meyerweb.com

Skip to: site navigation/presentation
Skip to: Thoughts From Eric

Director’s Commentary

In this latest resurgence of the “are blog comments distilled joy or pure evil?” conversation, I got tagged by Alastair Campbell as someone whose site has good comments.  This would be a great time for an abashedly mumbled “aw, shucks, it ’tweren’t nuthin'”, except saying so would be a complete lie.

Want to know how I get good comments?  I work for them.  Part of that is striving to write good posts that will get good comments.  Another part is leading by example.  And a third part is a willingness to filter the comments I get, and saying as much up front.

The first part is in many ways the hardest, because what I think is a good post may be judged otherwise by my readers.  I could spend days and days and days on a post that merits a collective “meh”.  From that, I learn.  If this were solely a “me shouting whatever comes to mind” site, then I wouldn’t care so much, but this is a conversation site.  The goal here is not for me to pronounce my views from on high and thus change the world.  The goal here is to share information, with the sharing going in both directions, and thus change ourselves.

The second part is a lot easier for me, but seems to be harder for some.  It’s very, very rare that I will post confrontationally or abusively.  The few times I’ve done so, I’ve gotten some strong pushback, and no wonder.  The vast majority of the time, the posts conform to the site’s overall Airbag Blog Advisory System warning level of Guarded (“Someone might disagree with you, but only after apologizing for it first”).  Unsurprisingly, the non-spam comments that come in are respectful, helpful, and civil about 99% of the time.  Whether the tone of the site only draws people who are naturally that way or it shepherds all kinds of people in that direction is unknown, and to me wholly irrelevant.

It’s also the case that when the comments and the post match in tone, it’s much more likely that subsequent comments will keep to the same tone; that is, that the commenters help me in setting the tone for the site.  And I always, always appreciate that they do so.  (So thank you!)

The third part can be taken one of three ways.  You can say that I’m like a curator who lovingly tends a growing collection of thoughts and contributions, only excising those that would damage the overall whole; or that I’m a tiny fascist who only lets through comments that meet my personal standards of acceptability.  The thing is, both are true (which is the third way you can take it).

Y’see, this here blog is to me an extension of my home.  In my house, some things are acceptable and others are not.  Nobody is allowed to smoke in my house, for example.  In terms of speech, I’m pretty tolerant of what others have to say, but there are lines and I will enforce them.  Have enforced them, in fact, usually gently—although I once very nearly ejected an out-of-town friend who was staying with us from my house for something that was said.  And no, I won’t tell you who or why.

So as I say, you can take that as abrogation of my visitors’ freedom of speech and an exercise of my right to make my home the kind of place I want it to be.  It really is both.  I don’t see that as a problem.

I treat css-discuss the same way, actually.  It is, and always has been, a benevolent dictatorship, with policies that are enforced.  When people go off-topic, the moderators say so and end the threads.  When people get abusive, they’re warned to stop it, and can and will be ejected from the list.  In fact, I’ve done so twice in the list’s five-year history.  The moderators and I work actively to shape the list, and it has paid off.  The community now mostly polices itself, and the need for moderator intervention is becoming more rare.  Over time, it’s become a very helpful community with a very high signal-to-noise ratio.  Others have observed that it’s spawned one of the few truly useful group-run wikis in the world.  None of that just magically happened.  It required years of effort by me, and then by the moderation team.

(And before someone says that a small mailing list is different than a globally available blog, remember that css-d has over 8,300 subscribers from all over the world.)

The other person who got mentioned in Alastair’s post as having a good-comment home was Roger Johansson, who recently contributed his own thoughts on the topic.  In that post, he hits a lot of the pros and cons of allowing comments: the feedback, the spam, the community, the abuse.  One of the most subtle effects of comments is that it does make you think harder about what you post:

I realized that as I was writing I had started to subconsciously think about what kind of comments a post would trigger. I found it harder and harder to write freely, and to express myself the way I really want to.

It’s the same for me.  The few times I’ve posted things I knew were going to contentious, it was after a lot of thought and consideration.  In fact, almost everything I post goes through some degree of pre-approval based on what kinds of comments I think it will trigger.

Where I would seem to part ways with Roger is that I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  One of the things those opposed to blog comments cite is John Gabriel’s Greater Internet F—wad Theory (warning: contains strong language)—as if it only applied to commenters.  The basic anonymity of the Internet isn’t a case of not knowing names: it springs from the very, very low chance that we’ll ever meet in person.  It applies just as much to those who write blog posts as those who comment on said posts.

Still, that sounds like I’m allowing the community to impose some constraints on me.  Actually, it doesn’t sound like that: it is that.  But I choose to do that, and frankly, I don’t think anything is lost in the bargain.  Quite the contrary.  I think more than a little is gained.

So weirdly enough, I find myself in disagreement with Joel Spolsky when he says:

The important thing to notice here is that Dave [Winer] does not see blog comments as productive to the free exchange of ideas. They are a part of the problem, not the solution. You don’t have a right to post your thoughts at the bottom of someone else’s thoughts. That’s not freedom of expression, that’s an infringement on their freedom of expression.

It’s the last sentence where I disagree, not the rest of it, which is provided for context.  That last sentence is like saying that when I have an in-person conversation, anything the other person says is an infringement on my freedom of speech.  In fact, it’s like saying that my response to his post infringes on his freedom of speech.  Which is just silly.

Neither is my pre-filtering of posts an infringement of my speech.  I am not forced to allow comments, nor to pre-judge my posts based on the expected reaction.  It is something I voluntarily accept as part of having an extended conversation.  If I felt that was becoming too much of a burden, I’d turn off comments.

I don’t have comments here out of obligation to some imagined right.  I have them because they’re invitation to contribute, to enrich, to converse.  Just look at what happened with the reset styles: over the course of a few posts, my original work was built upon and improved.  The same thing happened in the early days of S5.  Without comments, neither of those efforts would have gone as far nor been as well-developed as they eventually were.  No, not even with e-mail, which is one-to-one and so doesn’t allow for the commenters to converse with each other.

Of course, not everyone wants to have a conversation right on their site, which is fine as well.  I don’t think Daring Fireball is lessened for its not having comments.  But part of the reason I think that is that John, being a strongly opinionated sort, would probably get the same kinds of comments in return; the bread you cast upon the waters will be returned to you tenfold.  And the fact that much of his posting is about Mac and Windows wouldn’t help much, either.  Nothing invites comment incoherency faster than having a blog about a contentious issue.  (See also: political blogs.)

As well, there’s nothing that says one must have comments always on, or always off.  It’s generally the case that I don’t open comments on the most personal of my posts, particularly those about Carolyn.  In those cases, I close comments because I’m writing them for me and to share those moments with the world, and don’t want positive or negative feedback.  They’re not meant to be conversations, in my view.  They’re snapshots.

(I’ll admit that I may be influenced by the fact that it was a Carolyn-related post that earned me one of the most vitriolic personal attacks that I’ve allowed to stand.)

It is absolutely the case that having good comments is hard work.  It requires leading by example and a willingness to curate/censor the comments that do come in.  And I absolutely think that anyone unwilling or unable to do that work should disable comments.  Because when a site’s comments devolve into “Useless noise[;] Thoughtless drivel written by some anonymous non-entity“, that’s as much the responsibility of the site’s author as of the commenters themselves.

Thus, for meyerweb, I hold to the inverse of Jeremy’s corollary of Sturgeon’s law: here, comments should be enabled 90% of the time.  I would not think to apply either rule to the world at large, of course.  For many sites, comments probably should be off by default.  But not for mine.

Seven Responses»

    • #1
    • Comment
    • Mon 24 Sep 2007
    • 1419
    Hamish M wrote in to say...

    Well put Eric, very well put.

    • #2
    • Comment
    • Mon 24 Sep 2007
    • 1505
    Michael from Pro Blog Design wrote in to say...

    Well said. Encouraging good comments is probably even harder than just writing good posts. On my blog, I respond to every comment, and love the discussions that ensue. I’m quite happy to admit that often you will learn even more from reading the comments than you will from reading the article. It’s a fantastic environement. :)

    The bit I know that I’m weak at is filtering comments. There have been a few that I would rather hadn’t been posted, and others that didn’t really add anything. I suppose I could make the conversation stronger if I filtered a few of them, but I just can’t help it, and the blog is small enough to get away with it any way I suppose.

    • #3
    • Comment
    • Mon 24 Sep 2007
    • 1711
    Laura Whitehead wrote in to say...

    Well said!
    I’m on of your long running fans for may years now, and don’t beleive I’ve ever commented on your blog as yet, so here I am finally commenting.
    My comments on my blog help to shape the content of my blog too, those that create discussion and participation are the areas my blog is reaching to.
    Allow comments although keep moderating them too! (Just in case!)

    • #4
    • Comment
    • Tue 25 Sep 2007
    • 1428
    Georg wrote in to say...

    Not being one who comment often on blogs, I see the ability to comment as a sign of willingness on the author’s part to discuss the subject at hand. Good – maybe I will if I want to share information or opinions on the subject.

    That some see the ability to comment as an opportunity to comment on everything but the subject at hand, or to go overboard in their use of language no matter how close to or far from the subject their comments end up being, is unfortunate. Reading such comments may also have the effect of keeping some people, like myself, from commenting even if we have something of value to share, which IMO is even more unfortunate.

    I don’t blog since I’m not too happy with any of the tools at hand, and don’t like the thought of having long trails (archives) of obsolete thoughts and stuff hanging around out here. If I find the right tool on day, then I might blog about subjects suitable for comments.

    On the other hand, I don’t write articles in isolation, as people do read and comment on them behind the scene. This means a good deal of thought has to go into whatever I publish, and I don’t think the process would change much with a change of publishing-format.

    Freedom of expression is, and has always been, under threat. To protect it we have to allow everyone to express themselves about just about everything, but not necessarily in whatever way they want and wherever they want. I think you know how to keep the balance on your own blog (and I won’t smoke in your home).

    • #5
    • Pingback
    • Tue 25 Sep 2007
    • 1931
    Received from Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » links for 2007-09-25

    [...] Eric’s Archived Thoughts: Director’s Commentary Again with the basics. Why is this such a difficult concept? “Y”see, this here blog is to me an extension of my home. In my house, some things are acceptable and others are not. Nobody is allowed to smoke in my house, for example.” (tags: blogging blogs comments community freespeech communication internet web) [...]

    • #6
    • Comment
    • Fri 28 Sep 2007
    • 2345
    Isaac Lin wrote in to say...

    Comment threads on blogs have followed the same pattern as other discussion forums (Usenet, bulletin boards, mailing lists) in spawning off far too many discussions that look like this. There are unfortunately some people who would leave their employer vulnerable to accusations of censoring negative comments if they screened out non-productive comments — Raymond Chen’s popular “Old New Thing” blog being one example.

    One tactic Raymond tried was to have a “Nitpicker’s corner” where he pre-emptively addressed potential nitpicks by qualifying everything he said, to ridiculous extremes. The community seems to have picked up the slack and started policing the comments for him, slapping down the noisemakers, and Nitpicker’s corner is currently on haitus (in a way I miss it as it was rather funny, but it did end up drawing too much attention in the comments).

    • #7
    • Comment
    • Sun 7 Oct 2007
    • 2239
    citra kurniawan, ST wrote in to say...

    It’s good.Encouraging good comments is probably even harder than just writing good posts

    Thank 4 ur Sharing Experience

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address required but never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



Remember to encode character entities if you're posting markup examples! Management reserves the right to edit or remove any comment—especially those that are abusive, irrelevant to the topic at hand, or made by anonymous posters—although honestly, most edits are a matter of fixing mangled markup. Thus the note about encoding your entities. If you're satisfied with what you've written, then go ahead...


September 2007
SMTWTFS
August October
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30  

Sidestep

Feeds

Extras