Thanks for the update Geoff.

Thanks for the update Geoff. Very helpful to hear how the whole experiment is going. Please keep us updated.

Kudos

Thanks for getting rid of the 'expand/contract' option.

I still think there are better ways to flag comments than the default 'Best Comments' mode. It obviously confuses new users and anyone signing in from another location

Almost daily I see posts from users who can't figure out 'where' their words have gone...and encounter repeat posts from users who obviously had the same problem. Just not very user-friendly.

Further, as you yourself observed the other night relative to a debate between Frank and Murdock - the best discussions and arguments are frequently a little (sometimes a lot) off topic anyway – that’s a good reason NOT to hide them by default, in my view.

Provide a little flag to categorize a comment if you must but don't take on the task of segregating what an editor 'thinks' is a best comment.

The 'flag as offensive' protocol is excellent and I've been pleased to observe how quickly you and David have stepped in to remove offensive and personal references. And I’m sure the writers appreciate the way you’ve defended them from personal attacks as well.

Thanks. And thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Globe and Mail article worth look-see

Though less on the technical side than on message board behaviour, I do believe a Globe and Mail article to have been quite on topic. I think it unforunate that it was "buried" in Technology since it was much about human interaction:

Owning up to their lowest by IVOR TOSSELL

I believe the whole article may still be viewed. I felt compelled to respond:

Many Web message board users are not slow to claim superiority over other media, but I find this electronic medium rife with hypocrisy and that claim, at times, difficult to stomach.

A groupthink exists and may even be encouraged by poor, board moderation. Ganging up and smear is an all-too-frequent activity by many less interested in dialogue than waiting to pounce.

When a poster queried a lack of posts to the board, another poster noted, at a previous logging-on, that six of the first seven thread titles related to Rainbow Room issues (GLBT issues) and that, though not bothered by this himself, a visitor, and potential poster, even recognizing a gay-friendly board, might consider this disproportion a little too "in-yer-face".

This was followed by a swarming, a suggestion of homophobia and a banning from the board. Even the probable author of those six threads wondered whether he was, perhaps, making the board too "faggy".

There is no shortage of kangaroo courts within the medium.

Posted 06/08/07 at 5:09 PM EDT |

what's liable

Speed is related to the number of comments that are displayed, and it would be nice if the software kept track of what each person has seen and only displayed what was new rather than the entire page.

I would like to see an article on liable, what it is exactly, if public figures and especially politicians are in an exempt category, etc. Mainly I would like to know whether the comment moderating, as well as the existing liable laws, are legitimate or if they are part of the creeping censorship to control non-gatekeeper originated opinions.

Congratulations.

I really have to congratulate The Tyee for the changes. The level of debate has risen dramatically, and I have noticed that those who can nolonger make insulting and offensive comments have either toned it down or given up posting here. The increased vigilence by The Tyee staff is obviously one of the changes that has made the biggest difference. Keep up the good work. Currently, I can't find any media in BC that can compete with the The Tyee. I look forward to the day you expand The Tyee to a full service, on-line newspaper. I'd pay a monthly fee for that!

Re: what's liable

ov, I believe you mean libel. From Merriam-Webster:

1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Slashdot

I'd like to see the Tyee adopt a Slashdot style user-rated system for comments. They can also maintain moderator's privilge of course.

That way we can see the best comments float to the top democratically and not because certain people think it should. Furthermore, I find slashdot's single thread view efficient. It uses thresholds to control display of posts marked down for trolling or poor commenting.

I think this would merge the Tyee's need for comment moderation and democratic decision-making of their audience.

PS. For those who don't know slashdot see www.slashdot.com. I am sure their comment moderation system is widely used.

Experimental basis, perhaps?

It would be no small "tweaking" but might be tried on an experimental basis. I'm thinking of a continuing "open topic" thread.

In addition to Tyee's many excellent articles on which to comment, commentary is begged on other issues of the day. For example, on scanning the editorials, today, of two B.C. newspapers, I came upon this:

Too bad the hippie generation has turned into a bunch of hypocrites

excerpt:

Would the discussion of such an issue detract from The Tyee? I don't think so.

What do others feel?

I've noticed an improvement

I've noticed an improvement in quality of posts, but a marked decrease in volume and variety. But over all the new rules make people work harder and reflect before they write, which is a good thing.

The list of 'sins' described in the article above is a little selective. Part of the problem was lax moderating on the threads. This allowed for plenty of personality, but also permitted an accumulation of animosity which could be hard to shake, even with the best of intentions. The 'troll' problem didn't have to happen, and The Tyee has itself to blame for that one. I think a few good but overly-intense commenters could have been kept in the fold if they'd been shown where the line was earlier in their participation. The new 'best practices' here will nip that in the bud, although it means the old full-contact free-for-alls are a thing of the past.

I have reservations that the 'best comments' can be used too selectively (for reasons other than quality), but I'm reserving judgment. You're actually creating two separate conversations. An alternate way of doing it could be to change the background colour of 'best comments' so that they stand out as the reader scrolls down. It's actually quicker than flipping back and forth. That way you still have a unified thread, and are still permitting people the right-of-reply (that other people will see).

We're together on that, nightbloom

I'm able to sort and am not scroll-challenged. We have at hand a most awesome tool of communication, yet there seems an unhealthy obsession, by some, toward an ignore function that may border on counselling to do so.

If the post is libellous or, in other ways, does not meet the accepted standards, surely the poster may be asked to edit what offends - or the post may be removed - in which case the author may choose to post an "improved" message.

open topic

I think Skeptikool's idea of an "Open Topic" thread is a good one. And it could result in an occasional fun-time free-for-all.