Consumerist Comments Code Makes Comment Land Happy Place
Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the Consumerist Comments Code before, during, and after diving into the comments conversation.
It's got nice rules and guidelines in it that keep the parlay fun, lively and enjoyable. We also added two bits recently, 1) read other people's comments before posting (to avoid repeat comments) and 2) an explanation of what disemvoweling is.
Post a comment
Comments:
yeah, I think so. The whole point of comments are to add to the discussion. How can you even know what the discussion is if you don't read the comments? And if you think it's silly or pointless to read 200 comments, why would you want to be #201?
No, I don't really think it's realistic to read through 200+ comments to make sure mine isn't a repeat, but then again, if a thread already has 200+ comments, I'm not likely to comment on it because, here we go, no one is likely to read through them all because that's not realistic! *phew*
About the read the other comments thing. If I know my comment is better, do I have to read the others?
And if there is like 200 comments already, is it even realistic to read them all?
And are we really adding to the discussion if we don't read all of them? I guess I don't really want to be #201 anyhow...
And it's kind of pointless to comment on something with that many comments since no one reads it anyways.
Well, that's what I think.
It might help if the comments could get titles like every other forum out there.
I don't really see "reposts" being that big of a problem here, though.
@dragonfire81: If there are 200 replies already, it's unlikely anyone will read them all to get to what you will write anyway, so just forget it.. :P
Please don't add disemvoweling. It makes a blog's editors look petty and spiteful.
I don't see the benefit in it. It just leads me to make a point of figuring out what the person wrote, drawing more attention to what you are trying to diminish. It's word puzzle with little payoff created by a site I'd rather respect.
If you don't like a reader's comments, kill them, don't rape them.
Regarding the read other comments rule, If a thread has say, 8 replies, is it realistic to read through every one of them just to make sure we don't repeat something that has already been said previously?
If I know my comment is better, do I have to read the others?
One thing to keep in mind is that sometimes people pull up a post, and by the time they read the post, read the base article, then comment, other people have commented, as the system isn't live updating. This sometimes leads to doubles. I usuallt give people a 5 minute grace period between comments, which usually takes into account slow readers and typers.
On a side note, Ben, can we add a link to the Lifehackers Guide to Posting On This Site at the bottom as well? I've recently noticed people asking stuff like how to bold and format their posts.
But...
Disemvoweling is what you do when you decide that you can't trust your readership. You have to discipline them.
First, hire staff to police the discussion of the rapid masses.
Second, fire have your writers.
Third, stop posting on the weekend.
Fourth, recycle numerous stories from your other sites.
Fifth, readership precipitously declines along with daily visits.
Finally, come back and remind the morons who read your site that they are being watched, and that they must follow rules.
We are to be trusted as empowered consumers, but not as conversants on this site.
I've never understood why the rules here seem to be so draconian compared to other, similar sites. There's no clear path to even being authorized to post comments and even once that ability is granted, there seems to be excessive amounts of oversight. You'd think that there were dozens of people spamming the threads each day or rick-rolling it.
"We also added tow bits..."
Did you guys partner up with Jalopnik and get into the truck nutz selling business?
Points 2, 4, and 5 were decisions outside Consumerist's control.
If you haven't noticed, very few disemvowelings have occurred because people behave themselves here very well. There have only been a couple situations where I thought they were unmerited.
To adopt a mantra...if you don't like it here, leave :)
I'm guessing these bits only apply to posts about tows or towing?
Do you really expect me to read through 200 comments to check for repeats?
Sorry if this has been asked before. I didn't have time to read all 14 replies before mine ;)
@IrvCrapper: Oh, cry me a river. Even McDonald's is entitled to a "No shirts, no shoes, no service" policy. They're asking for a minimum of decorum, and, as the purveyors of the site, they're entitled to insist on it.
The comments section has been noticeably more civil since they started this. Less whining, less trolling, and more focused discussion. I wish more sites would conduct their comments section like this.
@KyleOrton: No, you don't have to read every single one. Just enough to get a general sense of what's been said.
It's obvious that some people just skim the post (or just read the headline and look at the picture) and fire off a comment, that's what we'd liked to see less of.
Disemvoweling is what you do when you decide that you can't trust your readership. You have to discipline them.
@IrvCrapper: No, disemvoweling is what you do when you start getting readers who insist on hijacking the thread by blaming the victim or starting off topic wank-fests about the weight/age/sex/race/religion of one of the people involved in the story.
Finally, come back and remind the morons who read your site that they are being watched, and that they must follow rules.
First of all, not everyone who comments here has been doing so for the past year. They do still get new readers. Since new people wouldn't know about the Comment Code it's good to bring it up every once in a while. Secondly, even the people who have been here long enough to know about the code don't always follow all of the rules. There's still grammar policing and complaints about the articles themselves even though the rules state we're supposed to e-mail them about problems with the story itself.
If you're not writing junk comments or trolling then what's the problem?
Of course everyone should know the unwritten rule - don't put down the consumerist site.... A comment I made once in which I did not agree with what was posted got me banned.
back story: The consumerist once ran a story about how a pizza hut delivery driver was fired for stopping a robbery. Of course this was 100% false and the consumerist was just trying to make the story sound worse then what it was - and when I commented about how I hated when the consumerist lied - where the guy was fired for going against company policy for having a gun with him in his delivery car. (which of course if that gun was used in a bad way, I'm sure the consumerist would attack Pizza Hut for not firing him sooner.)
Anyway, just letting people know about the unwritten rule - don't question The Consumerist and their some-times misleading stories.
I wonder if these persnickety comments rules will go away if Consumerist gets a new owner -- one can only hope so.
As far as I'm concerned, the only valid comments rule is "comment on others as you would have them comment on you".
To me, comments are just the icing on the cake anyway, and sometimes cake tastes just fine without it...
Happpy....... Happy........Happy......
obey my dog.
I like reading the comments - I find it interesting how other people feel.
@IrvCrapper: 1: If you hate moderated comments, go to YouTube.
2,3: Forced layoffs from our overlords. Sorry. If you had any idea what I went through trying to get them back...
4: Recycling, or sharing? Other Gawker sites routinely request to splice over a story from their site to others they think will like them.
5: Fewer posts always equals less traffic. It's been noticeable, but hardly "precipitous."
6: As we're getting new readers all the time, it only makes sense to give people a heads up that there's comment guidelines.
No, we trust most of you. It's just the trolls and spoilsports we're after.
@coan_net: Nope, that's actually a written guideline, under "Junk Comments:... Objections to an editor's headlines or writing style or a post's entire existence should be emailed directly to the post's author."
@jpdanzig:
"As far as I'm concerned, the only valid comments rule is "comment on others as you would have them comment on you".
You're on to something here...Let the readers decide which comments are worthwhile and which ones are trash. People that read this kind of blog are more or less what passes for the intelligentsia in this country anyway. We don't need a moderator to tell us which comments are spot on and which are stupid/vulgar/ignorant.It's not a very great jump from banning content for "technical" reasons to banning content for ideas. (I didn't say censorship- Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT bans speech,literature or thought)...
I don't see the problem with a little decorum. There's a big difference between just being a true blue dumbass and managing to convey facts or opinions appropriately. If you write your comment with a little brain, your original intent can still shine thru without all the extra garble.
On a side note, so fun to read all your comments about this subject. Diversity kicks ass.
I know this is your site but I think you are limiting open debate. It could become a rather bland site if you follow through with these ideas, meaning less visits and hits. I don't know, just a guess on my part.
@Rectilinear Propagation: actually why post about the comments code at all? make it part of the sign on to the site or something. in big bold letters whenever you log in, in that little window, put READ RULES HERE or something. and anyone that gets their gawker id from consumerist can have an extra prompt/window between id creation and first comment.
why mot that?
I'd like a way for the RSS feed to somehow more easily show the response thread comments, maybe something like "xxx in reply to yyy in reply to zzz". I know there are anchor links in the replies, but sometimes it's not the easiest to follow...
@Ben Popken: So if I think The Consumerist is misleading it's readers with a bogus story, I should keep it private and email the post's author instead of trying to let others know that what they are reading is misleading and how I think it is misleading? Hum..... OK, I will try to remember that. The less the readers know the better I guess.
@dragonfire81: I think that is a tough one, too. Another problem, is that because the comments are not in chronological order, if you come back later to see what has been added, you have to read through ALL of them again.
There is no easy way to keep up.
@Ben Popken: I had written a note once about a story that was factless and I did not agree with, and never got any sort of response. I believe Carey wrote it. Not that Carey writes bad articles, this one was just bad and very misleading, and slightly offensive. I know we all bemoan the bad customer service at retail stores, but it's pretty disconcerting when you don't even get a response back from Consumerist when you feel like you have a legit concern.
@ChrisGriswold: I don't like disemvowelling either...but it gives me a weird word puzzle to try and solve :P It's like word sudoku or something.
@jpdanzig: Kinda like the Digg comment system...do a thumbs up/down and hide the low ranked comments. That'd be sweet.
@Ben Popken: Oops!
I guess I better rethink my plan to flame on about Moses, Mel Brooks, The NRA and Egyptians in one single gloriously off-topic post!
Sorry about that :-(
@tc4b: yes, it will be a little difficult. This is the Consumerist - and I have always thought of the site as a place to help the consumer (which is mostly us, the reader) - and when I see something on the site that is misleading (and basically a lie), it will be hard for me not to stand up and say something.
To just sit on my hands and watch the site mislead other readers who might blindly believe what is written.... yes, it will be hard for me.
I like disemvowelling because it gives me a weird word puzzle to try and solve
I'm finding that a lot of the people who have a problem with the rules are exactly the kinds of people I wouldn't miss. So, in all honesty, if the rules bother you, don't do us all a favor and leave. I'm not trying to be snotty, either. You'd be happier, we'd be happier, win-win.
@katylostherart: I agree. Perhaps below the "Submit" button there's a link saying "BTW HAVE YOU READ THE COMMENTS CODE YET? IT IS HIGHLY SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS YOU OUGHT TO READ IT IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY". Well, something to that effect. I'm guilty of offtopic meandering myself.
I just want to jump in on the subject of reading the comments before you. Believe me, I do not want to try to enforce people to reading and carefully considering every comment! The spirit of the rule is intended to avoiding situations where:
a) People comment after skimming the article, missing its point, and basically "shouting in the dark" (this is really a junk comment, in my opinion)
b) People responding to trolls who were banned several pages of comments ago
c) Commenters get banned because they don't read the comments to see where Ben and/or I have stepped in to point out the commenting rules
Commenting here, unlike most sites, is intended to be a conversation. A lot of people, especially new commenters, just use the comment box as a hanky for their brain after reading some part of the post, and it's destructive to the community. Don't worry - we're not trying to catch people on a technicality, we're just trying to discourage repetitive and/or rule-breaking posts so that we don't just have five pages of comment "noise".
@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: *shakes fist* Grr... if you read the above post with multiple replies you'd know the answer!
Also, I'm very aware that people can be composing comments while I or others are posting. Don't worry - we have reasonable expectations of you. :)
About the read other comments thing. If a thread has say, 200 replies, is it really realistic to read through every one of them just to make sure we don't repeat something that has already been said pages ago??