Hey, there! Log in / Register
New rule
By adamg on Sun, 03/16/2008 - 6:54pm
Argue away, but no personal attacks, please. If you can't argue against what somebody writes without simply calling them a douchebag or whatever, you probably want to start your own blog, where you can fulminate to your heart's content.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Thank you
And is registration now required before posting comments?
Not yet
Because of those pesky technical issues I need to figure out first (yeah, the ones I still haven't looked into yet).
Welcome to the tubes Adam,
Welcome to the tubes Adam, enjoy your stay!
;)
but just to let you know,
but just to let you know, I'm not one of them.
But registration will never stop trolls, they live for the attention and will re-register as many times as they can.
Moderation of the comments would be the only thing that could stop them...
Maybe that's the next step.
Maybe that's the next step. But not yet.
Time Delay
Perhaps a time delay before somebody could post - like a couple of hours or more - would derail some of the trolling.
swirlygrl is amongst the
swirlygrl is amongst the worst of the negative commentators
Um, maybe ...
Usually only when someone is wrong on the internet!!
What would be interesting, Adam..
Is what articles draw the most comments?
Who would have expected the Schweitzer South End Fecundity
non-trend to have generated as much "discussion"
(and yes am guilty as well) as it has? Of course,
it was also a lousy March weekend. But nonetheless,
seems a bit excessive.
Seems to me that UH pieces on neighborhoods
are a big drawer. (Like Where's downtown?
An Israeli in Mattapan. etc.) And that is in keeping
with the Boston I grew up in, where neighborhood
(or in DOrchester, parish) was a huge part of how
people defined themselves.
You willing to share the most popular?
Most commented posts
That thread wasn't even what prompted this thread.
In any case, sure:
http://www.universalhub.com/mostcomments
The first one on the list doesn't really count, because it's where a former member of the Frequent Commenting Club melted down :-).
Shovel and Pail
Kiddies who couldn't behave led me to screen posts (many fewer than UH, though) on two of my blogs. I put my policy up front and enforce it. It's dramatically cut down on trolls and crazies. Reduced, it is basically:
I only have to reject a couple a month now.
No Looney Rants?
You basically cut out 98% of the posting public, homey. One man's loon is another man's wacko. ;)
Not good merchandise
I doubt many would buy that. A good thing about blogging is being able to decide what appears. On mine, if I I ID a comment as a loony rant — hostile, illogical and puerile, I reject it.
Your number is pretty much reversed. I only have to nip fewer than 1% of posts. (Again, I don't have Adam's level of traffic, so the comparisons are skewed.) Examining those comments I reject, I see that most of their posters return, but without the craziness — abuse and lunacy as I define them for my blogs.
In the main, intellectual traffic and free exchange of ideas don't suffer from comment moderation. Plus, there are lots of sites that encourage provocative, inflammatory and insulting comments, just to get the traffic going and pot stirring. Those are different sites from mine and even from UH.
Everyone has lots of walls on which to write. That doesn't mean they can put whatever they want on every wall.
You can't censor passion. :)
Blogging is all about complaining and that inevnitably breaks down into critqiues of a business, a city, a neighborhood, a train conductor, etc.
Keep in mind that, though advising against the degrading into rank name calling because people can't articulate a reasonable response or defense, that effective that should be applied to posts to UH and any posts highlighted - eg do not point out articles for discussion that involve any sort of controversey or that involve any specific neighborhood, person, place or thing.
In for a penny, in for a pound folks. This is why people read newspapers ... they want the facts or just one person's opinion, not the highly misplaced 'wisdom of crowds' - then again, all the stuff getting people riled up should make the site owner happy, more ad impressions, and that is really what the game is all about, yes?
There's a difference between passion ...
... And simply stringing together an impressive list of insults and curse words that would've gotten your mouth washed out with some soap when you were younger - or smashed in the mouth if you actually said them to somebody in person now.
Don't get it...
Isn't the purpose of a blog to elicite a response, either positive or negative? While I realize not everyone plays well with others, just posting the things you deem okay is contrary to the entire belief structure of this country, if you ask me. I'm not trying to start a freedom of speech debate here, eitther. I just find it interesting that the people who post on the web as bloggers tend to want to censor comments from others that differ from their views. Obviously there will always be losers who get off on trying to aggravate, but most sensible folks can see those people for what they're worth and ignore them.
It's no stranger
Than pulling weeds in your garden.
It's not the differing views
I take some knocks in this thread, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about replying to a post about a woman feeling threatened walking down a street with a string of expletives and misogynistic phrases that the poster could not have possibly said out loud because he would have run out of breath long before he was done (yes, I did delete a reply there).
most sensible folks can see those people for what they're worth and ignore them.
The problem is that Gresham's Law applies equally to online discussions - eventually, the bad forces out the good. Would you continue to read a site consisting entirely of four-letter insults and cheap shots? Well, maybe you would, I don't know what your taste is, but that's not the kind of site I want to run.
I get it, but...
The best thing about this country is that anyone can have an opinion about something, regardless if it's right or wrong. I also get that a string of profanity is a completely different animal than a well thought out, intelligent discussion. I'm just saying that the clowns who post those curse laden diatribes are typically recognized for what they are by the folks here at UH. Stupidty will always exist, but censorship due soley to that is a very slippery slope. It starts with censoring something for content, and can easliy snowball into censoring something over opinions, or something arbitrary.
Maybe a profanity filter or something like that would be helpful, instead of a manual process of viewing each post?
Censorship
But ultimately this is Adam's site. If it starts to fill up with content that Adam doesn't want, it's his right to do whatever he feels is necessary to bring it back to what he intended.
To see what happens when site owners and editors don't use such discretion, check out the Somerville News blog comments.
And that's fine
I fully understand that. It's his site, his bandwith, etc..., so he can certainly set the rules. It's just a drag that a few losers have to wreck things for the rest of us.
I've visited this site for neighborhood news ever since I moved out of West Roxbury a couple of years ago, and I enjoy staying connected to that area through the postings here. It's unfortunate that a couple of trolls have brought him to this point...
What would be lost, LSC?
Can you explain what is lost if certain comments are blocked versus what is lost if certain comments are allowed to overrun a conversation to no good end?
There are places that I go on the web that moderate comments, but still get the passion and allow fairly clear expression. They have found ways to filter out the trolls they don't want around.
Plenty
I'm not saying this will happen, but there are plently of places that start out by filtering for language, that quickly evolve into a mini version of the thought police. I've been a long time member of a sports related board, and they did just that. It was for content first, then it became stopping trolls, and now if a moderator disagrees with your post there, they'll go in and makes changes, or even delete an entire thread. Not because you called someone names, but just because they deem it was offensive, or disagree with your point.
My whole point is who says what is offensive (and this is not directed at this site)? Is this the old "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it" argument? This country is fast becoming overrun with folks who are so sensitive to any criticism, that rather than foster a healthy debate, we run from it and use excuses that something is offensive to somoene instead of allowing discussion on that topic.
What I find to be really offensive is the politically correct police using this exact type of argument to censor free thought and speech and people being so used to this that they allow it to happen.
Indeed
At which point, you and OMO can go to blogspot and set up universalhubsucks.blogspot.com ...
I wasn't
Talking about UH at all. Just the idea of censorship and how easy it is to take the next leap once it's happened initially. I personally have said all along that it stinks that some folks had to screw things up for everyone (Yourself included, due to having to edit things and clear posts first). I personally like the site, and wish nothing but the best for you.
And this type of discussion is exactly what I was talking about. I clearly don't agree with some people here, yet you're allowing it to occur, which is a great thing, IMO.
I think you may have missed the point.
No one is suggesting that Adam (or anyone else for that matter) censor anything based on the content of a comment whether it's for or against the topic at hand. It's more the people who can't articulate intelligently and instead devolve into just insulting people in a pathetic attempt to make them feel better about themselves.
Wow.
What if someone IS a douchebag? Can we call them a douchebag?
Prove it
If you can make a logical, coherent argument for why Person X is a douchebag, go for it. If you just start screaming like one of those people with the burn-in-hell signs at Park Street, no.
my likeness
who is this weebs character using a similar code name as my own? granted, i would probably have asked the same question, but still... weebs is way too much like weeb.
this site's to small for two weebs! grrr!