Since 2002, Poynter Online has allowed users to share feedback on stories they read. Bill Mitchell, editor of Poynter Online, answered questions in the user commenting survey on Poynter's approach to commenting. Here are his responses:

How do you allow readers/viewers/listeners to comment on stories?

At the top and bottom of most articles and blog entries on Poynter Online, users are invited to "Add Your Comments on this Article." The major exception: We do not enable feedback to individual items on Romenesko. We did enable them originally, when we introduced feedback capability in November 2002, but users told us they didn't like that approach.

Feedback is handled in two ways on the Romenesko page: (1) Readers send letters to Romenesko and he selects the most interesting to post in the letters section of the page, and (2) readers post to a general feedback area on Romenesko, with their comments appearing in the feedback area of Romenesko as soon as they click the "Submit" button.

How much do you screen their comments before posting them?

With the exception of Romenesko Letters, as described above, Poynter does not screen user comments prior to publishing them on Poynter Online.

How much do you screen their comments after posting them?

Our content management system displays the most recent user comments near the top of our main admin page. We scan that page in search of red flags that might prompt further reading, but we also rely on other users to alert us if they spot a violation of our posting guidelines.

How much do you allow other readers/viewers/listeners to screen and flag comments?

Every page of user feedback includes links enabling users to submit a complaint about what they find on the page -- as well as links to enable users to read our feedback guidelines or add some of their own.

What written guidelines, or as some newsrooms call them "rules of engagement," does your newsroom have governing reader-posted comments?

Our guidelines

How often has your Web site spiked comments? What does it take for a comment to get spiked?

In the four-and-a-half years we've been using our current comment system, I would guess that we've spiked fewer than 25 of the many thousands of comments posted. Anything in violation of the guidelines posted in response to question #3 above, but we bend over backward -- too far, according to some -- to avoid spiking comments.

As of Thursday afternoon, some 62,857 users had registered on Poynter Online since we introduced our existing publishing system in November 2002. Fewer than 10 percent have posted feedback the past four-and-a-half years. Of the 5,399 users who have posted feedback, we have suspended a grand total of three people for repeated violations of our guidelines.

How often, if ever, have you disabled commenting on a story or issue?

With the exception of the way we handle comments on individual Romenesko items, described in response to question #1 above, I don't recall disabling comments on a story or issue.

How valuable would you say it is for a Web site to allow readers/viewers/listeners to comment on stories?

It can be quite valuable. As a reader, I sometimes find it not worth my time to wade through irrelevant and/or raging comments in search of useful material.

Why do you allow readers/viewers/listeners to comment on stories?

As Dan Gillmor and others have pointed out, the audience often knows more about a story than those of us writing or editing them.

What legal guidance/standards are you following in dealing with comments?

Our guidelines reflect the legal as well as ethical standards we strive to live up to on Poynter Online.

How often have you encountered problems with the tone/language of
comments?

Relatively infrequently, but that no doubt reflects my tendency to lean over backward to avoid spiking. See discussion below.

What kind of problems?

Several colleagues at Poynter believe that we should spike many more comments than we do. They argue that comments written in a sarcastic, condescending or overly critical tone -- sometimes all three at once! --don't fit with the kind of collegial environment we strive to create at Poynter, online as well as on campus.

Their perspective is well taken, but I often find it in conflict -- or at least in tension -- with my own point of view that a journalism site such as ours has a special obligation to accommodate opinions that challenge what we publish.

I'm quite willing to spike comments that clearly violate our guidelines, but I've found a fair number of sarcastic, condescending or overly critical comments that really don't violate our guidelines as they currently exist.

An important reality in the world of comments, though, is that it's not just what the editor of the site thinks that matters. What do you think? Should we be spiking more comments than we do?

What interesting methods have you seen other Web sites use for handling
comments from readers/viewers/listeners?

I had not heard of the user-driven system, described in Kelly McBride's piece on the recent case at the Orange County Register, that automatically spikes comments when at least two users have suggested doing so. Pretty interesting. Should we adopt something like that on Poynter Online?

Take the Survey:How does your news organization handle user commenting?

Survey Results: Read news organizations' user agreements


E-mail this item | Add Your Comments | QuickLink this item: A123290


Dialogue or Diatribe? Archive

View items published between:		and
	(MM/DD/YYYY)		(MM/DD/YYYY)

MAIN | Back to Top