I've been out of the office for a few days and one of the first things brought to my attention upon my arrival this afternoon was the comments section on our site.
Yes. The comments section.
So what was the problem? Comments left on a story about a local business that had a fire early this morning. The comments got so bad the entire comment thread for that story was shut down. The section was closed before I came in, but I did read a few of the comments which were removed. They weren't very nice. Not being able to comment on the fire story, a blog was then posted about the fire and once again it was a free-for-all in the comments section. Many comments reflected anger over the comments that were deleted, but other comments went back again to bashing the establishment affected by the fire.
So what was the big deal? Why can't people express their opinions about a business? Isn't this a free country? Is the Vicad getting free quesadillas each time we remove a comment or something?
The problem was that some of the comments were just plain mean. Some comments expressed sadness that the fire had not completely destroyed the restaurant. Really? Seriously? Don't get me wrong, I've experienced bad service at some places in my time, but never would I wish destruction to a place.
I really don't think the ones who posted such comments were serious about wishing the place would burn down. At least I hope not, I like to think the best of people. Perhaps some of our commenters use this forum as a stress-reliever. (That's me being optimistic.)
However, that said, we don't allow for such comments that are hateful in nature, mean or nasty. That is the reason why the comments were closed on the fire story, and why the blog was taken down. For a full listing of our online guidelines go here: Victoria Advocate user policy.
When it comes to the comments on our site, we like the way the St. Louis Post Dispatch has set up their commenting guidelines. One of their guidelines uses what is called the Living Room Rule. This rule, adapted from blogger Shel Israel, which I have taken directly from StLouis.com states:
If you come into our home and behave rudely to a guest, we'll ask you to stop. If you continue, we'll ask you to leave. Basically, the living room rule means that you should behave as if you're in our living room. Don't monopolize the conversation.
Their second and third guidelines state:
2. Pretend your mom is in the room. Messages containing intentionally misleading or false information, defamatory content, threats, verbal abuse, harassment, obscenity or personal information about other individuals are not allowed. And that includes avatars. Offensive avatars will be deleted.
3. Remember, everyone here is a person, just like you. Treat them as you'd want to be treated.
That last guideline is one we seem to forget online. Maybe it's because we are behind our keyboards and screens, and that name with the tiny picture next to a comment means nothing to us. But behind that username is a real person, and the people in our stories are real people, with feelings. No one likes to get called names to their face, why would they like it online? And why would we allow those comments on our site?
I'm not saying we all have to hold hands and sing folk songs in here. We report on things that are not all nice and warm and fuzzy, so of course people are going to have opinions and disagree with each other on certain topics. We aren't going to agree on everything. This world is not perfect and neither are we.
But is it too difficult to be civil to each other, not only in real life, but online too?
We're not here to censor, but when comments break our rules, they will be removed. We also don't have someone who reads all the comments before they are posted, nor do we have a person dedicated to reading all comments. For this reason we ask members of our online community to report comments they see in violation of our policy. Once a comment is reported, an e-mail is sent to the staff members moderating our Web site, the reported comment is reviewed and removed if necessary.
True, the comments section can be abused, but they can also be a valuable resource to many. We have received various news tips, as well as comments letting us know when we've posted incorrect information. We've also seen the comments section turn into a place where condolences were posted during times of tragedy, or when congratulations were left during happy times. It's not always perfect, but with your help it can be better.
See you online.
(And no, we don't get free quesadillas.)
And please, don't flame me, bro.
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
17 Comments
- •
-
Flag
-
Thank you for your contribution.Flag this as inappropriate
- Close
-
- •
Follow cjcastillo
Comments
I guess I can comment now that iam your subject, first of all, I did no name calling, taunting, no way, just referenced PatientEarth comment before mine in this blog on comments and that does apply here as that comment was accepted. Thank You.
December 11, 2009 at 3 p.m.rlwood5674 - Your comments have been removed from this site because they are in violation of our online user policy. Taunting other posters and calling them names is against our user policy. Please keep in mind our user policy when commenting. You can read our full user policy here: http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/user-... Thanks - CJ
December 11, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.So what was the big deal? Why can't people express their opinions about a business? Isn't this a free country?
I think that our opinions count, but are not very important to anyone anymore, business is very important and keeps the economy going good, but you take my opinions, they are being removed daily by the Victoira Advocates Staff in several blogs.
December 11, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.Dang. Reading the comment of comments going wild, I was hoping to see some topless comments. Oh well. ;-)
jhnsn283 - I don't think that saying a restaurant has crappy food or service is an attack nor would I imagine the Advocate does. I think the line is crossed when someone says the server needs to die / building needs to burn because of it. I say stuff like that quite often on my Twitter account because it is MY account, MY guidelines within the Twitter TOS.
I do agree though that is kind of crappy to wish harm on a business... UNLESS it is the Big Fisherman.
P.S. I understand and will not be mad at you if this comment is deleted. :-)
December 8, 2009 at 3:39 p.m.Thanks for your comments everyone. Excuse me while I babble on here(hehe) but I'm going to try to make one comment to address you all.
I do appreciate the constructive criticism, and will be sure to share these comments with the rest of our online moderators. Yes, it's true, some moderators may have different methods, but we will work to address your thoughts here and see how we can improve our moderating process.
We don't protect specific users (it's not like we have any type of Advocate Online User Protection going on up in here). But if you see that someone's posts are out of line and in clear violation, and you have already reported them and see nothing has been done, I encourage you to send an e-mail to moderators@vicad.com. That message will go to all the mods.
Or you can also send me a message to cjcastillo@vicad.com. Heck, you can even call me up if you want to talk in person, 580-6516. You don't have to tell me your name. You can talk to me in a British accent if you want to hide your identity. Unless you ARE British, then use a Russian accent instead.
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I've been working most of the day updating all the snow updates on our site. And eating free quesadillas....not!
December 4, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.CJ,
My post below, and Matt Ockers, and many of Exresidents and many many others posts strike at the heart of the problem that Chris Cobler keeps asking about.
Advocate's Credibility Issue.
Biased and preferential deletions of posts.
Poor quality reporting on behalf of certain reporters who only bother with "half a story"
Poor writing and/or editing which leads to numerous bad headlines and typos. (very unprofessional)
Constant misquotes and factual errors in stories (again, goes back to the reporters)
A senior editor that is too busy congradulating and backslapping his team, claiming they're "the best" and ignoring everything that readers and viewers are complaining about as "nonsense".
Not to mention deleting a person's blog because they "scooped" the advocate only to have the advocate print nearly the exact same story with the same facts later.
December 4, 2009 at 2:59 p.m.Talk about journalistic integrity!!!
I have to agree with MattOcker.
The rules are not the problem CJ, it is the biased inforcing of them.
Certain members can say or do whatever they please and not suffer any punishment except the (very) occassional deletion of an over-the-top post.
Other members seem to be free game to be attacked by those with immunity, no matter how many times that even BLATANT attacks are made, the posts remain. I remember one member (now gone) who was the subject of an "attack blog" yet the blog remained despite numerous reportings.
Other members can get their posts deleted for simply speaking the truth (not even being mean about it, just distasteful truth).
Yet even other members who have done no wrong other than to have pointed out some errors and contradictions. and even some CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM of the advocate have been systematically hunted down and destroyed by the advocate gestapo.
December 4, 2009 at 2:47 p.m.cj, I like your three rules. The only potential problem I see is that there does not appear to be any way to eliminate a certain amount of subjectivity on the part of the Advocate staffer enforcing them. Otherwise, they make perfect sense.
December 4, 2009 at 12:54 p.m.OMG...they need to eat these words that they so boldly wrote - "Don't monopolize the conversation." You monopolize the whole comment sections to YOUR VIEWS and only YOUR VIEWS .....Come on!
December 3, 2009 at 7:13 p.m.Well, to me all that you just wrote is just what is said on the top pic. BABBLE! NO ONE said anything thing mean, threatening, or cruel! Speaking the truth on how you feel about a restaurant that is not good service or food at all is not wrong or mean to say. They are the ones who have treated people very disrespectfully and cruel!
This is just another way to seem RIGHT and make the things you do with the comments seem RIGHT. When it's not. If you have a comment section then we should have a right to speak our mind. Obviously within reason. And to me there was no other way to put into words a restaurant that has treated me and my extended family and friends with such disregard and rudeness rather than to say it like it is. I never knew that by saying a place was a dump and sucked an inhuman, rude or mean thing. Because TO ME and MANY others it is just those very things.
So, say what you want. Go ahead and write a BOOK practically about what YOU do and how YOU see it, but the ones who were accused and told they did something wrong, obviously me being one of them! Well, we know the real truth.
You just lost TWO subscribers! Way to go guys!
December 3, 2009 at 7:09 p.m.Individual comments should be deleted as needed. Closing an entire comments section is childish. I reposted the story because I thought it was wrong to delete comments wholesale. I didn't care about the story and hadn't commented on it. I guess the next time I don't like a comments sections, I'll post some bad comments so they'll all be deleted.
December 3, 2009 at 7:06 p.m.meh
December 3, 2009 at 6:50 p.m.Good reminder CJ. It is a shame that some posters want to intimidate through the written word. I am always amazed that some posters forget that the rest of the world is human.
December 3, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.