t doing their jobs. If more newspapers implemented these 10 things, I guarantee the quality of their comments would go up. And this is just the basic stuff, mostly unchanged since I wrote Design for Community seven years ago.

Imagine what we could do if we could get past the easy stuff.

+

PREVIOUSLY: This is Not a Comment

UPDATE: Just One Question for Jason Schultz: Does moderating comments on a website make the website owner more liable?


28 Comments

I like commenting in newspapers mostly. I think it’s a way to practice the so-called freedom of speech we talk about so much. It would be ironic to see well known newspaper sites getting rid of this way of participating. Hopefully your 10 steps help influence somebody working on this matter.

Posted by Fabricio on 28 July 2008 @ 3pm

Props for a great list.

The only thing I’d add is to make sure that the comment form itself makes it easy to write well. If the commenting interface itself is awkward or interferes with clear communication, that will influence the quality of what people say.

Some things to watch out for — the box is not too small, or too wide, it does spell checking or allows preview or has real-time preview, it allows you to easily quote things others have said, etc.

TTFN
Travis

Posted by Travis on 28 July 2008 @ 5pm

Excellent post.

@Fabrico: That’s freedom of the press, not freedom of speech. A website isn’t public property, so you have no “right” to comment there. John Scalzi has an excellent rant covering that. It’s sort of the other side of this topic, and equally excellent.

And he didn’t even pay me to say that. ;)

Posted by Steven S on 28 July 2008 @ 5pm

I rarely do comment on a newspaper sites. Since newspaper sites are something which is viewed by many ppl, so i think there should be an account login before anyone posts a comment on these sites. Oh yes, there should be a moderator appointed so that the comments are also moderated.

Posted by United Voices on 28 July 2008 @ 5pm

Everything here is spot-on except this:

“(Moderators) should lead the community by example, participating in the discussion and being helpful”

In practice, moderators are most effective as executors of policy — at the most, with explanations of their actions, but never discussion. Their unequal relationships with the people they are tasked to police shades further communication, which is at best unpredictable, and at worst endless grist for troublemakers. Every act becomes a negotiation over policy. Trolls learn to manipulate your moderators.

It depends on the community, but engaged moderators are notorious for flaming out and being replaced. It just doesn’t work for any but the smallest and most homogenous boards.

Posted by Larry Hinds on 28 July 2008 @ 8pm

“There’s a common misconception that moderating comments makes you more liable. This is not true.”

Can you expand on this further Derek? I know newspapers in the UK who have been successfully sued via this very issue.

Posted by Mark on 28 July 2008 @ 10pm

Mark: I’d love to hear about your experiences. All I know is, on this side of the pond, the DMCA is often sited as the reason organizations do not want to touch comments. But the DMCA’s safe harbor provision protects hosts, and that protection is not changed by screening or editing comments. It only says what hosts have to do after a report of abuse, not before.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 28 July 2008 @ 11pm

In Germany the platform (aka newspaper) of a community is responsible for the compliance of comments with the law. Otherwise you risk to get sued by someone. So in this country you are forced to moderate comments very carefully and strict. Unfortunately.

Posted by Cem Basman on 29 July 2008 @ 12am

“i think there should be an account login before anyone posts a comment on these sites.”

And a simple intelligence test, oh please.

Honestly, I’m unsure that newspaper comments sections are salvageable outside of a few interesting examples, such as the Grauniad’s ‘Comment Is Free’. Where you get smart commenting, the volume can often make it hard to pick out the gems and the moderation lag squeezes out the hope of conversation (NYTimes blogs); where you get dumb commenting, it can feel like you’ve wandered into a squat.

I’m reminded of something I said to a friend about new bars that open in town: if it looks like the kind of thing you’d like, get in as soon as it opens, because the crowd that shows up in its first month will do a lot to determine the people who come back, and if you let other people define it, you might show up to find that it’s been taken over by assholes. CiF had the advantage of defining the kind of commenters it was looking for at its launch.

Posted by nick s on 29 July 2008 @ 12am

I would add: comment on other blogs yourself; take it offline (or rather, onto email); and try not to close off the story so that there’s no opening for comments to begin with.
Great list.

Posted by Paul Bradshaw on 29 July 2008 @ 12am

My ten years of experience looking after blogs, message boards and chat, mostly at the BBC, gave me a lot of insight into the importance of many of the things you list.

My own list of tools for the successful community manager would look similar to yours and would include:

* a clearly defined purpose for hosting the discussion
* a clearly defined set of rules - and staff or super-users empowered to use them
* closly linking editorial content to discussion and ensuring that the discussion stays on topic
* proactive discussion hosting that reinforces positive behaviour BEFORE the need for a moderator to police things that have already got out of hand.

As to the UK situation for libel liability, Mark may very well be correct. In England and Wales, a law exists giving immunity for liable to providers who can demonstrate that they were a “mere conduit” for content posted by a third party (eg. a user). The law was directed at protecting ISPs who, like the phone company, shouldn’t realistically be held liable for the things people say over their wires. It has also been used as a defense by those providing message boards and other online discussions. They assert, and many within the legal community who I’ve spoken to agree, that so long as they do not moderate, and act within “reasonable time” to remove content to which they have been alerted, they are not deemed to be the publisher or editor of the libellous content. If, however, they do moderate, they are assumed to have taken a deliberate action either to publish the post, in instances where content is pre-moderated, or to simply allow the post to remain where post or reactive(alert only) moderation is used.

So yes, although it’s counter-intuitive - and, in certain circumstances, demonstrates a failure for discussion providers to look after and protect their users - moderating discussions in England and Wales may very well lead to increased potential liability for for libel. That said, if I was a sued and my insurance provider was willing to fight it in the high court, I’d be arguing that holding me libel for a comment that was miss-moderated would be punishing me for doing exactly what I should have done as a provider, taking responsibility for the safety of my users and protection of my brand.

Try the “internet libel” category on my blog for on this: http://www.cybersoc.com/internet_libel/

I’ve also collected lots of links (including this post!) here: http://del.icio.us/Cybersoc/internetlibel

Robin Hamman
Senior Social Media Consultant @ Headshift

(PS. Despite a law degree and a bit of experience, I’m not a lawyer - so offer the comment above as information only, not as legal advice.)

Posted by Robin Hamman on 29 July 2008 @ 1am

#1 is the sole reason I don’t leave comments on my local news papers site, I read an article, want to comment, get to the bottom and have to jump through hoops before I can leave a 2 paragraph comment.

By the time the activation email has arrived in my inbox, a good 10 minutes has passed, and I’m reading something else, my attention has been distracted.

Posted by Stuart Grimshaw on 29 July 2008 @ 2am

I hope you send a link to this post to Joan Walsh at Salon.com. I’ve already done it but maybe coming from you it will be better.

Posted by Richard on 29 July 2008 @ 6am

Requiring accounts and publishing the full name of someone, with an identfying city, is no different than requiring a name, city and telephone number on a standard Letter to the Editor. If you’re going to make a comment as part of what you see as your constitutional right to free speech, you also need to take the responsibility of standing up for your opinion.

Posted by Emerson Schwartzkopf on 29 July 2008 @ 10am

These rules are idiotic. Why do you think you can handle commenting on a newspaper website better than those who work for one?
We have tried most of your rules and most don’t work. they are very TOP-down driven instead of user driven. We know users hate this.
When you start moderating you incur legal liability.
Sculpting the input? Is that like newspeak? FWIW you can edit for brevity and that’s about it. Most people would have a good claim suing if you start “Sculpting their input” and then leave their name underneath the post!
I agree with number 10; but EVERY other post above is just about directly in contradiction with number 10!
(FWIW: ajc.com and related properties are pretty busy…)

Posted by Hajo Smulders on 29 July 2008 @ 10am

Hajo - Dude! I thought you southerners were supposed to be neighborly. I’m just trying to help here. Feel free to disagree, but let’s all show how thoughtful and helpful online comments can be, hmmn?

Now then, to respond:

“Why do you think you can handle commenting on a newspaper website better than those who work for one?” I don’t! But I’ve worked for and run newspapers, magazines, and media websites for about 15 years, designed and managed online community systems, wrote a book about it, and consult with media companies big and small, so I’m sharing what I’ve learned. Also, I have a blog, which means I get to say what I think. It’s awesome. You should try it.

“We have tried most of your rules and most don’t work.” I’d love to hear stories about how you implemented these tips and what happened as a result.

“When you start moderating you incur legal liability.” That’s a common misconception. If you can find a single piece of written law anywhere that says moderating comments changes your legal standing in any way, I’d love to see it.

If you don’t like my tips, that’s fine. What are yours? Or have you given up on comments entirely? I don’t see any comments on AJC stories, but there are some on the blogs, and I don’t see any accounts. How’s that working for you?

Posted by Derek Powazek on 29 July 2008 @ 11am

These are excellent ideas - thank you! I’ve passed them on to our own Community Manager in the hopes that they’ll be implemented.

As others have already said, I agree that rule #1 will probably result in the most dramatic improvements. @Stuart: I hear you - but the very fact that it discourages impulsive commenting is the rule’s strength. The principle seems to be that if you really have something worth saying, you’re willing to hang out for a few minutes.

That said, I have to admit that I *loathe* being forced to create an account just to read an online paper in the first place (like the NYT, for instance). What’s the advantage to the paper or the reader? Typically the “you must sign in to read this article” message just inspires me to move on.

Also: way to pwn Hajo, Derek. You’d think the meta of “commenting about commenting” would have made him more careful.

Posted by Ben Haley on 29 July 2008 @ 12pm

This is an awesome list. And should be posted in newsrooms everywhere. And ditto what Ben said about Hajo. But I think that commenting itself may not be the best tool for encouraging group conversations. Many people find commenting a bit tedious in the same way that many find twitter tedious - too much info. I think there will be alternative ways to get large, heterogeneous audiences into fruitful dialogue without having to wade through tens/hundreds/thousands of occasionally unrelated comments. I’m working on one that may or may not be the answer. But it’s a nut that someone will crack one of these days.

Posted by mike on 29 July 2008 @ 1pm

I love how PressDisplay.com has integrated the comments into the newspapers displayed there. They have moderating for offensive or vulgar comments I guess, but otherwise they have good comments about latest news stories from around the world. It’s an interesting dynamic.

Posted by Matt Clarke on 29 July 2008 @ 10pm

I posted two comments yesterday, criticizing this list, and they have been censored, which is in line with the very practices this list recommends in order to “improve” comments. The author of this list is evil. I know this very comment will be censored too.
You have no idea how offensive this kind of censorship is. It seriously makes me want to avenge myself anyway I can. Do you realize that? Censorship never made any dictator safer, eventually it comes back to hit him.

Posted by john colibry on 30 July 2008 @ 4am

I’ve worked with a number of corporate blogs, and I think these rules apply equally well to other types of blogs in addition to newspapers.

How you moderate comments is also an important element. Corporate blogs in particular tend to struggle with negative comments. The first instinct for too many companies is to delete the negative comments. I think this comes from the perception that the company “controls” their messaging, and comments take the control away from the company. I say perception because no company can control what people say. If they don’t voice their opinion in the comments, they will discuss it on other blogs and online forums. When I work with companies on blogging, I try to keep them focused on responding appropriately to the negative comments, instead of trying to hide them.

Posted by Dawn Foster on 30 July 2008 @ 5am

I disagree with the recommendation that people create an account in order to comment. This assumes that commenters are focused enough on a particular newspaper community to bother registering and remembering their logins (cookies do get cleaned out occasionally). Articles are received as forwards or found in RSS feeds; someone might be passionate about a particular article without caring to register for the publication that put it out. Sure, requiring registration might ‘remove 80% of your comment problems’, but why throw the baby out with the bathwater? It’s a pretty old-fashioned way to weed out bad comments… and can result in an echo chamber of the regulars while everyone else decides not to bother.

By the way, I wouldn’t have commented on this if I had had to register. But maybe that’s not such a bad thing. ;-)

Posted by rekha on 30 July 2008 @ 5am

John - Thanks for coming back and posting your comment in a more calm way. I deleted your posts yesterday because they were way inappropriate (calling your host “evil” is a lousy way to make your point) and posted with a fake email address. If you read what I wrote here, you had to know I was going to do that.

To be clear, websites aren’t governments, so they cannot practice censorship. You have no right to free speech on someone else’s website. You have every right to post whatever you want to your own site, and I encourage you to do so.

Participating in other people’s communities means adhering to their community rules, and I believe I made my approach pretty clear above. If you’re so offended by the idea that your comments will be screened and deleted if inappropriate, then my advice is to not post comments at all. You’re sure to be disappointed.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 30 July 2008 @ 9am

I wanted to add: I’m not recommending moderators delete comments that they disagree with - that’s a recipe for killing conversation. I’m only recommending they delete comments that suck. (And be sure to define what sucks in your community guidelines.)

The Onion’s AV Club has a great story on this: Why we delete comments. (And how you can make us stop.)

Posted by Derek Powazek on 30 July 2008 @ 9am

Derek - my yesterday’s comments (the ones you removed) were actually much calmer and more articulate. They brought specific critics.
At this point I have to admit I feel alienated by the tone and substance of this page in general, and arguing (if it was only permitted by your all-powerful comments oversight) would probably not be constructive. It is a matter of principles. I would NOT remove non-offensive comments (mine were not) if I had the power to do so. Never. If I did I would feel guilty, or weak or scared.
By the way John is not my name, and this is not my email address. Why would I give my real email address and real name to an abstract entity that I have no reason to trust?

Posted by john colibry on 30 July 2008 @ 1pm

John - I humbly suggest you get your own blog, where you’re free to say whatever you like. You’ll also then be able to manage your commenters in the way that you feel is just and right. You may even be lucky enough to someday have someone posting under a pseudonym call you “evil” and expect to be taken seriously. When that happens, be sure to come back and let us know if your opinion has changed.

So long as you’re posting words on other people’s sites, you’re subject to their rules. If you don’t like it, you have every right to deprive those sites of your valuable participation.

Posted by Derek Powazek on 30 July 2008 @ 2pm

Derek: I think you’ve handled this exchanged with “John” beautifully. As one who has been where you are now (for years) I must ask, at what point do you stop interacting with “John” because his/her aim seems to be to get you involved in a never ending dialog going nowhere?

I’ve had political arguments at my site and at times I’ve failed to see that the other person’s sole purpose was to tie me up in argument, sort of like Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos trolls or maybe he/she was one of those.

The short of it: at what point to you block John?

Posted by Richard on 31 July 2008 @ 4am

> “When you start moderating you incur legal liability.” That’s a common misconception. If you can find a single piece of written law anywhere that says moderating comments changes your legal standing in any way, I’d love to see it.

Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy.

Cubby v Compuserve.

I gather both have been at least partially overridden by later statute law, but I can’t cite.

But yes, in fact, it was like that in the US for *quite* some number of years.

Posted by Baylink on 1 August 2008 @ 11am