Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Seen it?

Introducing a new feature to our comment threads

Advertisement

Over the weekend, we quietly introduced a new feature to our comment threads.

It's one we hope NOT to use often but one that we expect will have a big impact when we do. We recently finished work on what we're calling "moderated comments." In certain, select, circumstances, it allows us to pre-approve comments before they go live on our site.

On the story this weekend about two women who fell off a retaining wall, we enabled moderated comments. We didn't, however, turn it on as soon as I would have liked. Part of using this new technology will be figuring out when we want to use it.

Off the bat, I can tell you we're extremely likely to use it when we're dealing with a story that is about someone who may be fighting for their life. We're also likely to use it when we write a story that could lead to comments attacking children. I can also tell you we're extremely unlikely to use it when we would be the target of criticism. In fact, as you can see from our guidelines , correcting misinformation in a story or providing context to our reporting is a category of information we want to encourage.

Ultimately, our goal is to continue to encourage the free exchange of ideas that our comment threads are known for, but also limit the types of damaging, hurtful comments that often come from accidents or crimes. We hope to use this feature once a week or less. If you have questions or comments on the new feature — or on when and how we should use it — please leave a comment below or contact me directly

Comments

Suvk1ller 4 years, 12 months ago

Oh isn't this just a fine way of saying sensorship.

mrotto 4 years, 12 months ago

I think that the women fell 'off' the wall instead of 'of' the wall.

hilary 4 years, 12 months ago

You mean censorship, and no, it's really actually a fine idea, especially when dealing with death. Great idea, ljworld!

Flap Doodle 4 years, 12 months ago

Rogue, you're free to leave at any time.

milehighhawk 4 years, 12 months ago

It would be fantastic to have an "ignore" option for certain users.

For example, I don't want to read the racist rants of soobawls or Jaybate's novellas on KUSports.com - it would be great to "ignore" those posts and not see them appear in a comment feed.

Thanks!

feeble 4 years, 12 months ago

First amendment rights to not necessarily extend to the comment section of your favorite website(s). Users need to understand the difference between a "public forum" and the comments section of a private website.

Please note, I'm not making any comment regarding the protected status of anonymous speech.

stuckinthemiddle 4 years, 12 months ago

or Rogue... I should say... either way... I'm with you...

stuckinthemiddle 4 years, 12 months ago

and... ignore functions are okay...

I prefer a flush function...

Jonathan Kealing 4 years, 12 months ago

By the way, I left the word NOT out of an important sentence in this post earlier. We hope NOT to use this often, but to great effect. Sorry for that confusion.'

As for an ignore feature, we're thinking about options like that. For now, though, that remains a ways off.

Graczyk 4 years, 12 months ago

Bad idea. The moderators may not be able to keep up with the volume on certain stories and it will hamper the flow of the conversation. This could lead to one off comments that don't have any relation to each other.

Why not just monitor the board that you think are likely to spawn undesirable comments and then remove them as they get posted/flagged? This will enable real time conversations.

remember_username 4 years, 12 months ago

Mr. Kealing, will there be some indication on the specific article page that comments are moderated? I can imagine a poster looking for his/her comments, and if not seeing them right away resubmitting them over and over agian. It might also be interesting to see what articles in particular are believed by the editors to warrant pre-approval and how often moderating is used. Will you include a flagged removal indicator for a submitted comment that was blocked during the pre-approval process? It might help posters keep track of the usernames of the rude posters.

stuckinthemiddle 4 years, 12 months ago

real time conversations... as in a chat room?

hmmm....

geekin_topekan 4 years, 12 months ago

Jonathan, I guess my question was a little too sensitive so it was deleted from the other thread?

I will ask it again here. What constitutes a "sensitive story"?

Ljwolrd has been pretty blatantly selective when it comes to protecting others dignity;living or deceased.

Jonathan Kealing 4 years, 12 months ago

geekin--

I sent you a note directly about your comment being rejected. One sort of comment we plan to reject on sensitive stories are those that criticize the functionality of the site, the grammar of other commenters or issues that aren't germane to the story itself. Your comment belongs on this blog (which I told you in the e-mail I sent you), not on that article.

As for what stories to use this feature on, you tell me. That's part of why we have this blog up; we want to know in what circumstances you think we should use this.

Jonathan Kealing Online editor

workinghard 4 years, 12 months ago

Jonathan--can we flag posts from was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) when he tries to turn an unrelated story into a story about yellow house and then get them removed? He just did it again on the Taco Bell robbery story. He tries to bring the yellow house case into any story he can even though it has nothing at all to do with his parents case. His comments about the case should be restricted to stories about yellow house, and enough with posting comments on old stories just to get them on the most discussed list.

OldEnuf2BYurDad 4 years, 12 months ago

There have been many stories when I've wished the comments were just turned "OFF". That seems less messy to me. Otherwise you'll have to deal with the complaints of people disagreeing with the level of moderation, how it's being applied unfairly, etc.

tvc 4 years, 12 months ago

If you are pre-approving comments before they are posted, then why the removal post? I guess if I was trying to protect feelings, I would not show that x amount of posts have been removed.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 12 months ago

Kudos, John. It's helpful. I also agree with others that these articles, typically articles about crashes or untimely deaths, could just as easily have comments turned totally off.

And I believe a muting function for certain posters would indeed be a wonderful innovation. I could flip the switch on Merrill on the left, Tom on the right, and Marion and a few others in between.

If those posters actually could see how many eyeballs they lost, I believe they would moderate themselves. I believe civility would increase and the shouting would diminish.

That is not censorship, but forcing those posters to be accountable to maintain their audience.

meggers 4 years, 12 months ago

Thank you for the update, Mr. Kealing.

I wonder, though, how you are going to handle it when family and friends of the person in the article decide to comment on an accident, crime, or other incident. It seems that if people who are critical of the person(s) in the story have their comments censored, yet family and friends of the person involved can provide their own biased accounting of the situation, you're creating a skewed forum.

I completely understand why you feel the need to be sensitive to the feelings of people who are in the midst of a tragedy, however I can't help but wonder just how you're going to draw the line if people making excuses or even blaming others for their loved one's misfortunate are still permitted to post.

A recent story that comes to mind was the one with the eight teenagers who wrecked on Highway 10. Thankfully, there were no deaths involved, but it appeared that one of the teenager's mothers was posting incorrect information, perhaps in an effort to portray the driver and other kids in a more favorable light.

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

If I may be allowed to say, what a terrible idea and not just because the criteria used will be subjective and therefore subject to abuse without any recourse or any guidance about what changes could be made to make it "acceptable;" or because some subjects of stories deserve to be strongly criticized for their acts that harm themselves or others.

As a result of this new "feature" (that almost nobody wanted or requested) your readers can never be sure which stories comments needed "pre-approval" and which didn't or don't. Since you agreed to publish the pre-approval comments, can we assume you agree with them, or that you may disagree with the comment but agreed to publish it?

And despite your assertions to the contrary, the last comment of mine that was deleted characterized Chad Lawhorn as little more than a Simon family paid PR "whore" for the Lawrence City Commission, and while that might sting a bit, with hundreds of articles unquestioningly supporting every initiative coming from City Hall many feel it is well deserved.

Good luck with your new the Stripper Blog, In My Pants, Jerry Springer venal pandering to base instincts and cutting off legitimate, if strongly worded, criticism. In an era where objective journalism is slowly committing economic suicide, the LJWorld boldly demands more rope!

GardenMomma 4 years, 12 months ago

How about adding a spell/grammar check on the preview page while you're at it?

pfunk81 4 years, 12 months ago

Please add the ignore feature sooner than later. It really can't come fast enough.

Ronda Miller 4 years, 12 months ago

I understand your plight but agree with many about censoring before their post, or blog, not after. The legacy of the World Co. deserves better.

I also agree with those who suggest 'no comments' are appropriate under circumstances such as those you plan to observe closely. Make life simplier for yourself, Jonathan!

And happy holidays all of you.

notjustastudent 4 years, 12 months ago

Sigmund- there have been plenty of people asking for this. There is a little statement above the posting box if this system is going to be used, so yes, commenters will know (see multi's post at 12:23). Obviously we can't assume anything about the editor's opinion, only that in their opinion the comment did not follow the guidlines, whether they agree with the comment or not.

Maybe you feel that some people should be strongly criticized for their actions, and I have to agree with you. The difference is that I know it's not my job, or my right, to punish/criticize these people, but you feel that it is your responsibility. I understand free speech, but as someone pointed out, this is private domain...

I understand why some people may be concerned about bias, and the K10 accident mentioned is a great case in point. But...who actually beleived that there was no alcohol involved? If a mother says something about their child, we can all have our opinions, but expressing them won't matter, because she wouldn't have changed her mind. That is, until there was evidence, and I'm sure she was far more embarassed by that. I guess all I can say is that I trust the editors will make the right decisions.

After all, the world ran just fine without comments sections, and I'm sure it will continue to do so with limited ones.

Deja Coffin 4 years, 12 months ago

I think that the new feature is a great idea and I hope that you don't decide to turn off comments completely on sensitive stories. I know that it was heartwarming to read the thoughts and support strangers posted when my brother was in an accident. I also enjoy reading comments from people that knew the person in certain stories and are able to share their memories of that person.

The grammar correcting does get annoying so I won't miss that. I hope that you don't get rid of all the off-the-subject comments because I feel like some of my favorite "conversations" are on those. For example, someone may have been hurt in a car wreck and wasn't wearing a seat belt. The discussion then leads to the pro's and con's of wearing a seat belt and isn't harmful to the person involved in the article at all.

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says… "Sigmund- there have been plenty of people asking for this."

No, they have been asking that certain stories have comment completely disabled, unless you work for the LJWorld and have seen emails I haven't seen. That is significantly different than "pre-approving" some and disapproving others.

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says… "Obviously we can't assume anything about the editor's opinion, only that in their opinion the comment did not follow the guidelines, whether they agree with the comment or not."

Guidelines? There are published pre-approval guidelines? Sorry I missed those.

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says… "Maybe you feel that some people should be strongly criticized for their actions, and I have to agree with you."

So which drunk drivers who kill themselves or others deserve to be criticized and which don't? Those you know and party with who are "great people" who "made a mistake" who are KU students get a break and those who are not with a Sonority or a Frat, or from Topeka get criticized? So when Tommy's Booze Cruzin' buds hop on to tell us what a great guy he was even though he killed 4 people, this will be allowed and calling Tommy a low life scum because he killed three innocent people and himself will not be allowed?

notjustastudent (Anonymous) says… "I understand free speech, but as someone pointed out, this is private domain…"

Yes this is private domain, but media organizations are subject to various license renewals and regulations and there is a responsibility to the community. Cutting off negative comments of drunk drivers while allowing comments praising them in the glorious alcohol soaked deaths is highly irresponsible, offensive and doesn't serve the community. Especially one that has seen more than it's fair share of drunk driving death lately.

Jonathan Kealing 4 years, 12 months ago

All--

We'll absolutely be including that blurb Multi pointed out whenever we're using this feature. And, as to why we're not just turning comments off, there's a couple reasons. 1) We believe strongly that the community has the right to weigh in on important, even sensitive issues. 2) We know the community often has more information than we do. In these fast-changing times, information from an eye-witness posted to our comments can be just as valuable as anything we may write. Additionally, we won't always decide to turn moderated comments on right out the gate. So, in those circumstances, some comments may be removed following our normal guidelines, while new comments may be held to higher standards.

Thanks for the feedback. We hope this serves as a good compromise between those who want constant, unfettered ability to comment on all articles and those who think comments should never be allowed on stories that involve tragedies.

Jonathan Kealing Online editor

BMI 4 years, 12 months ago

GardenMomma (Anonymous) says…

How about adding a spell/grammar check on the preview page while you're at it? ~~ If you use Firefox, it spell checks as you type.(contact me or JK for info, it's free and easy to download and use). As for my opinion on typos and other users ability to post:

While the paper might look more professional if everyone was perfect, seeing the comment the way they type it gives you some insight into the person who wrote it, the moment they typed. My adult child pointed this out to me when she was discussing a dating site. She first commented how men certainly would be more appealing if they would run their introductions by a spell and grammar check first. After she read more, she realized it gave her a more honest look at the person. Their education, background and perhaps sobriety at the time. She mentioned you could tell if it was a simple typo that anyone could make and it should be kindly overlooked, or if understanding should be extended because the person was less educated, perhaps mentally impaired.

I view the online comments that criticize typos and grammar with zeal as a window into the personality of the critic. Very telling. Their compassion leaves them for the need to be better than someone else and to show it publicly.

Kuku_Kansas 4 years, 12 months ago

LJWorld--

To enact this option, means you are not fully satisfied with the comments posted by your website readers. Understandable.

By this really goes back to the true question--why did the LJWorld EVER provide such a tool for readers anyway? Because other newspapers provided comments sections for readers? Because web 2.0 technology allows for interactivity? Because comments elicit more readers sticking around longer at the website, which equates to higher advertising $$$$?

The whole idea of readers leaving anonymous postings immediately following journalistic news seems to the contrary of a news website. Are you a news website, or blog format for anonymous posters to publish opinion? If you're both, fine...but then don't "moderate" comments.

Journalists have lost control of their field. This is unfortunately yet another example.

Deja Coffin 4 years, 12 months ago

Sigmund, Good point, I guess it wouldn't be fair to have the comments one-sided.

Jonathan Kealing 4 years, 12 months ago

Kuku--

We LIKE having comments on our articles. We think it gives us a view into our community, an outlet for free speech and a place for members of our community to share news and information that relates to a story we create. Can it get better? Sure. Just like our articles can get better and our Web site in general can get better. We never stop trying to improve, but that shouldn't be taken to mean that we've lost confidence in our comments. And, for what it's worth, we were among those who started the wave of news sites allowing — even encouraging — commenting on our news stories.

Jonathan Kealing Online editor

puddleglum 4 years, 12 months ago

wait, that didn't come out right.

why not just remove the comments that offend the staff, and let the others exist? Isn't that the way it works now? It seems to be doing good-not fixed, why break it?

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says… "We LIKE having comments on our articles."

Generates web hits and much needed revenues since we undersold our advertising on KU Sports dot com. Were hoping the Stripper Blog makes up for it....

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says… "We think it gives us a view into our community, an outlet for free speech and a place for members of our community to share news and information that relates to a story we create."

Unless we don't like your view of our workers paradise.

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says… "Can it get better? Sure. Just like our articles can get better and our Web site in general can get better."

And it can get a whole lot worse. What ever happened to the remedy for speech you disagree with is not censorship but more free speech?

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

Other than drunk drivers who kill and injure others on our roads, what other "protected class" of criminals is jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) going to spare family and friends from hurt feelings? Rapist whose friends create and account and tell us what a 'great guy' he is, or it was just that 'one time,' or the 'victim was asking for it,' or liked 'rough sex.'

I am personally offended when that kind of carp happens but never complained because I was allowed to respond. Will those comments be denied "pre-approval" as well? Or will those characterization be allowed go unchallenged for fear someone might be offended by a response?

How does any of this make the LJWorld better? How does that serve the Lawrence community? How will some sense of balance be provided? If some stories will generate an amount or kind of traffic you don't want, just disable comments for those stories. In that way you are not choosing sides, otherwise you going to present a skewed homogenized non-dissenting view of the "Lawrence Community" and piss off a lot more people.

They'll rightly complain that your posters are presenting a biased view of events without allowing others to respond in kind. Nothing drives away readers than the impression, formalized in corporate policy, that there is only one side to the story, but all others are denied the same access to present their opposing views. That has been deadly for several news organizations lately and likely to claim more victims in the near future.

AnnaUndercover 4 years, 12 months ago

I like the way Fark handles commenting. I definitely make use of the 'ignore' feature, and can understand why users on ljworld.com might be interested in it, too.

I think it might be good to remove the 'past comments' link on everyone's profiles, as well. It enables people to follow you around the site which can lead to frequent and unwanted attention for some.

Katara 4 years, 12 months ago

JackRipper (Anonymous) says… Perhaps this will be a test of what is edited out but still haven't heard why logrithmic not only disappeared but all the comments made by logrithmic also disappeared. Was that done by the JW or requested by logrithmic? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anytime someone is banninated, all their comments vanish from view.

Have no clue why he was though.

Ron Holzwarth 4 years, 12 months ago

It seems that no one except me posts under their real name.

It also seems that few realize that ALL their comments are searchable by Google and other search engines.

Everything you write here is available for the whole world to read! What you write here is how you will be remembered, so be considerate!

Maxandwillie 4 years, 12 months ago

Perhaps requiring posters to put their names (real ones) would lead to less offensive comments.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 12 months ago

Marion once again just proves my point. Thanks, google-boy.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 12 months ago

Marion, I have never suggested removal of one of your posts. You regularly suggest removal of mine.

Who is the censor?

Yes, I do understand civility. This is an example of yours:


Hello,

The user Marion Lynn sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:

============================== Shove it! ==============================

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

Sigmund:

"If I may be allowed to say, what a terrible idea and not just because the criteria used will be subjective and therefore subject to abuse without any recourse or any guidance about what changes could be made to make it “acceptable;” or because some subjects of stories deserve to be strongly criticized for their acts that harm themselves or others."

They mentioned they're going to moderate the articles where most of the TOS violations occur. Namely, on threads where the topic is someone sick/dying, or a child. It's sad that there are sick people on the internet who do these things, but really, I don't care if they moderate the comments. It's a welcome change to reading some awful garbage some hatemonger on this site decides to toss out there as a comment.

A newspaper comments section is not an appropriate grounds to criticize someone you don't know. I think you might consider writing an actual letter to the editor if it upsets you so.

Regarding the derogatory and accusatory remarks about the Journal-World having a "Stripper blog," I find this entirely amusing. First, you trash the LJ World for being able to moderate your material when you decide to make statements about people you don't know under the guise of speaking out against criminals (what a noble stand! Society doesn't do that on its own using laws, courts, and actual procedures. You, the hero to all oppressed Internet citizens, must defend us with your STRONGLY WORDED comment!). Then, you object to the content of a blog (which, mind you, is in no way actually explicit) posted by someone because of her profession. To my knowledge, no advertisement of Anna's blog has appeared anywhere on the Journal World online or in print. So, to act as though that's some extension of them is silly. It's no more right for you to do that than it would be for me to assume Marion Lynn's insane ramblings in HIS "User Blog" are the opinions of the Journal World. You know what? It's clearly labeled "Stripper Blog." If you don't like it, don't click. Simple as that.

Can we get Marion to start that? Something like "Ramblings of an insane old right winger blog:" But maybe, a little shorter.

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

TomShewmon says:

"My only other observations are we have entered a day (a Democratically controlled day mind you) where censorship appears to be all the rage. How thoroughly ironic."

TomShewmon (not a Democrat) says:

"Anna, you're (sic) blogs and comments deserve ignoring more than anyone on this website. How you get away with your drivel baffles me."

To paraphrase:

TomShewmon says: "I'm against censorship."

TomShewmon says: "I wish we'd censor the stripper blog."

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

llama726 (Anonymous says...) TomShewmon says: “I wish we'd censor the stripper blog.”

Stating that certain posts are worthless self absorbed, narcissistic, trash and should be ignored is not the same as advocating corporate censorship of readers posts. That would be as is as stupid as two under aged girls getting drunk and and falling off a brick wall, which is truly moronic. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec...

been_there 4 years, 12 months ago

Maybe the LJW should also edit e-mails from one user to another through the JW such as:

The user my_25th_account sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com:

you little maggot. who are you.................... ============================== The user agent_bob_schaefer sent the following message to you via LJWorld.com: ============================== you maggot ============================== I can't remember if Guy or Alex was using these user accounts, it was one of them. Another reason to let users be anonymous since Guy has been found mentally incompetent and delusional, Alex doesn't seem to be much better judging from some of his posts.

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

You're right, Sigmund. Cyber bullying is a lot different from censorship, and private organizations shouldn't have the right to moderate comments made on their website.

You're crying censorship. But it is asking users of THEIR website to adhere to THEIR policy laid out here: http://www2.ljworld.com/comments/moderated-guidelines/

Basically, this is an effort to crack down on unscrupulous individuals reveling in another's misfortune, death, severe injury, or other topics that decent human beings wouldn't make such remarks about.

Yes, two under-aged (by less than 365 days) girls fell off a wall and got injured, potentially badly. What comment do you have about that? You want to criticize someone for making a mistake? Get over it. If they start moderating comments asking questions about the Journal World itself, I could see you being a little more upset. Nevertheless, if you have children (or family. Or friends. Or really, anyone you care about at all), you'd probably not like to find out they had made a mistake wherein they'd been seriously hurt, and you read about it online only to find some idiot ridiculing the person (that you love, and care about). That's not a discussion. That's just trolling.

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

Actually Tom, you brought that to light in the post after the one I quoted, wherein you quoted the very line from Anna you're posting. I don't care. I don't know Anna that well. Hypocrisy doesn't sit well with me. Thank you very much. I read left-to-right, top-to-bottom like I was brainwashed to do in school.

Marion, you're welcome :)

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

Sorry, I should say, I don't know Anna at all, any more than I know you, Tom.

Jonathan Kealing 4 years, 12 months ago

Cheeseburger-- We're doing this because we didn't like all the comments on certain stories. Ones that come to mind include the Rachel Leek bicycle accident and the woman who rolled over on K-10 while not wearing her seatbelt. At the same time, so many of our commenters provide absolutely vital and critically important information. So what we wanted to do was develop a better way to combat the problem commenters than we were able to do using post-moderation, and still allow and encourage the valuable comments we've come to depend on getting from our commenters. Is this a perfect approach? Undoubtedly no. And if this is an abject failure, we'd shelve it. But we think this will work in the limited situation in which we want to use it. As I've said, if we're using this more than once a week, it's not working.

Jonathan Kealing Online editor

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

JK, I have a question. How do you feel having to address a food item with an official company-stance type of response?

Dear Cheeseburger...

What's next?

Dear Roast Beef, or Dear Lentil Soup...

puddleglum 4 years, 12 months ago

oh boy, i am gonna agree with the Shewmon.

can't believe it:

“It enables people to follow you around the site which can lead to frequent and unwanted attention for some.” anna

Looking at your contribution, you have GOT to be kidding, right? My god, who can take that comment seriously! Seriously, you are just messing around, please tell me you are?!

and tom didn't advocate for censorship of anna, he just mentioned that they deserve to be ignored.

Anna, you're blogs and comments deserve ignoring more than anyone on this website. How you get away with your drivel baffles me.

and I agree with Tom

my blog was disappeardeded because I wasn't a female stripper? seriously? seems sexist n'est pas JKealing?

and blogs about supposed (and totally hard to believe) 'undercover' stripping are what the LJworld support and encourage?

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

"How you get away with your drivel baffles me."

Let's analyze this. This means, to me, and I suspect to most: "I don't understand why you are not being prevented from, or punished for, posting a blog about being a stripper."

The insinuation is that Anna's blog is something "wrong" or against the TOS (without specifying anything that would actually indicate she's broken the TOS).

Then, on the same comment thread, the user complains about "censorship" of remarkably insensitive comments which (I remind you) break the terms of service of the site itself. Intriguing, then, that we can look at two situations.

One, a stripper (a legal profession in the state of Kansas) posts a unique blog about her experiences to the local newspaper's website. We are upset that she "gets away with it," and we use cyber-bullying tactics to encourage other users to ignore her. We berate that user constantly, and very publicly, and her blog becomes the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the newspaper for us. These very people feel that they have the high moral ground. A majority of the people who feel this way find the profession of stripping to be repulsive.

These same individuals, then, when presented with a situation wherein real, living, breathing human beings are injured, maimed, or killed - well, they cry foul and are upset about the fact that their voices are squelched.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you hypocrisy. It would be absolutely fine with Tom (and I'm not picking on just him. There are several of you who this applies to) if they closed Anna's blog. He says all you need to know by saying "How you get away with your drivel baffles me." He feels she shouldn't "get away with" posting her user blog. However, Tom is rushing to defend random internet trolls right to crack jokes about dead people. Fascinating.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Jackripper, here's the story/thread where Logie imploded: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep...

I was on there, saw his posts, and they were waaaaaaaaaaaaay into violation of TOS territory.

that thread is pretty funny, and good Missouri/Missourian refs too.

Worth noting though, couple years ago, Maryon was outing victims of a sexual abuser, did not get TOSsed off.


So, I agree with all of Sigmund's comments except those about Chad Lawhorn. also underscore Cheeseburger.

Llama, talk to a Llama? talk to a Cheeseburger? now you're getting hypocritical yourself.


Jonathan, if I understand you right then, people go somewhere they're not supposed to, do something they're not supposed to do, and get hurt ... and I'm not supposed to point out that this incident was fully preventable and others similarly inclined should avoid following the same path?

please stop and think.

now, I agree that on some tragic stories there've been too many hard comments, but I don't think that restricting speech is how to deal with it.

instead, one could intro a ratings system for commenters? thus, the comments still happen, but public disapproval is expressed.
?

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Now as to what Jonathan said above: yes LJWorld was a real leader in fielding user comments.

the site is in fact better than many around today! unfortunately many here only see ljworld and its warts or the local yocals. try bumping around the web.

comments here are in fact often informative or humorous. there still is often commity and community here. though we see the offensive comments under tragic stories, they are always outnumbered by caring and compassionate comments, plus comments crying for justice.

ljworld's webpages are very good compared favorably against most newspaper sites, including big boys like the [liberal] NYT, LA Times, SF Chronicle, etc.

one of the best elements of this is that you can indeed write to the people behind the stuff you see and often they will interact with you.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Okay, once again Maryon has a different definition of what's true, or he's really addled by the E85 night after night!

I said nothing about outing the offender, did I? reread, then get back to me, this certainly demonstrates Maryon's shallowness, ignorance, rudeness, and offensiveness.
why is he still on here at all? that last post surely violates the TOS.

now, take a breath, drink some strong coffee to dispell the E85 addling what's left of your mind. you'll see I'm talking about how you insisted on publishing the letter that identified the victims of that offender!
and the readers should note: Maryon in his E85 addled state did know what I'm talking about, and tried to distract, while attacking me. indicates I've struck gold, eh?

Maryon, remember: "Barack Hussein Hates Polar Bears" where you had at least 8 of your own posts pulled from your own blog? and, you went from calling me: a lyar; an ljworld plant; an ljworld insider; to a supersecret hacker who can see everything. remember?

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Llamamama: difference between speech lauded by Sigmund, Tom, et al, vs. Annaundercover: Anna's often fits: prurient interest :

(Adult / Slang) A legal term defined, in 1984, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as ' a shameful and morbid interest in nudity, sex , or excretion.'

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Multi, to which thread dost thou allude? the polar bears, or the one where Logie sank? if that one, yes, that same day I think Logie was wacked out on maybe two others but this one was the most energetic place for him by far.

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

Hey there bearded_gnome.

"Llama, talk to a Llama? talk to a Cheeseburger? now you're getting hypocritical yourself."

I'm getting hypocritical? I was just making a remark as to how it must be obnoxious to have to respond to ridiculous user handles. Not that I care what people's usernames are. It would indeed be hypocritical for me to poke fun at Cheeseburger's username and laud my own as an example of a serious username. As it stands, I have done no such thing, so maybe you could enlighten me as to how this is hypocritical.

Your quotation about "prurient interest" is intriguing, though I question the relevance compared to the terms of service at http://www2.ljworld.com/site/rules/

Dateable_Shelter_Dude 4 years, 12 months ago

"I was just making a remark as to how it must be obnoxious to have to respond to ridiculous user handles."-Llama726

Dude, you really thinking The Man signed on as Online Editor for an paper and he's the type to generally consider creative individualized user names obnoxious?

(Good plan Mr. Kealing and staff, bravo.)

Have a Merry Merry Happy Happy, Dateable Shelter Dude

cowboy 4 years, 12 months ago

Not a bad idea Jonathan , It's pretty obvious which stories this could apply to , first info stories on tragic incidents , as in the fog of war usually the first info out is sketchy at best , families are hungry for real information and have to weed thru the folks who were never taught any manners or suffer from tourettes on this forum. This only adds to their grief. Theres always plenty to comment on and folks can wait 12-24 hours till the full story comes out.

d_prowess 4 years, 12 months ago

Question for JK, you have referenced a number of times that the reason you are leaving the comments on for "sensitive" stories is because "so many of our commenters provide absolutely vital and critically important information." I agree with this, but then want to know if that then will be the only comments you will show on those stories?
It seems like if you do only show those kinds of comments, and not the negative and supportive ones, you will come across as being fair and prevent the LJW from being accused of a biased or censorship. Just seems like a clear policy that way.

Deja Coffin 4 years, 12 months ago

I was just going to say that I think the biggest issue we've been having lately is that we haven't been receiving the insightful comments of Waka1 lately but then I saw Dateable_Shelter_Dude start his comment with the famous, "dude". Could it be? Are my dreams finally coming true? Is Waka1 back!!!!!

But seriously, I think bearded_gnome made some good points!

jaywalker 4 years, 12 months ago

Good call, Jonathan, prudent addtion to the forum.

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

jkealing (Jonathan Kealing) says… "Cheeseburger— We're doing this because we didn't like all the comments on certain stories."

In the past haven't you just removed comments you didn't like? I hate to be repetitive but you haven't addressed my questions. You were probably busy doing undercover research on Travel Stripper Blogging or other important stuff, so I understand.

Jonathan Kealing- Other than drunk drivers who kill and injure others on our roads, what other “protected class” of criminals is the LJWOnline going to spare family and friends from hurt feelings? Rapist whose friends create and account and tell us what a 'great guy' he is, or it was just that 'one time,' or the 'victim was asking for it,' or she liked 'rough sex?'

I am personally offended by those posters but I never complained because I was allowed to respond. Will supportive comments of those who mutilate their ex-girlfriends be denied “pre-approval” as well? Or will positive characterization of criminals be allowed go unchallenged for fear someone might be offended by a response?

If you want to disable comments entirely on "controversial" stories that is fine, although it is hard to imagine how two underage drunk idiots falling off a brick wall and seriously injuring themselves is "controversial." I doubt any "vital" information will be lost by disabling comments on that story other than the indispensable and insightful comments that "man, that wall looks really big!!". We can easily email any such critical information directly to the police if we like.

But by only allowing only supportive comments of drunk drivers who injure or kill themselves (or other criminals) you will give the impression that people in Lawrence don't take these crimes seriously. By silencing those who criticize for the sake of 'civility' you and the Simon's give tacit support to those criminals in our community who kill and injure our friends and families. This is more than just a great disservice to the Community, it's disgusting.

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

llama726 (Anonymous) says… "You're right, Sigmund. Cyber bullying is a lot different from censorship, and private organizations shouldn't have the right to moderate comments made on their website."

If the LJWorld Online is concerned about cyber bullying they can simply remove any post, or ban certain users like they always have. If they now also want to disable comments altogether on any particular story, fine at least that is even handed.

The preemptive censoring of comments based upon their likes or dislikes is little more than skewing the reaction to news to fit their bias and prejudice. Now readers of pre-censored stories will be left with the impression that the entire community has exactly the same feelings and opinions that jkealing and the Simon's have. By allowing only certain comments (instead of disabling comments) the LJWorld can further spin the news and help shape public reaction insuring only comments they like are seen by their readers.

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

llama726 (Anonymous) says… "One, a stripper (a legal profession in the state of Kansas) posts a unique blog about her experiences to the local newspaper's website. We are upset that she “gets away with it,” and we use cyber-bullying tactics to encourage other users to ignore her."

Now it is cyber bullying to express an opinion or ignore a stripper blogger? Are we somehow violating Anna's right to be self important or free of criticism? The blog is like watching a pron movie with all the sex cut out, whats left is a ridiculous story with bad actors and stilted dialogue. Its like buying Hustler and only reading the articles, completely useless! If you are all excited to read about the toys she will take to France, knock yourself out. I'll wait and watch the reality show, John and Kate Plus Eight and a Stripper.

Still maybe Anna can have her blog marked as "controversial" so only approved comments will be shown while giving the false impression that anyone's comments are welcome, but secretly censoring those they disagree with. That way you, jkealing, and the Simon's can feel comfortable that everyone agrees with them.

Amy Heeter 4 years, 12 months ago

All I know is that those who complian the most about other's comments are some of the rudest posters on the forum. They are also the one's who have the most problem remaining on topic and are habitual about resorting to personal attacks when they disagree. I am not pointing out anyone in particular so if you are offended this it could be because you know that you are guilty of these behaviors.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Llamama: I'm getting hypocritical? I was just making a remark as to how it must be obnoxious to have to respond to ridiculous user handles. Not that I care what people's usernames are. It would indeed be hypocritical for me to poke fun at Cheeseburger's username and laud my own as an example of a serious username. As it stands, I have done no such thing, so maybe you could enlighten me as to how this is hypocritical.

Your quotation about “prurient interest” is intriguing, though I question the relevance compared to the terms of service at http:// ...

You're calling yourself a Llama, and you poke fun at somebody calling himself, or being addressed as "cheesebrger," Llama's are on the menu for other critters, too. so, if JK addresses you, I'd say you're about equivalent to Cheeseburger.

and, please fight the reading comprehension impairmet: TOS is not relevant to the refs I cite. prurient interest is more than something to get speech pulled legally, but a useful term for generally offensive speech.
point being, and I am typing slowly for you, that there is an obvious difference between Anna's blog content and those of others on here. Tom, Sigmund, Cheeseburger, right on the money.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

p.s. i.e. addressing "Llama" would be equally rediculous to addressing "Cheeseburger," "marion Sydney Lynn," "porchperson," or "bearded_gnome." Although, you'd be hard pressed to find someone/something that eats a gnome.

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

Prurient Interest is also something that can be applied in a very broad or a very specific sense, and is absolutely silly to invoke in terms of this online community. Thanks for the tip about reading comprehension. I guess you're right - the terms of service of LJWorld.com are irrelevant when we consider comments or material on LJWorld.com. You have a valid point. Carry on. I don't care about the user name debate - sorry for finding humor in something without you being able to appreciate it. I don't really care, actually, so don't take my apology seriously. PS - I wasn't implying I am any more right, or my opinions any more valid than Cheeseburger's. These are opinions, after all.

Who cares if there's a difference in the content between Anna's blog and another blog? Thanks for the update, though. You're so much smarter than me, I can't even share this internet comment form with someone as great as you. Could you please explain to me how two blogs are different? I really don't understand that two people with blogs can write about two different things. It just doesn't seem possible. Can you find anything else obvious to tell me?

Sigmund, for someone who ignores her blogs, you sure know a lot about them. You seem awfully sore. Especially since her first blog entry has a TOS removed comment on it from you, followed by an appeal to remove her blog in the second one. Then, in a third post, you insinuated that she slept with someone on the staff... You mentioned "daddy issues," and "drama" in yet another posting on her same entry. Someone doesn't like Anna's blog, that's fine. But badgering her, saying she was sleeping with staff members of this website, and posting on a totally unrelated comment thread about her blog is why I called it cyber-bullying. You can call it whatever you want.

This is remarkably off topic. I think most people see no real major issue with this change on some stories, though if the LJ World wanted to implement it in a more fair manner, perhaps they should allow for some more user moderation or feedback to ensure removed posts are removed fairly, or "non-approved" comments are not approved for fair reasons based on all segments of the community.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

hey Jonathan, thanks for reddding out Maryon's post at nearly midnight last night, but again, with so many of his posts removed historically, why is he even still on here?


But seriously, I think bearded_gnome made some good points!

---thanks Deja.


Indeed, if those comments you don't like, Jonathan, are yanked, it would indeed tend to stilt the look of the opinion represented here. We do know that our comments are not strictly representative of anybody's opinions but our own, most of us don't pretend that comments here are like a poll or the collective expression of public opinion in Lawrence [well, unless your name is Merrill].

Llamamama is clearly wrong since this is private property, you can do as you please and who is she to object to you having the freedom to insert what rules you wish. however, we object that these you have described here will be subjective. further, I am not being inflammatory to suggest that in indirect ways, such a stilted presentation and removal of social sanctioning in the comments, you may in fact contribute to further deaths and injuries.

I hope you will identify a nonsubjective standard or scrap this.


the problem with Anna's content is that it doesn't just stay on her own blogs, so simply marking them as controversial doesn't cut it. it winds up on perfectly innocent blogs that shouldn't have anything to do with the prostitution she practices.
[yes, I'm using that word in other than a strictly legal/law enforcement, sense].

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

PS. As a clarifying point, I am male. Thanks, gnomey!

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

llama726 (Anonymous) says… "Sigmund, for someone who ignores her blogs, you sure know a lot about them. You seem awfully sore. Especially since her first blog entry has a TOS removed comment on it from you, followed by an appeal to remove her blog in the second one."

The first comment was removed because it criticized the Simon's, something about they should know about pimping after paying Chad Lawhorn all those years for being a "PR whore" for the City of Lawrence. BTW, Anna had far more post removed than I did.

The second comment was in reaction to jkealing assertion that " It should be made clear that this blogger is not affiliated with our staff, nor with KU's journalism program.”
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/anna-undercover/2009/nov/03/i-am-a-stripper/#c1040910

My third post was in response to a comment directed to me by another user. It ended with asking if after meeting jkealing she felt "the need to take another shower." http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/anna-undercover/2009/nov/03/i-am-a-stripper/#c1040967

llama726 (Anonymous) says… "Then, in a third post, you insinuated that she slept with someone on the staff…"

Nowhere, did I imply anyone would sleep with anyone on the LJWorlds staff, no matter how much money they were offered.

My last post on that thread was in response to yet another poster, "I have no problem with strippers (as long as I don't have to personally deal with all the drama in their lives or their daddy issues) nor with the distribution of legal X-rated content." http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/anna-undercover/2009/nov/03/i-am-a-stripper/#c1043509

Not one of those posts were directed at Anna and you forgot to mention that I have refrained from any further comment on her blogs. Even here I am not the one who brought up Anna, you did. And how would I know how vapid and empty her blogs are if I hadn't scanned a few? If I hadn't read them wouldn't you rightly criticized me for criticizing without reading them?

It was your suggestion that criticizing a stripper blog for being empty and void is a somehow a justification for jkealing's suddenly surreptitiously suppressing users critical comments is as moronic as the policy itself.

Sigmund 4 years, 12 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…"Hmmm…sure a lot of Stripper Hate out there tonight."

I don't hate strippers and I have met Anna through a mutual acquaintance. She was kind of an average pleasant person, a little smarter and better traveled than most woman her age. Her blog (or those I have read) are more tedious and dry than a medical text on gynecology.

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says… "Have you stopped to think this is simply a time buffer of sorts? An accomplice tool to the regular suggest removal?"

I don't care what policy is implemented as long as it is even handed and transparent. By design the new LJWorld policy is neither. Only certain critical posts will never see the light of day without any clue that any dissent was ever expressed. It is a Fascist wet dream.

bearded_gnome 4 years, 12 months ago

Okay Llamaman, for the third time: *the TOS is not relevant to the comments above, and mine, RE Anna's pathetic blogs. are you being intentionally dense? seems so.
please reread the thread, including those postings you criticize.
nowhere have I asserted a TOS violation by her. her blogs are however: tawdry, prurient and irritating.
and, no, I haven't read even half of her blogs. but as I pointed out above, her drivel shows up on other blogs/story comment threads.


Maryon, yes I did, wow, your powers of perception are incredible Nick Danger! must not be too far into your cups yet?

I've never had to pay a woman for sex, sexually arousing behavior, or a display. you have apparently done so?
real noble profession for women, eh? real good for their psyches?

Barack Hussein Obama loves Maryon Sydney Lynn.

llama726 4 years, 12 months ago

Gnome,

"her blogs are however: tawdry, prurient and irritating. and, no, I haven't read even half of her blogs. but as I pointed out above, her drivel shows up on other blogs/story comment threads."

Don't care. Not relevant to this discussion. Her blogs were brought up by those other users as an example of the LJWorld not "filtering" some content but filtering other content. I was asking why they should filter that content, seeking specific objectionable content which violates the terms of service that govern this site. You're too worried about cute or clever ways to spell my username, and seem to be unable to provide any real backing to your statements. Given that, I think we can agree to disagree.

Alexander Neighbors 4 years, 12 months ago

workinghard (Anonymous) says…

Jonathan—can we flag posts from was_freashpowder2 (Alexander Neighbors) when he tries to turn an unrelated story into a story about yellow house and then get them removed? He just did it again on the Taco Bell robbery story. He tries to bring the yellow house case into any story he can even though it has nothing at all to do with his parents case. His comments about the case should be restricted to stories about yellow house, and enough with posting comments on old stories just to get them on the most discussed list.

It is a related story you obviously didn't read into what I posted , If you restrict my comments i will just create more user accounts if you want to shut me up put pressure on the people in charge to either give my parents a trial or let them go. I would only hope someone would stand up for you in the face of this much corruption.

Boston_Corbett 4 years, 11 months ago

freshpowder is just example #14 of why the LJW should implement a squelch feature.

If people knew they were losing their readers eyeballs, they would self-moderate. Alex will open up more accounts, and if he does the same thing, he would be ignored.

workinghard 4 years, 11 months ago

Alex- they wouldn't need to stand up for me, I don't break the law. If you want to soapbox, start your own LJW blog and rant away. At least we won't have to be subjected to it unless we want to. It's kind of like the stripper's blog, only those interested in it check it out and she doesn't try to get on the other blogs to toot her own horn.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.