Comments: Taking a closer look at identity and filtering in online journalism
As AngryJournalist.com hit its 5,000th comment mark yesterday, I began to think more about comments on the web and the lack of consensus on how news organizations approach the concept of online conversations.
The main problems with comments stem from two areas: identity and filtering.
Comment identity
I remember in my first journalism class I was fortunate enough to have Roger Ebert visit our class and he said something that stuck with me. A student asked if he has a pseudonym on RottenTomatoes.com, which Ebert replied that while he read the site quite often, he did not anonymously post on the site.
Ebert’s personal policy was that he signed his name to anything he wrote. I remember thinking, “If it’s good enough for Ebert, then it’s good enough for me.”
Since then, I’ve always registered for new web services with my full name and I make it a policy to never leave an anonymous comment. I figure if I’m not willing to put my name next to what I write, then it’s probably not worth writing and won’t contribute to the conversation. While this has prevented me in several cases from writing a really snarky and biting comment in the past, I think sticking with this personal policy has many advantages.
For one, it makes you accountable for what you write. It means that you’ll actually take the time to reply with something thoughtful and well-written, rather than just the online equivalent of a drive-by shooting. And when you write better comments, people tend to respect your thoughts and opinions over those who hide behind their Internet mask. It adds a sense of authority to what you have to say. Also, conversations tend to be me polite and productive when you know the people you are talking with.
Additionally, using your real name when you comment helps build your own personal branding online. Extending this to any service you use on the web, people recognize your name and are more likely to connect with you at other places. This furthers the personal social network you create for yourself. It’s a good thing.
Information Architects now demands that you use your real name when commenting, and they had a very robust and thoughtful debate on the topic. Frankly, I agree with their philosophy, but I don’t believe it’s the perfect solution for all situations.
Obviously, at AngryJournalist.com I don’t require or even request that contributors identify themselves. In fact, I discourage the use of real names. Part of the reason: I didn’t want to deal with any potential libel suits stemming from the comments. The other reason, however, was that I really didn’t want to place any barriers between getting people to open up.
I think many of the comments AngryJournalist.com received would never have seen the light of day if I required something as simple as an e-mail address, let alone sign-up and registration. To get people’s raw emotions and uncensored stories, I had to give them a sense of privacy and extend trust to the extent of anonymity.
For my situation, this worked out. But as I said, comment identity is only half of one problem.
Comment filtering
The other half is how you moderate the conversation. The more elements you remove from true identity online, the greater the number of responses you’ll elicit. The problem associated with this is that with the increased volume comes even more noise.
To create a worthwhile site online and develop the kind of community atmosphere that’s sustainable, I believe you need to truly define your role as the administrator and balance identity and filtering. To be blunt, most sites do a poor job of filtering and this is despite having way too many identity restrictions.
Let’s be perfectly honest. Most newspaper sites that allow comments to go unmoderated have threads that aren’t worth anyone’s time. Any pageviews generated by people following the supposed “conversation” isn’t worth the loss in quality of experience that the site’s providing.
Yes, you’ll lose pageviews if you filter the conversations of your community, but you’ll build a better reputation. Your users will reward you with more return visits and brand loyalty.
Remember: Most news is available just about anywhere. Content is duplicative. What will differentiate your site above others won’t be what people are talking about, but the quality of the experience of the interactions they’re having with others while viewing that content. People will live in communities they find friendly, and they’ll leave those that refuse to filter the signal from the noise.
I understand that to do community moderation properly that you’ll need to spend a lot of time and resources to do it properly. This means having people dedicated to guiding conversation and regulating it. It’s going to take a lot of work and most sites probably won’t do it, but the smart ones will. Nothing worth doing is worth doing halfway. Either make a commitment to building a community or don’t bother. why make something that sucks? It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
At AngryJournalist.com, I quickly discovered that if I was going to let people be anonymous, I’d have to moderate everything. At first I worried that delaying the posting of comments would take away from the site’s appeal and hurt traffic. But the reward was getting rid of spammers, trolls and making it a better quality site. It’s cost me time, but I found a solution that worked.
News organizations and their sites will also need to juggle their resources to tackle filtering. This is a new form of editing the Letters to the Editor pages, except it’s in real time and the stakes are much higher. Instead of this being one of the few pages without advertising in the newspaper, it’s the part of the site that will underscore the traffic, which drives the revenues.
But right now I feel that most news organizations don’t really give their comments section a second thought. Instead, they’re still panicking over the idea that people can just say anything. Or they’re patting themselves on the back for finally adding a feature that’s years (aka, an Internet lifetime) old on the web. How many of them realize the monetizing power that comes from this simple feature? And why aren’t they doing a better job of protecting this investment?
Conversation is migrating elsewhere. Right now, the early adopters have begun to crown Twitter the winner (despite their problems), but no one has perfectly merged news and conversation. There’s still time to jump into this niche and begin the battle for people’s loyalty.
As we approach a consumer culture where time will become scarce and content will be plentiful, we’ll turn to places that can provide quality filtered experiences. Content isn’t where the money is, that’s all free. The money’s going to come from meaningful interaction.
Stop treating comments like a feature that’s just something you activate on your site’s blogs and start viewing them like the key to making your sites profitable.
(Naturally, I want your comments and thoughts on this topic. I’d encourage you to use your real name, but it’s cool if you don’t want to. Also, you can find me on Twitter or just e-mail me.
Additionally, for more resources, check out my del.icio.us bookmarks tagged with comments and community. Lots of good reading there.)
Technorati Tags: community, comments, journalism, media, web+2.0, anonymous, real+name, identity, filtering, signal+to+noise+ratio, moderation, Twitter, conversation