The comments are a reflection of the mood of the society we live in...it is a snapshot

Those who make those comments are exposing themselves and their own fears and perhaps the way THEY THEMSELVES have been treated by others

Perhaps instead of hiding form this reality

There could be an option offered similar to Digg -that allows users who DO NOT want this slice of reality to vote a comment down (thus hiding it after a certain threshold)

Those who want to see this raw snapshot of the minds of others can read them if they chose to

Also, let's try to have at least one reader-submitted e-mail without trashing the sender about how lazy, spoiled, and unreasonable they are.

How about a call for better posts? "Too many Hamburgers make you Fat", "Debt is Bad", and "Dogs are fun" aren't exactly earth shattering revelations.

Personally I think the site is too cluttered up with "non-stories". I'd rather read longer articles and discussions on two or three good solid topics a day- like on consumer calls, phone number cheats, outstanding or horrific customer service experiences, and ok Geek Squad stories, rather than the pithy two liner posts that are there just two fill space.

"Red Hair Street Team Invades Wendy's"? Come on - it's a fun water cool article, but nothing "Consumer" related in the least.

Thanks for letting me bitch. james...

sorry I meant "just TO fill space". And I made up "Dogs are Fun."

But until the local TV Trouble Muckers team gets another dog a credit card it really doesn't matter.

I don't think the comment approver approach will work, because of the pace of blognews. A story starts to get stale within 4 hours or so, as it moves off of the front page. Any delay in approval of comments would disrupt the commenting process.

People would post redundant information, not seeing that someone had already said the same thing, but their comment was in queue. Corrective information would be slow to come by. Etc.

Well put... but can you add "Ben will make fewer posts that appear to be primarily intended, or at least worded, to rile readers into frenzies" to your list of action steps above? It's OK to be passionate and try and stand out from the crowd with your site, but I place some blame on The Consumerist for doing some baiting, as well.

@AT203: They aren't saying they are going to approve EVERY comment that is posted. The "comment approver" only applies to approving the initial commenter. Once you're approved as a commenter, there are no restrictions and no approvals, save for the new "moderator" that is being considered.

@jamesdenver: I whole-heartedly agree. I think there is a lot of junk that gets posted just to fill the space. When I first started reading the site, it seemed pretty substantial. Now, there is maybe one article with any substance per day.

@SEARCH ENGINES:
The existence of swearing and rudeness in society is hardly a justification to use it in venues where such discourse is not welcome. As readers to this site, we should be well aware that there are many domains -- customer service, anyone? -- where civility and proper manners are essential for proper communication. Indeed, when we are faced with rude employees or company representatives, it is often here that stories ending up on this site begin. So by all means, if The Consumerist asks for proper discourse on its forum, that's their right. God knows that there are more than enough other places on the 'net for you to swear and insult at will. Let's show some respect.

This wasn't a problem until Gawker Blogs started giving out commenting privileges to any asshat with the ability to type "http://www.kotaku.com" in a browser.

@brianoflee: Some commentors need a verbal thrashing.

The best way to improve comments is to create and stand by a set of rules. This gives you something to point at and reference when banning/censoring someone. Obviously they won't cover everything, but it's an effective technique.

See: How the Something Awful forums are moderated. Hands down the best moderated community on internet.

I agree with Art Vandelay on everything but the last sentence, and disagree with Search Engines on everything, no exceptions. If this were Digg, I would be voting him down very thoroughly. I would be hiring my friends or random internet strangers to vote him down. I would write a script to refresh my IP, solve the automated CAPCHA problem, login, and vote him down.

See how civil we can be?

I'll call your call for better comments and raise you a call for better articles.

"What do we want?!"
"BETTER COMMENTS!"
"When do we want them?!"
"NOW!"

"Hey hey, ho, ho, crappy comments gotta go!"

This message brought to you by the NAACC (National Association for the Advancement of Consumerist Comments)

* If you haven't watched the video about the red heads protesting Wendy's, then this comment won't seem very funny. Go watch the video, then come back and re-read this comment.

@Art Vandelay:
The only comments that need a verbal thrashing are the ones that contain a verbal thrashing.

I agree... the whole Gawker network was more fun (and more civilized) when accounts were more restricted and accountless commenting was impossible. I used to read deadspin all the time, but I can't stand to wade through the comments there anymore. Some of the others are getting bad too.

It seems as though the topics like "Who are the bigger threats to make plane go boom, the TSA or terrorists" seem, shockingly, to draw out the most ire.

@jamesdenver: Definitely. Articles providing help to consumers about dealing with credit fraud or about ATT's possible trespass and ripping of wiring are more useful than whining about ads on trays or other completely unsubstantiated stories. Bring in debates and discussions, not whines.

I'm a high school teacher and I agree: obscenity and rage at strangers is NOT acceptable. If I can get 40 teenagers at a time to stop swearing, it's not an overpowering compulsion. I can see banning users for anti-social behavior.

Perhaps while you're spending all this capital on improving the comment quality (via censorship, essentially), might I suggest you divert a small portion of those funds to a spellchecking program or, perhaps, a little more editorial oversight before posting articles?

Let me be the first (in this forum, anyway) to make the 'Slashdot/Digg' comparison. By and large, slashdot is representative of an educated and civilized (if snarky at times) commenting population; Digg, on the other hand, is full of fowl mouthed, idiotic-cum-hateful commenting.

Call me crazy but I equate a good deal of this difference to the pre-screening and editorial vetting that the articles receive before they're green-lit. (Yes yes, you can argue slashdot has a more mature patronage as well as the difference in sheer volume of green-lit stories, etc, etc...). I posit that the quality of the editorial 'intros' along with the thoughtfulness that goes into the selection of the chosen subject of the articles sets the stage for the tone and content of the comments.

That said, do whatever you think makes sense to fix the problem you perceive with the comments. But keep in mind that obvious spelling and grammar mistakes (along with some of your more jocular commentary) sets the stage for a fair bit of the stuff you're hoping to filter out or eliminate.

Just delete us all and have us re-prove our post-worthiness. This time do a more thorough job.

I run a vbulletin board with over 1000 users. We have one major rule of thumb: attack the poster's point, not the poster, otherwise you get kicked off. This is emphasized to new users and enforced. The rule works so well that I rarely have to intervene with day-to-day board matters.

Also we delete all flame wars as soon as they appear. Not only does it defuse the problem but the perceived absence of flame wars sets an example for everyone else, and makes people think before they start one.

For the time being I say bring back the ban hammer and approve new members.

I do have to say that the quality of this forum is not bad at all... I don't think there's really a problem. Either that or the bad stuff gets deleted before I see it.

Isn't "wackydoodle" another name for ah, umm, er.. a personal intimate action?

Yeah, you guys have been handing out comment privileges like it's candy. I try to keep my stuff on topic.

Slashdot has a user-run comment moderation feature, where commenters may earn moderation points by making insightful, informative, or funny posts. When you have your own mod points earned, you may moderate the posts of others.

Talk about increased page views. And no further employee time need be spent, since after the initial semination of mod points it'd be user-run. Denton, you hearing this?

@jamesdenver:

I agree with jamesdenver entirely. Putting more effort into fewer articles would improve the content of the consumerist.

Also, dogs *are* fun.

Perhaps it's hard for people to take seriously a website that at one time championed itself as a beacon of reason and logic in a world of corporate/consumer foolishness, but now does things like invading the privacy of innocent people, i.e.- Fry's Electronics Phone Directory. Apologize to us, apologize to them, take down the list, and try and regain your moral authority.

@rmz: "...without trashing the sender..."
Hear, hear. And I'll stop posting the 'I wondered how long it would take before..." posts along with the unbounded rage :) But the sarcasm will continue.

If you're going to start editing the comments, does that mean you'll start editing the posts too?

I have to agree with the others.. more quality and less quantity. The advertising on the airplane tray was ridiculous. And the Fry's corporate number directory was pointless. And most of us can do without the Lifehacker style posts, such as this, and this, and this, and this, and many more. Stupid or annoying stories make people post stupid or annoyng comments.

Quality posts = quality comments.

Well, in theory. ;-)

@Michael: oh, snap! :)

ps - I really had to restrain myself from unleashing a string of obscenities when I first saw this post. Of course, I feel that way on a daily basis...

Let me third or fourth or whatever the call for making everyone go through the approval process again. And while a spell-check feature wouldn't be bad if it's easy to do, I don't think good spelling is a prerequisite for intelligence or insight. Some people just don't have verbal skills. I'm not good at sports; should I stop going to baseball games as a spectator?

I am all for meta-moderation. I think it would be a good way to remove the bad comments.

I have to agree with others though that when you post inflammatory such as the TSA or terrorists poll you are going to get some heat in that discussion. Also, the stories of people complaining about having to see some form of advertising or not getting a discount at a store they didn't shop at kind of go beyond the spirit of this site. Just my humble opinion

@leftistcoast: The Digg reply: "b3n is just d0ing dis 4 teh ad r3v3noo!!!11!1!!1!!"

@queen_elvis: No, you should not stop going to baseball games as a spectator...but you sure as heck shouldn't be the designated hitter. Spelling is important. It goes to the very heart of professionalism. Would you take the NY Times (or any other 'important' publication) as seriously as you do if it was written in lolcode or otherwise riddled with simple errors?

The premise I'm suggesting here is that if someone isn't careful enough to catch these relatively minor problems before releasing their bounty upon the world, what substantive mistakes lie in wait for the reader?

@dbeahn: tinfoil hat time! :)

@dbeahn: i can has tinfoil hat?

Yes and let's not try to make fun of other's people chemical burn feet.

Consumerist far and wide lacks the wit and snarkiness exhibited over at say Defamer; in part do to the over sensitivity and apparent lack of social skills from many a commenter.

Is this because we teased you so badly about your "Money Cat" posting? :)

@pdxguy: No that's a blumpie.

@leftistcoast:
I agree. Spell checks have always been the foundation of word processors. Firefox spell checks everything I type in any web from online. There should be a set of standards setup for both posts that involve spelling, formatting, background information, and detail. It would probably go a long way to eliminate the posts people are complaining about here.

Something similar for the comments. It cleans up the bad apples, and gets people thinking about what they're saying.

@leftistcoast: This made me LOL. I had to resist the same impulse.

Personally, I don't think its that bad around here. The foul language is typically kept in context and when its not the poster is ignored.
As for personal attacks, I see that more with the posts wherein someone writes a letter to complain about something. And even then I tend to think that some critical analysis of the letter is completely justified. Seriously, if you have a complaint and write the Consumerist, it sure as heck better be valid, otherwise its gonna get shredded.

No question, the content quality has gone downhill. It seems like after the whole Vincent Ferarri thing, there was a while where the vast majority of the posts were dedicated to bringing down allegedly evil corporate giants like Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc. Whether they deserved the criticism or not, it got a little old reading te same old posts filled with te same old self-righteous mock outrage.

If crude or defamatory comments are a reflection of the commenters themselves, then the content of the site is a reflection of the editors.

Nothing here that no one else has said, I'm just also a bit dismayed at how much the site has just become a place to air vendettas and meaningless gripes.

Useful guidelines: [www.lifehacker.com]

I totally agree. Numerous comments seem akin to road-rage.

At last! I've been waiting for another purge to take place, but this will do. I get annoyed with the ideologues who reflexively side with business on everything. The ones that make a cogent argument are fine, but those that simply snark about how dumb consumers are and how a free market will solve all customer service problems get annoying, particularly since I think most of them are simply trolling for fun.

Thank you, Ben. Much appreciated ... and your site will be the better for it, IMO.

    I find Consumerist to be one of the most useful sites, day-to-day, on my feedreader. Yeah, there are some commenters I don't like. I have no problem skipping those comments. Some folks who comment regularly, I KNOW I need to skip, because I'm going to get mad, otherwise. On the other hand, certain comments have helped me immensely.

    If causticity is affecting new readership, or sapping the creativity of the fine authors of this site, then I say, "ban away." I hope I'm not one of those punted. Still, it's not exactly like Consumerist is taking these folk around back, and shooting them. (Like I've advocated on forums, for certain classes of criminals...)

Well, it's a shot at something, and that's about all you can ask for. But in my opinion here are a few other items that might help:

- Post more thorough and insightful articles. Most commenting is made up of great speculation into the situation at hand. By now it should be relatively easy to predetermine what areas of a story need to be fleshed out more so that the straying speculative comments are avoided. (See, what is extortion in the state of California).

- Be more objective in your postings. Far too often there is an injection of personal bias into the post that begins to invalidate items. When Meghann first started posting her posts were filled with these (although I say it's gotten much better as I don't notice it as much anymore).

- Post substantive messages. Stating that it's Week 4,320 and Wal*Mart has not taken down the FarFigTuten (on purpose) T-shirts is nice, but how about some comments from the store manager on why they still are up there, or use the executive directory you keep handing out and get the opinion of someone higher.

- Police the comments, but by no means should comments be restricted from blasting the "victim". In many cases these people are the asshats they are made out to be.

- Swearing means nothing. For those who have a problem with it perhaps you should check yourselves. It's nothing more than an expletive. How do you classify calling someone a fuckwad as being worse than an dingbat? Because society has told you that saying fuckwad is bad? What if they were a major dingbat instead, would that suit you better? I don't like people who say irregardless, but you don't see me on a crusade. The content of a comment should stand for itself. If the comment relies heavily upon swearing and portrays an air of ignorance it will show clearly.

- Finally, there should a be a word requirement for commenting. This stops the poor fools who simply hit comment and type "Yea, they got what they deserve, Wal*mart sucks." Of course I suppose that might fall to the commenting police, but who knows.

Bottom line - any attempt and improvement is better than none. Here's to tomorrow.

@Franklin Comes Alive:
I agree...the comments on Deadspin are damn near impossible to slog through...I miss the good old days. Same could be said for here. Or Wonkette. I think they got a bit too loose with the commenter privilege thing.