Are users jumping through hoops to comment on your stories?

Image via Wikipedia

Jon Mitchell has had a rant here on ReadWriteWeb about Google+ and its many (in his view) shortcomings. 

I still don't find Google+ compelling enough to be able to engage in that debate, but I was interested to see one poster's view in the comments included this salvo:

As for jumping through hoops, having to come to this site, after seeing the article on G+ was a pain. The entire article could have been posted to G+, where I was already logged in and could then share or comment. Instead I have to load this site, wait for all of the ridiculous ads and recommended stories to load, read the full post, which is interrupted with an ad right in the middle of the story, scroll past 20 comments, write my comment, then look forward to the no-doubt idiotic login process.

Anyone who has ever tried to comment your average newspaper website will no doubt join in on the chorus (and is probably still trying to work out how they subscribed for 20 e-newsletters while registering to comment).
We don't half make things complicated sometimes. 

Which is why I found myself agreeing (and, in line with my New Year Resolution, leaving a comment on) this post  by Dave Burdick who suggests maybe shifting debates from main news sites to social networks, specificaly Twitter. 
Interesting idea isn't it? Although debates shift wherever the participants want them to, imo, and the more we try to control them the more likely we are to lose out. 

I suspect that as time goes on we will get less concerned about making people jump through hoops to comment on our site, and just seek out interaction, wherever it may be. 
I hope we do, anyway - the 'log in to comment on this story' is just another facet of the Media As Gatekeeper approach we're all trying to move away from. 

Related articles

• Is Google+ the New Hula Hoop? (globalneighbourhoods.net)
• #Google is Out of Control (booleanstrings.com)
• Google+ Pages for Brands Have Finally Arrived! (sixestate.com)

How to stop internet trolls (infographic)

If you manage online communities, this infographic by community102.com will no doubt strike a chord.

Moderating comments on Facebook

How do you moderate a community on Facebook? Should the same policy exist as for a title's website moderation or do the disparate fans and friends it has there require different handling?
I use Facebook for content, for sharing information, for instant polls, news gathering and just taking the temperature of the public mood on an issue but wall comments can sometimes be horrific. From wildly inappropriate link-sharing to libelous comments to outrageous Anglo Saxon to attacks on other users or writers... I've seen these shoulder their way onto Facebook pages associated with newspaper titles at one time or another and have had to sort it out - sometimes with an un-friending and a block.

Stretched newsrooms with small digital teams have to juggle the management of website comments, as well as the importance of participating in conversations on Twitter and managing @ replies and Facebook wall posts. 

I've had a few Twitter mates DM-ing me recently for advice/thoughts/verbal chicken soup over dust-ups with members of the Online Community on Facebook (usually football or crime related, where emotions are running high), and I sympathised and offered some thoughts on what to do.
The new e-guide from Buddy Media: How Do I Respond To That? The Definitive Guide to Facebook Publishing and Moderation is useful; once you get past the corporate language and the fact that it's not written for newspapers but for business it contains some helpful advice. 

The Buddy Media report highlights, in a nutshell, are:  

Don't...

• Forget to check your Facebook page regularly - you have a space where users are commenting in all sorts of language and ways that may or may not be appropriate
• Turn a volatile thread into a back-and-forth argument with someone
• Respond to one person but not others
• Ignore requests for information 
• Automatically get rid of negative comments - respond and give the community a chance to engage as well

Do... 

• Respond to comments on accuracy/ability of journalist 
• Take advice on brand value/stance before you respond on issues (eg. political) 
• Block haters; life's too short 
• Moderate by communication; encourage the Facebook community to flag inappropriate posts
• Have a clear strategy so all page admin know how to respond in situations 
• Create a written policy about what types of posts you don’t want to receive, and place it prominently on your wall or page 

To which I'd add

• Turning Facebook chat on gets you lots of interaction
• There's nothing wrong with auto-posting links but do also show there's a human, not a bot, behind status updates
• Indulge in a little curation and share things from other media
• If you have breaking news in your status update, FBers will expect you to update them there too as it progresses 

Related articles

• Facebook Fan Page Best Practices with Mari Smith [@InboundNow #18] (hubspot.com)
• How to create effective Facebook Wall posts (jagdidit.com)
• Avoid Monday, URL Shorteners on Facebook (lockergnome.com)

Comment moderation - the Rugby Poetry rule

I have, at times, been less than complimentary about certain types of forum users. I know I'm not alone in this as there are various index, category, definition and analysis pieces to be found online which look in detail at the psychology of the WUMs and trolls - and if I didn't point you at the excellent Flame Warriors site right now, it would be a grievous omission.

However, sometimes those who live in the spaces between the 0s and 1s add a little sunshine to my day. This was one of those days...
Thank you, Ruggerpoet andAnonymous:

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Poetry is Not a Sacred Cow (spreadinformation.wordpress.com)
• Fishing for Trolls (adventuresinsocial.wordpress.com)
• Don't reject a positive troll (connektd.wordpress.com)

Journalism 101: Your readers are the toughest sub editors ever

As a journalist, you should never underestimate the smartness, recall and grammatical abilities of your reader.
When the subject matter is a niche interest that warning goes double, as the Guardian discovered (*links to the two articles are at the foot of this post):

and, just to compound the fun, someone else spotted this:

Whatever your profession, you can't be an expert in everything (as a journalist some knowledge,  an enquiring mind and a willingness to bother those with the expertise is probably what many of us would admit to).
But you can be either a) more honest or b) more devious when it comes to recyling: You can link to your sources, or at least reference them in articles, and make transparency and pathways a virtue; or you can be devious and change the words so it reads differently. At the very least you will have made some effort.

But a word of warning on the last choice - I know of a few instances when articles had to be purged from electronic archieves because one elderly (and subsequently corrected) error kept being repeated. This was, of course, because journos working on the on-going story - maybe years later - were cutting and pasting bits of the original.


Incidentally, one of the best things about writing this (not-very-illuminating) blog post was that Zemanta threw me a fantastic website as a link option.
It's called 43things.com and is a space for people to list their life goals. The link in question was 'Quote Roy Batty's dying speech at most social functions or awkward moments at least once". (Yes, that's their life goal: Not 'be a good parent' or 'scuba dive on the Barrier Reef'; just to shoehorn a quote from a character from a 1980s movie into an inappropriate scenario.)
So there's a list of people explaining how they movingly incorporated "C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate" into a eulogy.
As one respondent who managed to achieve that particular life goal pointed out: "AWESOME SAUCE!"

*The link to the Guardian article is below, with the rest of Zemanta's suggestions, if you want to read the full story of how remaking/reimagining/making a prequel to Blade Runner has caused such consternation. The link to the Guardian article refered to in the comment is http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/aug/26/sciencenews.sciencefictionspecial


Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Blade Runner 2: Ridley's replicant or tears in the rain (guardian.co.uk)
• Alcon secure Blade Runner sequel or prequel rights - I say no! (scyfilove.com)
• Guest post: Do we need moderation guidelines for dealing with mental health issues? (onlinejournalismblog.com)
• Guardian journalistic "ethics": Publish, & let others deal with the consequences (cifwatch.com)

Reader, I banned him...

Sam Shepherd recently wrote a thought-provoking blog post on how the issue of readers' robust (but accurate and valid) views on online article.
After all, the age of engagement and interactivity means a reporter can get fairly instant feedback, good and bad, on an article once it appears online, either via comments or forums.

But sometimes the feedback is neither constructive, useful or even fair, and we don't necessarily like to acknowledge the fact that an invitation to interact can - for some people - be interpreted as giving them carte blanche to have a go.
Interaction is not invitation to post trollish, petty or vindictive behaviour and allowing it to go unchallenged means we are not considering the impact it might have on other members of our online community.

Sometimes forum members are rude or offensive, and then get offended when this is pointed out to them. I don't think there's much hope when you're dealing with someone like that; when a forumite starts calling you a Nazi for editing swearing out of their comment, you're probably beyond the realms of a rational argument.

I recently sent a message to a forum member whose post was basically constructed around the argument: "I'm not racist but..." (and I'm sure you can fill in the rest of the sentence). I sent him a private message saying it was racist, it was not acceptable on our forum and if he persisted an interim ban would be winging its way to him. I never heard back and he hasn't posted since. You know what? That suits me just fine.

At one point during the Sean Mercer trial, the Coveritlive software had a bit of a hiccup and the liveblog couldn't be updated for a couple of hours - and as a result we also couldn't post a message to say we were having problems. We had a couple of followers posting comments asking what was happening, and then one that said: "This is useless; if you can't do it properly, don't bother doing it at all".

Now, I tried to put myself in that poster's position: s/he was engrossed in the real-time reporting of an important trial when, suddenly and without explanation, the river of content dried up.
So I suppose I can see why their comment was full of annoyance, frustration and disappointment but I still think they were rude and thoughtless.
We were three weeks into a trial that had been constantly and consistently liveblogged; it must have been patently obvious that there was a technical problem. After that problem was fixed we posted an explanation and apology on the blog. Did we hear back from the poster? Did we hell.

There's a balance to be struck between interaction - robust conversation, lively debate, responsibility and ownership - and allowing mischief-makers to dominate a conversation. Newspapers want people to engage and interact with us but shouldn't become so wrapped up in it that insults, hostility or rudeness go unchallenged - whether it's directed at a staff member, the newspaper or another forum user.

Fair comment

Finding intelligent, reasoned reader comments on newspapers' online sites can sometimes feel like a Snark hunt.
I've noted my thoughts on why newspapers can fail to encourage a flourishing online forum community before, and had some interesting feedback both here and via Twitter and Plurk.
Personally I don't believe newspapers forums will ever succeed unless time and real effort is set aside for looking after them; too often they degenerate into name-calling, adverts or conversations between two posters that would make more sense conducted via instant messenger.
But I also don't believe it is beyond the wit of newspaperkind to host intelligent, interesting and relevant forums for debate and comment - we just have to care enough that they succeed, rather than chalking them down as a 'must-have' on our online checklist.
So, having followed a Twitter link from Paul Bradshaw to Derek Powazek's blog post on 10 Ways Newspapers Can Improve Comments I have some new thoughts to mull over.
Some of what he says chimes with what Mark Commerford suggested to me (regarding forums and the ability for users to flag comments which they perceive to be good or bad) and I'm also intrigued by his suggestion to scrap anonymity. All in all, lots to consider...

What makes a good newspaper forum?

Are forums the best way of interacting with online users? A quick glance at most newspaper websites would indicate the answer is... no.
Frits van Exter, former editor-in-chief of Trouw newspaper, in the Netherlands, told the World Editor's Forum earlier this year that such interactivity was an 'open sewer' on a newspaper's website. I wouldn't go that far, but I'm constantly taken aback by how unpleasant some posters are on newspaper forums - the bullying that goes on in some of them is worthy of the Big Brother house - and it's easy to see why some new users never log in again after being flamed for voicing an opinion that runs counter to the mob.

What would a new forum member think of this post on the Liverpool Echo Short Points forum, for example?
Would you hang around to see what the existing posters had in store for you? probably not. If you're wondering, this has provoked 17 other comments - exchanges which became increasingly nasty until everyone seemed to lose interest and went on to find other threads to row on.

Then there are the newspaper websites that say they want to interact while giving out every signal to the contrary.
Click 'interact' on www.thisisbristol.co.uk and you're met with a list of how you can do things... once you've filled in forms with several fields. And that's just to write a letter to the editor. I know data capture is important, but my God, can't we make it any more subtle than this? Or at least break it up a little? Getting into the site and becoming involved should be easy; after building some trust we can start to ask for more information. Sorry Bristol Post, I'd have to be pretty committed to interacting with my local paper to do this - especially when I could get into a debate with members of Bristol's Facebook group without going through half the rigmarole

So what makes a good newspaper forum? Personally, I think time, effort and attention are key factors here - too many forums are set up and ignored by newspapers, other than checking for potential stories or libels.
I also reviewed my Delicious bookmarks to see what some of the experts, among them Mark Commerford, Rob Hamman, Chris Brogan and Adam Tinsworth, thought of the subject.
Conclusions? Well, here are some observations:
1. A successful forum is one that the members care about - it feels like a valuable and valued community. Yoliverpool.com is a example of how a successful online community operates and co-operates.
2. Posters need to know the boundaries; post-moderation only works if there is care and consistency.
3. Moderators should be familiar, via bios and links, to the users. They should join threads as participants, point users at interesting or relevant links and seed comments. They should not be intrusive or over-bearing. The 'Trusted User model, where certain forumites are given moderator status, is a good way of ensuring the sites are not just the responsibility of the paper's digital team.
4. Where offensive posts are deleted, a reason for the action should be given - transparency avoids conspiracy theory side-threads. For an extreme example - not necessarily recommended - see this.
5. Encourage forum users to own the space and feel responsible for it - plastic.com has a rating system for readers which filters out posts that consistently fail to make the grade. A flagging system can also encourage a commmunity spirit.
Put posts flagged three or more times as inappropriate in a moderation loop so it drops off the site til an official moderator can look at it and decide whether to re-instate it (with an explaination)
6. Reporters should interact on forums - crowdsourcing, replying to posters, starting their own threads; these are all quick, easy ways of building engagement with the wider online community.
7. Have a newbie thread so people can introduce themselves and get used to posting on a fourm. Make it welcoming -it should have a "Hello and welcome to our forum" post before the 'code of conduct' post!

These are so many opportunities to make forums more attractive for users; it would perhaps be an idea to have a 'best practice' guide or a wiki so people can feed in ideas and share experiences. What do you think?

Forums v Comment

I'm starting to think the Daily Post should reinstate the old 'have your say' option under our web articles.
We used to have them but they were scrapped because posts had to be moderated before they could be uploaded manually.
This meant sometimes comments posted on Saturday evening wouldn't appear online until Monday morning.
So now we have the forums - which are moderated after the post has been uploaded. So you get the odd spam advert on them, and the occasional idiot indulging in name-calling, but otherwise it runs smoothly.
All well and good.
But I suspect some people prefer to just comment-and-go, rather than go through the hassle of signing in to a forum and, potentially, having to create a new thread.
The Lancashire Evening Telegraph offers this this.
Maybe forums are areas were people have conversations with each other, and comment boxes are where they have conversations with the newspaper?

Death by car bonnet

Every machine I own is actively conspiring to make my life a living nightmare.
I thought I was fairly open-minded when it came to technology but I'm rapidly subscribing to the Way of the Baseball Bat.
(This was recommended by a friend. He bought a job lot of old Macs and keeps them in his back yard so he can smash one up when his Computer Range is particularly bad).
Anyway, the latest sortie was made by my car. It tried to kill me.
I was headed to work today, NOT listening to my iPod through the radio (thanks for nothing Belkin) when the bonnet suddenly flew up without warning. At 60mph...
It was an exciting moment both for me and for the lorry driver I was overtaking - and only when I made it safely to a layby so I could sort the damn thing out did I realise I had officially had a near miss.
Meanwhile, the social networks project continues; the more I research this whole issue of newspapers and Web 2.0, the more I realise how far the industry has fallen behind.
I asked Rob Marcus from Chat Moderators how newspaper social networks could succeed. His advice, in a nutshell, was:
1). Control freakery is as unattractive in newspapers as it is in people; take part, don't take over
2). Have a little humility
3). You only get one chance to make a first impression
In the interests of extending our reach to readers I briefly wondered if the Daily Post should get a Pownce account; having read this it sounds as though we're better off sticking with Twitter until things become a bit clearer.
Talking of Pownce, co-creator Kevin Rose could soon be a rich man by all accounts.
Microsoft and Google are apparently fighting it out for Digg in a deal rumoured to be worth $200-$250m. And Facebook's creator is now worth around $15bn.
Ever wish you'd chosen a career in computers?