To Our Readers:
We don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this week, on the home page of NYTimes.com, Jim Roberts, the editor of digital news for The Times, is the featured participant in the “Talk to the Newsroom” series.
He’s an erstwhile politics junkie, front-row creator of The Caucus and sounding board/decision-maker for us as the blog and the politics page evolve. So I took the opportunity to ask him to help explain to all of you how The Times moderates your comments for this blog, and others. (As a few of our regular readers know, I’ve occasionally sent personal notes thanking you for your thoughtful comments, but reminding you that language that doesn’t get into The Times newspaper doesn’t cut it here either.)
Here’s our exchange and an elaboration of our guidelines.
Your Comments in Moderation
Q. As the online politics editor for The Times, I frequently moderate comments posted to The Caucus, our news blog for politics. We try to generate thoughtful conversations with our readers, and we’ve certainly published a lot of comments from readers who talk among themselves about the issues of the day. But some readers get very frustrated when their comments aren’t published. Can you explain the rules of the road for them regarding language and tone, attacks on either the writers or their fellow readers, and length? It might also be helpful to explain how The Times goes about the process of moderating comments and about the problems that you have encountered in doing that.
— Kate Phillips
A. Full disclosure: Kate and I discussed this before she sent her note; we felt that the issue was a big one and that readers might benefit from such a discussion.
The first thing that readers should know is that unlike some other news sites, we review every single comment that readers send in. We have considered trying software that filters profanity or doing what other sites do and allowing readers to flag objectionable comments. But so far we have not found anything that substitutes for having trained editors or news assistants read each one to make sure it is suitable for publication.
So, what is suitable? Well, we do want to know what people think, and we grant our readers a degree of leeway in criticizing newsmakers and in finding fault with how we present the news. But we draw the line in these ways:
1. No profanity. No obscenity. No asterisks that take the place of letters in objectionable words.
2. No name calling or insults. I don’t like it when I see the words “idiot” or “moron” or “fascist.” I can be somewhat tolerant of harsh criticism of public officials, but I am super-aggressive in deleting comments in which other commenters are being attacked. And while I don’t mind criticism of The New York Times, personal attacks on our reporters won’t be tolerated. And forget about ethnic, racial, religious or sexual slurs. Finally, try not to dominate the conversation so that other people have the opportunity to express their opinions even if they disagree with yours.
3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic are pointless and will be bounced. And we tend to set the bar even higher when we have a huge flow on a certain subject and some of the sentiments seem repetitive.
4. Don’t bother sending press releases.
5. Don’t rage and don’t SHOUT. Lot’s of readers seem to think that UPPERCASE comments are more effective in getting their points across. We prefer a more tempered conversation.
6. Please use your real name. We don’t require this but we’d like to know who you are. If you sign your name Bill Clinton or Frank Zappa, we’ll in all likelihood delete it, unless we’re certain you’re the former president or the reincarnated Mother of Invention.
Since Kate deals with political issues, it’s worth taking a second to mention one specific problem we have in that area. We’re constantly on the lookout for sock puppets and aliases. If you’re working for a candidate, tell us. Your comment could still be valid and worthy of being published. But if you mislead us, forget it.
A couple of final notes. We’re not perfect; on more than one occasion we’ve let bad things slip through. Readers can help us by drawing attention to any comments that seem to cross the lines as I’ve spelled them out above. We also don’t have a huge squad of people moderating the comments. It takes time to go through them all, and it’s not unusual for comments to sit for an hour or more awaiting approval. And we have even fewer people doing it at night and on weekends. So, please be patient.
From 1 to 25 of 82 Comments
Please don’t over-sanitize what actually transpires in American political discourse, if you can call it that. When you do let the plentiful psychopathology appear, it can be instructively dissected. I think you should be able to see that such deconstruction does discourage psychopathic practices over the long term.
— Steve BolgerWow, I wondered why my clever, erudite, sarcastic, and mean spirited essays seem seldom to make the grade. I promise to tone down my vituperation toward our elites who know what is good for me.
— Charles B. TiffanyThis blog is the most intellectual I`ve ever posted on with the exeception of ” Young Republicans in Love “. I promise to behave and be more like Sorenson than Paine.
Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee, Florida
I sure would like to know why my postings that use arguments based on multiplier effect to explain full employment tax and spend fiscal policy get bounced when they are on topic, and devoid of forbidden words and references to other posters.
It is a repeating phenomenon, not a one-time event.
— Steve BolgerThanks to Mr. Roberts and Ms. Phillips for this. Also, even though a large number of my posts have been blocked occasionally, I really appreciate the editing. I’ve seen other blogs plagued by cursing, all-caps, ranting fools, and they’re no fun to read. I’m especially thankful that no grudge is held against posters (that I can see), so even if four of my comments get blocked in a row, the next one can still get published.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to relevantly apologize to frequent readers. Sometimes I accidentally dominate a thread by posting a few times, in my occasionally overly sarcastic and bombastic style. I do not mean to shut anyone out, and I never want people to take my comments personally. I’m a well-meaning hooligan, just trying to add to debates, not end them. A side benefit of this style is that it’s pretty clear any candidate would have to be insane to pay me to write on their behalf. And this is indeed my real name; just the other day my boss spotted my comments and called me about it but thankfully I wasn’t fired.
So thanks again, Kate, for the excellent work and for tolerating me. Cheers, y’all!
— Dan StackhouseThank you for these guidelines. The Caucus has published more than a few of my comments, which I hope are to the point and meet the purpose of this blog.
I do wonder how some items (eg. Coulter vs. Edwards) get more comments published, whereas lesser inflammatory items have less comments published. Is it the Caucus’ policy to commit more resources to the former than the latter? Or are the bloggers being drawn by that sort of lurid item. On the one hand, Coulter is a gold mine of incitement, whereas National Security and Social Security seem to have been relegated to lame-duck Bush-related policy jokes. Surely there are politicians out there, other than the primary candidates, who have cogent, if not necessarily provocative views.
On balance I would hope to read more of the reasonable and thoughtful items that you publish.
Thank you again for allowing me to participate!
— Jack / SonomaIt seems that when I point out that much of the objection to the proposed immigration bill was inspired by the basic racism of the American middle class I am not printed. I feel this opinion has merit.My comment is always that many Americans do not want these short, dark, servant class Mexicans as fellow citizens. Who is prepared to say this is not the case?
— c.perryPlease do not delete Thomas B Tiffany of Kissimmee any more than absolutely necessary. He paints magic pictures with words.
To Kate and Jim - thank you for clarifying the rules and being candid that you, just like we, are not perfect. Also THANK YOU very much for provding this valuable forum. Personally I have learned volumes here.
One question: occaisionally I have felt it relevent to provide a quote from a book or magazine. I have been careful to credit the author, accurately reproduce their words, and kept it to a couple hundred words. Sometimes these are published and sometimes not. Can you clarify the rule, if any here? Thanks.
— MarcFunny to see all the usual suspects show up here.
I get my share of no shows and then try to figure out retrospectively why they were bounced. Sometimes I think the assault on the Democratic candidates was more than the Times wanted to bear — but it’s not consistent so then I think well maybe network. That’s a minor irritant, however. I accept the bounces and modify / retry as needed and generally get through.
Maintaining these sites is not cheap, moderators must be paid, the archiving is unmatched and bears a cost. It seems clear to me that the Times goes well out of its way to solicit and seriously manage a real public dialog.
There is more candor, directness and common sense here than you see in the mainstream. The volume and the organization of the material demonstrates a wider and more nuanced look at things than I see anywhere else.
The protracted nature of the blogosphere crushes the mainstream in its ability to stay on topic and enable the many facets of an issue which simply take time to be drawn out. We can get 500 comments on an issue spread out over weeks. Mainstream is piddling in comparison. And let’s face it, some of these things need and deserve the time we are afforded here.
I think it’s an excellent venue. I recognize the effort put forth and believe this vast and well organized space makes a positive difference. Political discourse is no longer a one way street and I think it is getting noticed. Mainstream is feeling it and we should all be grateful for that.
I always had a high regard for the NY Times paper edition. I recall saying to my mother more than once as a kid, just looking at one day’s paper, ‘…look at what a piece of work this is.’ And she would say, ‘I know’.
This blogosphere seems intent on the same level of quality.
Thank you.
— bcdavisI too would like to thank NYTimes for providing this free forum where we can discuss our political views. It must be difficult moderating thousands of posts, and I appreciate your efforts, which is what makes the NYTimes superior to other profanity-ridden, intellectually-decrepit blogs. I second Dan Stackhouse’s comment that as a frequent poster, my purpose is not to shut anyone out, but I will now be more mindful of letting others have their chance to comment. Cheers everyone.
— Helen NYCI do appreciate the moderation. It’s why I come back here day after day.
— AntigoneI come to The Caucus frequently to get ideas for my blog. I always read the comments section because its usually more interesting than the story itself and it gives me lots of ideas for posts.
Keep up the good work, and come by to visit thedemomemo.com
— Claire CelsiHelen NYC, haven’t seen you back here lately,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/clinton-gets-better-reception-on-iraq/#comments
Check it out.
— bcdavisthanks to all of you for reading, thinking and often, positing such wonderful ideas and amazingly thoughtful points for discussion.
you are indeed the regulars, the loyalists, who have posted comments here. and you are indeed one of the reasons why the site continues to grow as a community.
my gratitude and wholehearted appreciation for your contributions to this endeavor.
kate
— Kate Phillips(yes it is really me, no one stole my name)…
Thanks Kate!! Thought I was more of an irritating remora. Cheers!
— Dan StackhouseI guess this means I can’t post my recipe for crab gumbo. Too bad. It’s terrific.
— gadflyThank you for providing a forum which enriches the political discourse and allows our varied viewpoints to be challenged by our peers.
The education provided by some of the participants is invaluable and the varied perspectives on the topics tabled are enlightening even when these represent the opposing viewpoint.
I have often wondered if any of the candidates are aware of the valuable insight into the electorate’s psyche these threads present on the issues affecting this electoral cycle.
Also, many thanks to most of the regulars for your incisive posts, I look forward to your collective wisdom and spirit.
Cheers,
— RomuloWhen I lived in Palm Springs CA, I was labeled a Liberal, when I moved to the Bay Area, I was suspected of being a crypto-conservative. Thanks to you Kate and the points of view in The Caucus, I’ve discovered that I’m somewhere in the middle… or is it ‘muddle’?
Thanks again and best wishes!
— Jack / SonomaOne suggestion I would like to make goes to the previously noted quality of the archive and the unique ability of any blog to sustain a discussion over an extended period.
I would like to see a tag somewhere on the main page that would take people to a list of topics that have outlived their normal time allotment but which are still active and deserving of easier access.
The sole criteria by which topics are pushed off the primary list seems to be time. That is consistent with newspaper thinking where everyday’s news fills that day’s pages. The blog can maintain that in the way it does now. But the blog could better exploit the archival dimension it enjoys and which is not available to the daily newspaper.
People should be aware that if you see a topic disappear it can be found if you know the date of the original posting of the topic. Or if you know the range of dates that topic was on the primary page. But I don’t think that is obvious to enough people.
An example is the url cited in #12. That thing has been on fire and a very good part of what is there has happened after it was pushed off the Caucus list, and then even pushed off the Hillary Rodham Clinton list. And it is only pushed off because of space and topics are pushed down in chronological order as new things appear daily. The currency is to the credit of the blog, but currency should not be the sole criterion of prominent display.
What I noticed in the example cited above was the loss of many contributors after it was pushed. Sure much of that is due to waning interest and that is fine, but one in particular, a young man who had served in Iraq who wrote very well. I believe he tried to come back but saw the topic gone and just figured it was gone.
Some topics evolve in interesting ways after they are removed from the primary lists. At that point, there may only be several people involved and because they are effectively ‘buried’ in the archive and they don’t reach the larger audience as a result.
I would ask some thought be given accessing topics by means other than chronology. A list where topics which have demonstrated continued quality support could be better cultivated.
I believe this would add an exciting dimension as people gravitated to discussions which have persisted on their merit versus their proximity to the current date, as is now the case.
Thank you.
— bcdavisWritings here can be found with search engines like Yahoo and Google. Just combine the writer’s name and the topic and the search engine will link the blog page.
The discontinued NYT Forums were generally invisible to the mainstream search engines.
— Steve BolgerThanks for pointing out the search engine capability. I wasn’t aware of that but did know the previous generation ‘Forums’ were not picked up by search engines. So that is a noteworthy improvement.
Certainly the archives are accessible if one knows that original date and is inclined to attempt the archive or even use the search engine within the blog itself.
None-the-less, the vast majority of input is done under the primarily available topics by the visbile tags. That currently is arbitrary as a function of the number of elements in that tag and proximity to the current date.
Restricting in that fashion misses an important dimension that they could easily capture. The dimension is interest.
Was the blog to capture statistics, such as say, comments over time and rank under each tag in that fashion, the participants would be evolving the agenda based on their participation in the topics of interest. I think that becomes a more powerful space.
Apply some thought to it. If you read JS and CC at the url cited in #12, there are only a few comments a day, but these people are writing impassioned volumes and it is getting through, so there moderated word count versus the number of comments would rank that topic higher. There is also the relevancy of the topic which could come into it.
I think the blog could accomplish it any number of ways. A tag with the three letters ‘HOT’ such that people interested in exactly that, could go see where the current interest is, similiar to the way the main page does top 10 most emailed. Or the aforementioned ranking, comments or word count over time under each of the existing tags, requiring no new tag.
But the dimension of what the collective body is interested in is a powerful and important element. I am suggesting that the newspaper mindset of clearing yesterday to make room for today is not exploiting that to the extent it could — or should.
People complain about the collective attention span. Well think about it. How much of that is really attention span and how much of that is due to the mainstream habit of resetting the topics day in and day out?
I point out the ease with which they can do both, stay current and better manage issues about which people continue to exhibit interest over an extended period. Now in fairness, the archive does enable that. However, topics which show continued, quality support could be better cultivated.
— bcdavisOne thing the old Forum had which I liked better was you could see your post in posted form before submitting.
Try writing in this little box, edit, revise, no spell check, nuthin. At least the old feature let you see it better. Not to mention this ’sorry only one post every 5 seconds’ after you finally get it right. That’s a bug there.
— bcdavisHiya bcdavis,
I’ve run up against that 5-sec bug, and here’s my method of dealing with it. It seems to pop up when I get back to a thread with the ‘back’ button, and sometimes when I first access the page after commenting when I left. So nearly every time I post, I go back thru it (manual spellcheck), then select all and ctrl-C. Then if I get the 5-sec thing, I hop back and forth to the thread with the links, ctrl-V, et voila.
Also I think showing how the post would appear would help, especially to all those newbies who write ‘posted by’ and then put their real name/email in the Name field. But it would probably more than double the memory usage, thus irritating the mighty Webmaster.
I agree too that the archival access could be improved, but it already has been recently; now the archive date pages show the number of comments, and (I think) show a different color if it’s been added to. Mostly I just run google searches to find old threads I’m curious about. The 4/16 gun control blog is still going on, weirdly.
Cheers, and I’ll B C-ing ya :)
— Dan StackhouseHey Dan,
I had to laugh when you told the story of being confronted by your boss. Yeah, that about killed me.
I’m not sure they get it. We’re out here trying to rehabilitate the American debate on a shoe-string. Phones ringing, people walking in and out, spyware tracking our every keystroke, deadlines, meetings, family members making requests. We’re not Maureen Dowd catching a breeze on the Cote d’Azur checking email from the ghost writers on a palm pilot for cryin out loud. That 5 second things kills me. For all i know this one gets lost.
Yes, we value your opinion, don’t go cross-eyed now.
All and all seems to be a good day for the blog. Between the 2 Scooter tags, approaching 1300 and counting. What a mess.
Thanks for the update. I’ll check out the 4/16 gun control. I do believe topics which demonstrate longevity should be afforded a better view but I am sure they have their hands full keeping up with current flow.
Take care. ttyl.
— bcdavisI really like the professional approach suggested here and the emphasis on good writing skills.
I think a lot of my fellow bloggers could do with this information, many think blogging should be a ‘free for all’ fitting in with their understanding of ‘free speech’ which does appear deficient.
As I have already indicated, I really appreciate your professionalism. Thank you.
— katyzzzI find it difficult to be as calmly analytical about the political quagmire currently stiffling this nation as would be necessitated to write in this collumn.
— Fred Pittenger