But allowing readers to post their own comments, without an editor approving them first, results in Gannett showing the world that many of its readers can't spell, or too often resort to racial slurs or hidden profanity. (And GCI isn't the only one suffering the consequences.) Too often, it's little more than readers scrawling graffiti. Here's a fresh example: "The Unions haven't knifed America in the back, the United States Government did with a bunch of Bull Shat called N.A.F.T.A.,'' a Tennessean reader wrote today on the Nashville paper's website. "WHY is China getting away with all the crap they keep sending over here?"Got a profane, racist or other crazy comment that made it past your site's filters? I'm collecting examples for my new Commentz Korner feature in hopes of shaming editors into action. Send-links to Gannett Blog -- or leave a note in the comments section, below. (But be forewarned: I personally read and approve all comments on this blog before they get published!)
It's true that some comments aren't insightful, but you have to admit it's a bad user experience to wait for a comment to appear.
ReplyDeleteUsers expect that when they post a comment, the comment shows up where and when they posted it--not when the editor gets back from his lunch break. Moderation compromises the flow of conversation.
I agree with you, Mary -- up to a point. My solution: Publish only as many comments as can be approved in a timely fashion. That means committing more editors to the job -- or allowing comments on fewer stories.
ReplyDelete