A grade above youtube? That's not really shooting for the stars. In fact the reciept checking post is chocked full of trolls. If you are commenting on here about how people on here have no life, isn't that irony at its best?

Ben you used to have a bigger, heavier ban hammer. I don't see what the big deal is about banning trolls. I wouldn't even warn them first. By the time someone comments on here, they've probably been reading it for a while first. If they can't keep it civil, just ban them. Believe me, they will make a new name and come back, and hopefully not be a jerk then.

Just curious, I'd like to see Gawker more thuroghly explain how it manages comments.

Is there only one comment moderator across all the sites?

If not, why would de-activating a commenter on Consumerist deactivate the user on all Gawker sites?

If comments are deactivated with 'No explanation, No appeals' why invite users to write Gawker asking for help if you think the comments were turned off inappropriately?

What kind of volume of comments does Gawker have to manage, and does it affect the decision making?

Just curious. C'mon, open the kimono a bit.

Yahoo! comments were the absolute worst, of course they won't even let you comment there anymore!

HaHa! I now can blink!

@girly: I thought aol's was worse. where did those nut-jobs hatch from who comment on there. I swear they are not even real people.

@snoop-blog: You need to cut down on the caffeine.

@snoop-blog:

what is a troll comment to you may be an insightful comment to someome else.

Man my blink didn't blink. What the blink!

I also notice that when someone is banned, their comment is wiped out.

By publicly banning the person and leaving the comment (if it's not too profane, racist, etc.) it serves as a great example of what are unacceptable comments.

It also helps because often there will be quite a few replies to the (banned and removed) post that then become difficult to follow.

Man, for a half a second there, I thought installing the new Gawker thing for Firefox would actually allow me to see nested comments again. *sigh*... Nope :(

@captainpicard: Good point. Which is why its important to debate the person, not attack the person.

To me, a troll is someone out there on the internet going through the effort to call someone a troll.

I love that guide from Lifehacker. I mostly love it b/c I'm featured in one of the images. I'm an egomaniac. I admit it. It should be required reading, and you should have to answer questions based on it to submit your application to comment.

@Bladefist & @captainpicard: There are some obvious trolls, however. Like when they only make one comment per discussion.

It's a fine line...but someone's got to moderate it. The commenting guideline is long overdue and makes sense.

You could copy from Deadspin's Comment Ombudsman column where he shows examples of bad comments, why they are bad, and why those commenters are being banned. You can also make fun of the commenter, if you want.

@Bladefist: Exactly. I get sick of all the name calling and personal attacks. That's why as much as I do comment, I didn't bother commenting on the reciept checking post.

I was looking for a post like this but the search was failing me. I guess my keywords are teh suck :(

I miss the days when Ben would get on a kick and throw people out of the bar en masse. Seems we had less problem with trolling in that era.

@SkokieGuy: I'm not sure what you mean... we generally do not delete comments. Unfortunately it's a bit difficult to point out problem commenters as you actually have to click on the name to see that they can't comment; it's not posted next to their name in the comment threads (as, say, we could do in a forum thread situation).

In regards to the receipt checking thread, it's a topic that tends to attract the jerks. We go through, we weed people out after they misbehave. Unfortunately there's not much we can do to prevent trolling (other than the audition process in place) - we can only create guidelines, and then react to misbehavior.

If you see inappropriate behavior, the best way to handle it is to email me: moderator@consumerist.com. I'll deal with it accordingly.

I'm just worried that I will get a warning response from a moderator & not see it....and then get banned if I screw up again. I dont always go back to consumerist articles after making a comment.

@renilyn: That goes for both of us. Some neat formatting stuff listed here though. I never knew about the "blink" option, tho it doesn't seem to be working for poor snoop!

@forgottenpassword: As long as you follow the guidelines, you should be fine.

In the unlikely event that you're banned but don't know why, just email me. We can and have reinstated some folks (depending on their correspondence with us and their original offense). This is especially true for long-time positive contributors. Someone who comes out with guns blazing right out of the gate is substantively different from someone who's been a member of the community and a positive influence for some time.

For what it's worth, forgottenpassword, you don't have any warnings. :)

It worked for me on the messages system that is in our profiles, but not here. I'll try one more time: blink.

it's working in the preview...

Monkeys + keyboards would beat Youtube comments.

Roz,

I can't locate an example now, I do know I've sometimes scrolled back through comments after reading someone was banned and the comment was gone.

Since you've explained it's not normally done, perhaps these were instances where the comment were especially vile.

@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz:

Well, I admit I have a tendancy to get a little wrapped up in a particular subject (like the reciept checking stories.... god I love those!).

Anyways... How do I go about gettin one of them thar fancy stars next to my name?

These rules may end up evetually hurting both you and the blog.

Reading blog comments should also be fun - not just work.

Readers are not getting paid so it is important that they be allowed to show their personalities or even release an occasional catharsis. They are the reason for your success!

Comments that are too strict, are boring. What sets this blog apart from some others is the personalities that come across in some of the comments that make them more entertaining and alive to read. It is certainly not as bad as YouTube or Digg or Slashdo, but a safe middle ground that adds zest to the overall intelligent contributions of the readership. This is an emotional, provoking blog - so expect the comments to be emotional and sometimes provocative. They reflect the mood of the posts

If we want strict intellectualism we can read Consumer Reports.

In terms of blaming the victim - this is the real world. It never does any good to hide from what people are thinking. If society doessometime blame the victims - it is because that is the way life is perceived to be increase the odds of survival.

@SEARCH ENGINES: Let's keep things on topic. If you disagree with the comment code, please send it to Ben via email; this thread isn't intended to become only spleen-venting about the code. Thanks.

@renilyn: I miss this functionality more than anything. Maybe emailing Yogurtearl would help? I sent him an email once thanking him for his nesting comments script and he was nice about replying. Perhaps he's cooking up a new script as I speak!

@SkokieGuy: i like the way some of the other gawker sites do their banhammer posts that identify the violators & why they were banned. kind of fun.

I like to remind people that this is the Consumerist, not the Conglomerist. This is where shoppers bite back, and sometime it's about bringing change for consumers. If they bought a playset that was a lot smaller in real life than on the box, we shouldn't be so smug to say "the dimensions were right on the box!" not everybody is a human tape measure, it's about bringing change so that products are advertised more fairly. Did the toy manufacturer break the law? No, but some of the consumer laws need changed and that's what the point is of those kinds of posts.

@renilyn:

So it's not just me!

IMHO putting a direct link to the comment code on the left side of the page (right below the link to Roz as moderator) would be a good idea, beside having it within the 'help' menu.

The increased visibility couldn't hurt.

@rainmkr: Agreed. I was also looking for this. Maybe it would help if the post was permanently linked to on the front page, like on the left side underneath the Gawker Media Network blog links.

Just an idea.

@SkokieGuy: You beat me =)

The blink tag hasn't worked on IE for ages... Firefaux still lets you use it, unfortunately.
If snoop's text isn't blinking it's most likely becuase you're on IE (or some other browser with enough sense to have disabled the horrible blink tag)

@snoop-blog: So true.
I don't know, maybe some folks like reading comments that come off like a cage-match, but I just stop reading. The comments I love (and love-to-hate) are pithy/sarcastic, helpful, or tell their own experience with the same type of thing.

@snoop-blog: Don't make that a habit :p

@weakdome: nope its working now and I use Opera 9.5 for my browser. I made a second attempt up there that's still blinking, the one that says it works in my preview just click my name @snoop-blog:

@mgy: word! I already thought about how that could get me into trouble.

when does moderation become censorship. Just because I don't agree with the poster or feel the person is being a "baby" I run the risk of being banned. That itself then becomes censorship. I agree that the use of moderation is necessary but at times it can become draconian on this site.

@captainpicard: As I just posted above, let's keep things on topic. If you disagree with the comment code, email me or Ben. This isn't a debate about the comment code.

I miss the good-old days when commenting on Gawker blogs was invite-only.

The threads were a lot smaller, but a lot less tard-infested too.

@snoop-blog: I actually think public, gratuitous ban-hammering, with a snarky explanation why (extra points for tracking down where they live and putting into stocks outside their nearest Starbucks (like the Pilgrims did (if only they had access to steamed, frothy milk))) would be a highlight of every late Friday's Consumerist read.
Or a Lord of the Flies twist: a poll where starred* commentators vote to exile trolls to be beheaded and their noggins placed on a pointy stick.

* Yes, I'm a rock-star elitist that buys argula. Now can I get that Dem Veep nomination? I've been waiting by my mailbox far too patiently...

Could you imagine writing a really long comment with the blink? You would only be able to read so much in between the blinks.

Although, my kingdom for a strikethru command, because it can be used for attempted* always hilarious results.

* Pretend italics = strikethru, and watch your funnybone swoon yawn jadedly.

One thing I've been wondering for a while -- what's the proper way to quote text from another reply? I usually just put it in italics, but I see other posts with fancier quoting, and I'm not sure what tag to use for that.

@Trai_Dep:

"Although, my kingdom for a strikethru command, because it can be used for attempted always hilarious results.

* Pretend italics = strikethru, and watch your funnybone swoon yawn jadedly."

/fixed

@Orv: Some gawker sites use the [blockquote] tag, but best I can tell, it doesn't really do anything on consumerist.