For years I have credited the New Haven Independent with the high level of civic engagement in New Haven. They report on content that is truly local and interesting and accessible in a way that makes me and many others want to be involved. Melissa Bailey was the first person I bounced the idea of SeeClickFix off of. Paul Bass and team have inspired citizens to participate in ways that I did not think journalists were really supposed to. For the most part they made us proud of the place where we live regardless of its many flaws.
But aside from informing us they also provided an arguably more valuable function. One that did not exist in print or broadcast. They gave us a public forum for civic debate. For years I loved commenting on the New Haven Independent and the cast of characters that would fire comments back. When I commented it felt constructive and I felt like my thoughts were contributing to the improvement of New Haven. For many of the commenters of the Independent the comments were social in the way that we felt we were doing something valuable for society not just for our connections to others.
Over the past couple of years however the comments section became less attractive to me. I wondered if it was just me getting tired with the medium or if it was something in the moderation. Many times I was annoyed by the ridiculously politicized and cruel nature of the comments and many times I was just bored with the redundancy.
It turns out that I was not alone and Paul has decided as of today that the comments are off indefinitely on NHI. I'd encourage you to read that article here: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/time_out/ and comment
and comment below here as you can not on the NHI.
Sadly I don't actually have any blog readers so the debate will likely be me and myself...but maybe that will be more multi-sided :)
Here's my take on all of this to fuel the conversation:
We have local news sites that do a horrendous job at creating meaningful debate by using poor algorithms for moderation. See WTNH.com. Those sites should kill their comment sections. It is not good for society and they need to shape up.
We also have sites like SeeClickFix which have had their trolls but have focused algorithmically to remove them. I think we've done a pretty good job but its really hard and we have the advantage of very topic specific content with a central goal of resolution. The site is constructive by design where WTNH is destructive by design. I won't comment further on that. You can form your own opinion if you own a television and visit their website.
And then there's the Independent. The Independent covers the tough policy level and societal level issues in New Haven and still managed to create relatively civil debate. The problem here is that Paul and team are not computer assisted in their moderation as far as I know. They have content policies as we do at SeeClickFix but they depend on humans to be the first filter where other local sites with comments make the human the second filter. I think that the Independent can go on with comments but they need a better algorithm. Algorithmic authority helps squash bias, if done correctly, and compensates for tired humans.
I hope that Paul and team will look for help to create this algorithm as it would be truly sad to lose the New Haven Independent to the folks who shamelessly and selfishly brought Paul and team to their knees with their hateful and destructive commentary. If we can find a way to house people in real-life on our real-life public square, see Occupy NHV, I'm sure we can find a way to virtually house conversations in a civil way as well.
To be honest, I was happy to see the comment section brought down. I noticed months ago that it was becoming a forum for negativity and slandering. I can't even remember the last time I received any value out of that comment section.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that when you open up a public forum with no rules the ones who scream the loudest win. NHI had a number of loudmouth, ignorant regulars who made the comment section totally worthless.
I'm not sure a filter will really solve the issue here. How do you stop someone from commenting on the "great new haven government conspiracy" on every single article? Or when any article that takes place outside someone feels the need to comment on why we don't have more bike lanes and that we need to be more "pedestrian friendly"...
Overall I don't think the problem will be solved by an algorithm, it will be solved by readers growing up and learning how to have a conversation with each other... sadly I don't see that happening with the current set of commenter's.
I think your last point about people growing up is an interesting one. It does feel a bit like we're all in a very juvenile phase as a society when it comes to communicating with each other on the web. A lot of the time it feels like the bullies are running the playground and the people with something to say are turned off and hiding in doors.
DeleteDo you think that with time we will evolve in a fashion where the societal norm in these forums is one of respect?
NHI commenters are a mixed bag. I find some of the comments to be golden, some to be golden hay, and others to be just plain old hay. I find that municipal politics, including school reform, to be terribly important and view the new social media as an important check against corruption. Public officials never tire of obfuscation and information asymmetry. I'd rather wade through 50 bad posts than throw out 1 good one.
DeleteWhen the comments come back on the NHI you guys have inspired me to make the effort of sifting and filtering.
DeleteI can't think of many website comments sections that have real civil debate anymore.
ReplyDeleteso why have them?
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Paul Bass just effectively flushed the best, most accessible political debate forum in the history of New Haven politics. People could voice ideas without fear of recrimination. NHI cut reader comments because they were either tired of spending resources keeping it civil, hated being corrected, or they are fishing for attention. Exchanging ideas online is, and always has been, the wild west. If you can't ignore a moronic statement you should probably stay away from the media AND the internet whiteboards, much less both combined. Comments were 75% of why people read articles. When NHI visitor numbers dip and advertisers start to abandon ship, they will bring it back with gusto. Meanwhile, I'll get my news elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI respect what you do Ben, but you are all wet on this one, buddy.
Hey Fairhaven Dave,
DeleteI'm glad to hear that people still felt like it was really valuable. I think I might have just grown frustrated with the redundancy of a majority of the comments. I have a theory that the we are only in early adopter phase of public commentary. Once the general public fills the room more social norms will start to set in.
I wonder if adding facebook like logins with the ability use anonymity would be valuable?
Hey Fairhaven Dave,
ReplyDeleteI got your comment in email but it seemed not to have posted. Would be great if you could repost as it was insightful and raised some great points.
Hey Ben, email it to me and I'll repost it. d62@snet.net
ReplyDeleteAnd as I just said on Streever's Facebook posting,
"Don't believe for a millisecond that NHI does not already have some solution for this in their back pocket and are trying to outrage the public for attention before the "brilliant fix". It's all in line with Pauls continual stream of irritating grandiose social commentaries. Any other end will be business suicide and he aint' stupid. Arrogant, maybe, but not stupid."
On the other side I can speak from experience and say that it can be very stressful trying to make decisions on what content lives or dies.
DeleteAt SCF, our version of the kill switch is to put an entire geography on full moderation. We have the advantage of a person who can dedicate all of their time to moderation as well if need be. Maybe an alternative at NH Indy in the future would be a temporary kill switch on all comments or comments held for an indefinite amount of time.
That took three tries, if it gets deleted again I'm going to assume you are trying to be ironic, Ben.
DeleteHa ha... you have my permission to cut and past my comment in and quote me yourself. Four attempts of doing it myself is my limit.
DeleteThat is so bizzare Dave. I wonder why its doing that? Here's your comment: "It is impossible to prove that a person speaking online IS who they say they are regardless of matter how many "checks" you require. No government in the history of the world has been able to prevent false identities, and the internet will be the last place it happens. Anonymity is key to white board commentaries. If people want accountability, start a petition.
DeleteI also remain astounded that NHI concerns themselves with how people comment. I realize they have advertisers to appease, user BOT issues, multiple accounts, and that there is a huge degree of nonsense posted, but it's insulting to assume that readers cannot filter and ignore biased content on their own. The public not being able to chime in weakens the foundation of what they do. Having visited hundreds of their readers while campaining in 2011, I can tell you that issues mentioned in comments from articles came up more frequently than issues implied by the authors.
And I agree, the redundancy was irritating at times, but worth putting up with. For example, 3/5ths saying "corrupt two party system" after every article mirrors what Libertarians do with nearly every talking point. Kerekes supporters were able to point out thousands of hypocritical moves by the incumbent without having to finance smear mailings. And glaring errors by authors were often caught and corrected. It my experience it did FAR more good than bad.
This whole incident is so out of line with NHIs typical progressive tolerant and diverse palette that I cannot help but feel this is either simply laziness, a control issue, or another one of Paul's grandiose social commentaries. "
FhD,
DeleteJust had an interesting conversation with an avid Indy (comment) reader. She mentioned that one of the main reasons she comes to the site is for the comments. She also rebuked my redundancy comment by saying that she just reads over the users she knows will be redundant or uninteresting.
I wonder if comment sections would be a better experience if you could pick what you saw before you saw it. Maybe you could decide that you don't want to read any comments marked anon or maybe you could have a personal setting that would block all comments with tax gripes.
Maybe its not necessary but I wonder how the conversation of moderation would change if the responsibility of moderation was on the reader and not the editor.
On the flipside commenters would be made aware of how many readers had seen their comments and would be visibly be punished with less attention.
As a journalist and editor of a local news site I think there needs to be some attention given to the changing industry. It's crucial for journalists to be more unbiased than ever before given the volatile nature of online commenting. I takes a lot of work to monitor commenting but more so, it takes a lot of work to be a fair journalist. I think fair reporting welcomes all sides to comment and keeps the community conversations not only engaging but productive...
ReplyDeleteI agree Nicole. I also think there is something to be said for the commenting format that you see on this blog. The type where commenters are responding to comments and/or the general post. That way comments that spiral downward only take the comment with them and not the entire post. I would have an easier time with interacting on the NHI if I could engage on certain comments and not others as the comments themselves take on a single post life of their own in many cases.
DeleteVery, very good point Ben! I don't think any news source, no matter how good the reporting is, is going to have a perfect, civil debate occurring in the "comments." I do think comments are so valuable though; not only because, as you mention above, they lend themselves to actual productivity in society, but because, in the new age of journalism, they oftentimes help grow a story.... and they can hinder it too. To your point of user interaction: wouldn't it be nice if you could "like" or "dislike" comments in threads as opposed to always having to comment to weigh-in? That might deter people from digressing. :)
DeleteAmazon reviews have a "Feel this was Helpful?" button. "4 out of 5 readers felt this review was useful etc..." A neat system BUT when you visit products by opinionated owners or powerful companies, (A recent bummer stroller purchase with a design that cut children's fingers off comes to mind.), it became obvious quickly that the company had built a number of accounts to protect it's shoddy products reputation. All the votes for or against reviews poured in within two minutes... (about 150)
DeleteThese are great ideas, yet they can ALL be abused. But that does not mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. You need to do your own research and read other reviews by the same author to make sure they are not a bonehead or commenting only on products by the same manufacturer. You can't stop fake people from having multiple opinions or taking advantage of a situation, but you CAN track who you choose to listen to.
Great points! I spoke to this in my comment above to Dave. Votes up or down can be tricky to avoid gaming but that does not mean there is not a better user experience that will promote better social interactions.
DeleteStack Overflow has an amazing way of creating good community through social promotion. Have you guys seen others that are effective?
The only effective and necessary system for filtering nonsense is built into the mind of the observer.
DeleteNot sure why these comments are hitting my emails but not posting. First time anyone has really engaged on the blog :)
ReplyDeleteModerator wrote in to say this, "I regularly find that comments have more content than the articles themselves.
I agree with Fairhaven Dave that no filtering is needed.
I like Ben's ideas for UX tweaks, such as comment "nesting", ignore user options, and optional ID verifications. These changes could result in better conversations but would not involve any filters.
Even if I had to read 20 not-informative comments in order to come across 1 informative one -- which would still be a far better ratio than what NYTimes, with its extensive moderation system, gets -- then the comments on each article would still be worth a glance. I'd say the NHI's ratio here is about 4:1, however, not 20:1. That's exceptionally good. I rarely find any of the NHI comments redundant, especially if they are compared to the comments or formulaic content on many other news sites - if you really have read something before, it is easy to pass it over.
Comments are no more than what you make of them, and aren't always meant to be taken at face value. They sometimes contain unusual viewpoints or difficult truths - you can take that or wall yourself off from them. In every viewpoint, there is a kernel of truth.
As Dave suggests, there is no need for NHI to "filter" comments so that only the sentiments that happen to coincide with the worldviews of most news readers (who are predominantly educated, white, and of a certain asset class) are represented.
This is a very diverse country - not everyone draws conclusions about news stories based on a shared set of personal circumstances and personal wealth. If you want everyone to share your worldview, then move to Guilford, Fairfield, or to a major city like Manhattan where you can segregate yourself.
Also, I agree with the person above who suggested that many people visit sites like NHI in large part to read the comments. This group includes many city and elected officials.
It goes without saying that NHI should continue to eliminate, or at least allow the flagging of, any offensively racist and personal attacks beyond what would normally be found in a public square. NHI generally does very well on this count. Keep in mind that anything that someone writes could be construed by someone else as being indirectly racist, classist, or too personal. So it is best if they limit moderation only the most offensive examples. "
Thanks for all this great input folks! I'll never convince commenters like Fairhaven Dave that we're not cynical, lying, manipulative people just like all the other people in the community he fundamentally distrusts and whose motives he attacks when he posts comments (see part of what destroyed the NHI stream?), that in fact we're sincere when we say we want to be open to hearing people's ideas and don't know all the answers. But we in fact do not know what we're going to do next. We're finding all this debate fascinating. I find myself drifting from one side of the argument to the other as I read all the comments here and on other sites. I think this is a good discussion. Not just for us. For all the media. I'm trying to figure out if Ben's right that technology can be a fix, or whether that might be beside the point of what role limited-budget news sites should be playing moving forward (as opposed to in 2005, when we started). And THANK YOU for the encouragement!
ReplyDeleteSo glad to hear I was part of the problem, Paul. I seem to recall my last post praising the NHFD for amazing response times and professional conduct, but I digress.
DeleteI have come to the conclusion that getting THIS worked up over the actions of a media outlet is next door to obsessive and insane. Why should I waste my energy on something that claims to enlighten and inform while watching it eliminate a truly free exchange of ideas? It's madness in the purest sense. But as an ironic twist, Paul, in the end, you DID teach me this lesson using what I personally consider an "irritating grandiose social commentary" and I thank you for that. And I apologize for assuming you had a plan in your back pocket and for calling you arrogant. That was rude and arrogant of me. When next we cross paths; I owe you a beer, an "in person" apology, and a reverent bow.
Ben, thanks for doing this. Peace OUT!
-David Baker 10 year resident of Fair Haven Heights, formerly known as 'Fairhaven Dave'
"And he so loved the NHI that he commented on their articles for over three years. Then he did it for three more days." (Negative or funny? Guess it depends on what mood you are in and if you agree, eh?)
Thanks for jumping on Paul. I do think that machines can augment you but I'm not sure they're the answer. I think that you might be proving the concierge model of start-ups which says that you use humans to do the work of machines until it is more cost effective and more efficient to use machines.
DeleteI do think that your growth in active users calls for a person dedicated to the job possibly with the help of a more automated process.
Another option might be to generate a blog for all local news sites with just the rss title and description and a place to comment. This would take the liability off the news org and possibly encourage a more diverse readership. I think this is what topix does if I'm not mistaken.
Would people be interested in commenting on Independent posts off of the Independent? (It seems like it happens on facebook amongst friends groups already.)
What about a way like Reddit where things are voted up or down. Horrible comments get voted down (and reported if slanderous)and "buried" below a threshold (say -2...then they aren't seen on the page unless clicked on.)
ReplyDeleteI like it but do you get worried that it gets gamed to easily? What about actively choosing to not read something and giving the writer that feedback in some way?
DeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteOut of curiosity, was it comments like Dave's that you led to "catch your breath" or was it more blatantly offensive, racist or misogynistic comments? While Dave's comments are certainly cynical and border on the mean-spirited, they are of a different kind from the overt racism and pure invective that you can find on WTNH, for example. It would help to form an opinion on this whole thing to know, because I feel that, though comments like Dave's are certainly dispiriting, they have an important place in public debate.
Funny, ironic or madness that Paul has to post links on his site so that his online community can have a discussion that rightfully should be happening on the pages of the Independent?
ReplyDeleteI agree with several that the current comment system sucks. Why no threaded comments, and why no trusted user status, such that online back-and-forths could happen over hours and not days?
As a long-time supporter, (yeah, I even subscribe to the NHI at about $200/year, tax deductible btw), I feel completely disrespected as a community member. Part of it is that I like opinions, and opinionated people, and I'm used to diving into the comment section as a way of quickly getting different takes on civic matters. The reporting is usually great, but I like the depth that can be found by listening to fellow community members.
I also think something huge has/would be lost by this abrupt change. It kills off a community of folks who want to challenge, engage, question, elaborate, etc.. Was Dawson just appointed as a police commissioner in a quid pro quo for splintering the black vote? Shouldn't there be a timely end to the Occupiers camping on the Green? Or what is your favorite dish at Zafra?
Perhaps Paul will see the light. Let's hope so.
PS -- I'd be interested to see how this issue would poll amongst NHI readers. Hint, hint.
These are all great points Ed. To be honest I had forgotten that I was paying for the Independent and I must the admit the ability to debate was part of what I was paying for.
DeleteComment editing at the Independent if performed in a freelance manner could cost the Indy less than 20 k/ year. Maybe it makes sense to put a price tag on this and let the readers/donors buy it.
I would pay a bit more. Would you?
Ben,
DeleteI don't think you need paid referees. Let the community do it themselves.
On DailyKos, you need to create an actual account before you comment. (It's not like you can make up any old user-name and fake email address, as you could at the NHI.) Each Kos account also has a public "comment history", which makes it easy to spot true trolls and those who otherwise abuse their commenting privileges.
The magic of dKos' comment section is the "trusted users" who acquire their status via their involvement, and who gain the power to rate individual comments as abusive. Once several TU's agree that a comment is out of line, -- Boom! -- the comment gets hidden. And after several hidden comments, an account gets automatically suspended.
If the NHI adopted the Kos model, once or twice a week Paul and/or Melissa could review hidden comments and decide whether it was someone who just made an error in judgement, or if it is someone who deserves to lose their commenting privileges. Or they could slap someone on the wrist by giving them a 15-day suspension.
Paul also should realize that things always heat up during a contested election period. That is just the nature of the beast. And while I'm not entirely against this time-out, I do think it was too abrupt, and that their should have been a meta-discussion beforehand.
Fwiw. And it still seems quite ridiculous that we are having this discussion here, (and on the pages of the NH Register), and not over at NHI where it belongs.
Slashdot.org has a great commenting system that has worked for years—what about adopting that?
ReplyDeleteAgreed!
DeleteInternet forums have become toxic precisely because of anonymity—which is why I always posted on the Independent under my real name. I also use my real name on SeeClickFix. Christopher Schaefer P.S.I'm signed in under Google & I think my name already was taken, so probably have a different user name there. Rarely use that accnt.
ReplyDeleteP.P.S. Nice to meet you, David Baker
We love that you always post with Name Chris! We've tinkered with the idea of forcing login but never forcing first and last. I do believe its important for people to be able to speak with anonymity when you are trying to help get them over the fear, real or perceived, of retribution.
DeleteGreat comments folks. My head is spinning. (Good thing, I think.) As step one of figuring out how to go forward, we're going to print out (old-fashioned technology!) these comments and those from Matt DeRienzo's and David Streever's and Dan Kennedy's blogs, as well as some from among the flood of emails we received, and read them out loud a staff, then talk about them.
ReplyDeleteNHCTRes -- It was an absolutely horrible misognynistic (and otherwise disgusting) comment getting through that was the trigger for the hiatus. It was the culmination of months of watching the tone of the comments turn so steadily hostile and nasty and mean and negative in general; of feeling dirty while reading them, editing them, and publishing them; of feeling as though instead of offering a wide-open constructive forum, we were enabling people who hate their lives or hate themselves or just hate New Haven and everyone in it to hijack a section and make the rest of the city feel lousy all day. And also of feeling that we were falling down in our job of preventing that. I think many commenters angry at me in particular for not being consistent in what got in were correct. I was trying. Early in the morning til late at night. Not doing the job well.
Fairhaven Dave-- I'm sorry for being thin-skinned above.
To Paul and Ben,
ReplyDeletePaul you do an awesome job! Never be in doubt in that. Ben your site gives voice to thousands where no voice was heard before. Without either of you this city would be lacking much needed social interaction. Without your representive sites we wouldn't have had an Ideat festival last year. Whatever the outcome I applaude you both.
Curtis Packer,
Bru Cafe
Thank You Curtis! With out you guys we wouldn't have a website.
Delete