Digital Journal introduces change to comment section
Here is the very small, but very big change we promised was coming for comment moderation.
Based on more feedback from readers and contributors, Digital Journal is making a change to the site today that will now allow members to delete comments on their content.
If you upload a blog, image or article, you now have the ability to control the comment feed by removing comments.
The move comes as a step toward giving members the ability to take control of comment feeds and remove spam, off-topic commentary or trolling and flaming comments. Giving the content's owner the ability to control who comments on his or her work is something done across the board on many websites (i.e. YouTube, Facebook and many other sites), and we believe this is a step in the right direction for Digital Journal because it gives authors and content creators the ability to manage their own environment.
For example, if someone regularly comments on your work in a negative or flaming manner, or if someone makes a comment that has nothing to do with your article, image or blog, you can choose to remove that comment if you are the creator of the work. If you wrote the article, you can now also remove comments that hinder conversation, for example.
Thanks again everyone for your continued feedback. We look forward to reading more feedback in the comment feed below.
blog:3822:16::0
| Comments (62) |
6 subscribers |
Subscribe To Thread 
|
-
As you say Chris, it's a very small technical move, but a major change.
Perfect.
That means that authors can keep their comment sections, and thus the site's image, "clean" for visitors.
-
Thank You Chris,
This enables people to "defend" themselves from constant attacks when before they just had to deal with it or else risk being punished for saying something back. This is a positive step and helps people to feel better and not so helpless in the face of provokers.
-
Excellent, every other site does this; and I wondered why DJ didn't. It's great to have this new step.
-
What an incredibly dumb idea!
All this does is allow those who have not yet been falsely stripped of their writing status to delete any comments that offend them, whether they are abusive or not. People can simply censor any comments that undermine their propaganda.
It does nothing to stop those same people from making abusive comments themselves nor does it hold everyone to the same standards. It also does not stop people allied with the writer from making abusive comments to those who comment on the thread. This simply formalizes the clique system.
This is just another example of the poor leadership of the staff and their unwillingness to do their job in a fair manner.
-
Yep. Just as I thought. I went back to one of my old articles and sure enough I can simply censor any opinion that I do not like.
Brilliant! DJ has just turned itself into a place where authors of propaganda can simply censor anything that undermines their dogma. That's sure to give this place a lot of creditability.
Here's a wild idea. Why not have the staff do its job either allow abuse or punish similar behavior EQUALLY.
-
I think this is somewhat a good idea Chris however, I don't think I would use it in any situation because I strongly believe in free speech. I defend freedom even in cases where it maybe repugnant to do so or if I disagree with them. I don't want to start censoring the internet.
I've stopped discussing issues with citizens and journalists at DJ because two certain individuals would start resorting to personal attacks and wanted to know everything about my life.
I've taken Ms. Forsloff's advice and stopped commenting within my own articles. So far it's worked.
But nevertheless, good innovative idea in the mean time guys!
-
@ ■ John Rickman
What an incredibly dumb idea!
All this does is allow those who have not yet been falsely stripped of their writing status to delete any comments that offend them, whether they are abusive or not. People can simply censor any comments that undermine their propaganda.
It does nothing to stop those same people from making abusive comments themselves nor does it hold everyone to the same standards. It also does not stop people allied with the writer from making abusive comments to those who comment on the thread. This simply formalizes the clique system.
This is just another example of the poor leadership of the staff and their unwillingness to do their job in a fair manner.
@ ■ John Rickman
Yep. Just as I thought. I went back to one of my old articles and sure enough I can simply censor any opinion that I do not like.
Brilliant! DJ has just turned itself into a place where authors of propaganda can simply censor anything that undermines their dogma. That's sure to give this place a lot of creditability.
Here's a wild idea. Why not have the staff do its job either allow abuse or punish similar behavior EQUALLY.
Well, those two posts are going right out the door. Just kiddin'.
I agree with you, John. I think it is primarily a control tool whose purpose may be, at times, to rid the site of unwelcome truths. Add to this the recently-adopted blocking feature, and one may wonder if there is an obsession at play here.
Is see threads occurring where there will be a loss of continuity. Every post is an investment in someone's time and effort. This change will aid acts of petty vindictiveness and contempt. Don't say it won't happen. It has.
-
You just can't please some people no matter what. lol
It will be interesting to see the comment sections where one comment is deleted and another of their buddies that addressed a deleted comment is left on the board. I see a lot of incomprehensible babble! lol Good to see more control in the hands of the author no matter what it is. I do think we will see more articles and blogs posted to contradict others when their point of views are deleted. =)
-
@ ■ skeptikool
Well, those two posts are going right out the door. Just kiddin'.
I agree with you, John. I think it is primarily a control tool whose purpose may be, at times, to rid the site of unwelcome truths. Add to this the recently-adopted blocking feature, and one may wonder if there is an obsession at play here.
Is see threads occurring where there will be a loss of continuity. Every post is an investment in someone's time and effort. This change will aid acts of petty vindictiveness and contempt. Don't say it won't happen. It has.
You are right, it has. To test the theory I committed a minor act of petty vindictiveness and contempt (purely for scientific purposes ;o) ) by deleting a comment I did not like. The comment was not abuse, I just wanted to see if I could censor anything I wanted to and yep, that is exactly what an author can do.
No more holding people accountable for their words and no more challenging propaganda. This will be a monetary bonanza for the site since professional propagandists can, if they wish, flood the site with their unchallenged versions of the stories that they are pushing. Perhaps we can look forward to a return of the Swarm.
All this would not be needed if the staff would do their job and investigate reports of abuse and then deal with them in a FAIR AND EQUAL manner. If one person gets punished for a comment that the staff "thinks" that they may have made then anyone who makes a similar remark should receive the EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT.
Anything else would be unprofessional.
-
Just as a note to those that type out a long and detailed comment that may be deleted. Create a folder in your document program of choice and simply copy and past with references to topic and other posts or posters so that if you feel the need you can make a rebuttal of your own. =)
Will also be interesting to see if this will be a thread killer since some posts contraversal or not are the only thing that keeps some articles in the forefront of exposure. lol
-
@ ■ John Rickman
You are right, it has. To test the theory I committed a minor act of petty vindictiveness and contempt (purely for scientific purposes ;o) ) by deleting a comment I did not like. The comment was not abuse, I just wanted to see if I could censor anything I wanted to and yep, that is exactly what an author can do.
No more holding people accountable for their words and no more challenging propaganda. This will be a monetary bonanza for the site since professional propagandists can, if they wish, flood the site with their unchallenged versions of the stories that they are pushing. Perhaps we can look forward to a return of the Swarm.
All this would not be needed if the staff would do their job and investigate reports of abuse and then deal with them in a FAIR AND EQUAL manner. If one person gets punished for a comment that the staff "thinks" that they may have made then anyone who makes a similar remark should receive the EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT.
Anything else would be unprofessional.
True. The comment threads have always been used for great and passionate debates. Now, everyone will just agree with eachother. Excuse me while I yawn.
-
@ ■ 666divine
True. The comment threads have always been used for great and passionate debates. Now, everyone will just agree with eachother. Excuse me while I yawn.
I encourage authors to abuse the heck out of this feature until the staff is forced to admit how dumb it is and then get off their butts and do their job. I know that any blogs I write will have everything I don't like censored. Not because I do not believe in free speech, but because I do!
Allowing authors to remove anything that makes them look bad is such a breath takingly stupid idea that I can hardly believe that anyone who had given this idea two seconds worth of thought did not see that.
-
@ ■ Richard Bass
You just can't please some people no matter what. lol
It will be interesting to see the comment sections where one comment is deleted and another of their buddies that addressed a deleted comment is left on the board. I see a lot of incomprehensible babble! lol Good to see more control in the hands of the author no matter what it is. I do think we will see more articles and blogs posted to contradict others when their point of views are deleted. =)
I don't think we will see many people with their point of view deleted. More like people who get off from causing negative controversy and belittling others will see themselves without as much negative attention to feed them.
-
@ ■ Samantha A. Torrence
I don't think we will see many people with their point of view deleted. More like people who get off from causing negative controversy and belittling others will see themselves without as much negative attention to feed them.
Exactly the way I feel Samantha thank you.
-
@ ■ Samantha A. Torrence
I don't think we will see many people with their point of view deleted. More like people who get off from causing negative controversy and belittling others will see themselves without as much negative attention to feed them.
Hopefully so... but we shall see. =)
-
To read some of the comments here anyone would think that flamers, trolls and violent drive-by shooters don't exist. Well they do exist and they have ruined many a site. Most serious news sites, mainstream or CJ, do not permit them.
Different people will use this in different ways, but I think that not many people will use this option more than necessary.
Concerning John's fears concerning propagandists who delete everything with which they don't agree, I don't think that will happen often. Most people like debate, but not abusive comment..
Hey John, as an example, take the many comments you have left on my work in which you, in your unique and ironic way, can be very critical of my point of view on a given subject, but you are not abusive towards me. Therefore I cannot think of a single one of your comments that I would delete.
:)
-
Added to the tools of control already mentioned John, there is that prima donna advising others who is worthy of response and, as bad, those who acquiesce. I hope you get your writing privileges. When you do, don't lose that spine.
-
@ ■ skeptikool
Added to the tools of control already mentioned John, there is that prima donna advising others who is worthy of response and, as bad, those who acquiesce. I hope you get your writing privileges. When you do, don't lose that spine.
For that to happen Boss Hogg would have to admit he made a mistake. Not bloody likely. ;o)
In two separate comments you were condescending, you were confrontational and I believe you used the word "idiot" to describe someone (the same offense you just reported).
"Believe?" "Someone?" Wow, we are dealing with some serious abuse here. I guess I am lucky I didn't get the chair. ;o)
-
Ok,
I've been giving a lot of thought as to how I'll be using this tool, so I thought I'd share the result of it.
In fact the biggest change in my way of using the site, weirdly enough at first sight, means that I shall now unblock those people I blocked, but only when it comes to my posts.
Why?
To be fair to their comments.
Those people I blocked I did so because I considered that they were more interested in denigrating me personally than disagreeing with my ideas. But if I leave them blocked and delete their comments without even reading them I may be deleting some comments which for once just disagreed with the ideas I express, that which I welcome, instead of attacking me personally.
I don't want to do that,because it is not fair.
I will instantly delete whatever I find to be a personal attack or insult (and spam and drive-by's and multi-long-comment trolls and flamers etc) but never would I delete a comment which does not share my point of view.
Maybe this could be a tool that could lead to some laying down of guns, and thus a better atmosphere?
-
I believe that this is wrong. While it enhances the ability of a "club" of few to insult and malign other writers, it takes away rebuttal. In other words, why bother to comment if the writer can simply delete your comments for any reason.
The author of a story should not be allowed to comment on his or her story because usually they reveal too much about their own "feelings" and bias which promptly discredits their work. Also, a few DJ authors use their comment boards as gossip stations and strive to undermine DJ in the process - this makes the entire DJ experience seem like a large comment board. This "delete" change will embrace the "gossip board" aspect of commenting at DJ.
Some more helpful changes would have been to limit comments for all to one-per-article and 50 words. No authors, this only minimizes the original post. A real board operator/editor should be on 27/7 to delete trolls and manage site content in comment sections as they do in article function. My changes would result in a "cleaner" comment section without turning it into a "fan club" or "worship site" for a few friends at DJ.
I believe this small change will indeed have a large affect on DJ. It will render the comment section useless and uninteresting to all but a relative handful of people.
-
I believe that authors of an article or blog should be allowed to rebut comments. I can only speak for myself. I would never delete someone else's comments on my article even if I disagreed with them. I believe in freedom of speech. I might disagree with them on an issue but I would never personally attack them. I want people to view, vote and comment on my articles.
-
I wish I knew what the right approach is but I don't. Hopefully this will serve its intended purpose and not just stifle real debate. I sometimes wonder if just down-voting commentary (not articles) and then collapsing comments after several down-votes wouldn't have been the best option to stick with..
-
@ ■ Larry Clifton
I believe that this is wrong. While it enhances the ability of a "club" of few to insult and malign other writers, it takes away rebuttal. In other words, why bother to comment if the writer can simply delete your comments for any reason.
The author of a story should not be allowed to comment on his or her story because usually they reveal too much about their own "feelings" and bias which promptly discredits their work. Also, a few DJ authors use their comment boards as gossip stations and strive to undermine DJ in the process - this makes the entire DJ experience seem like a large comment board. This "delete" change will embrace the "gossip board" aspect of commenting at DJ.
Some more helpful changes would have been to limit comments for all to one-per-article and 50 words. No authors, this only minimizes the original post. A real board operator/editor should be on 27/7 to delete trolls and manage site content in comment sections as they do in article function. My changes would result in a "cleaner" comment section without turning it into a "fan club" or "worship site" for a few friends at DJ.
I believe this small change will indeed have a large affect on DJ. It will render the comment section useless and uninteresting to all but a relative handful of people.
Some more helpful changes would have been to limit comments for all to one-per-article and 50 words. No authors, this only minimizes the original post.
In essence no debate, expansion of thought, and most of all a one shot article killer. Many times the commentary can contribute more than the article itself to any given subject.. without that,
Dullsville man..
-
@ ■ Richard Bass
In essence no debate, expansion of thought, and most of all a one shot article killer. Many times the commentary can contribute more than the article itself to any given subject.. without that,
Dullsville man..
Richard, you are welcome on my posts for as much "debate and expansion of thought" as you like.
Because you are polite, and not one of the reasons the tool exists.
:)
-
In essence no debate, expansion of thought, and most of all a one shot article killer. Many times the commentary can contribute more than the article itself to any given subject.. without that,
The staff might consider describing this new feature accurately. Censorship. From its neutral roots Before Christ that term has come to mean the suppression of ideas, thoughts, viewpoints or images by either the government or in this case .... those that believe they are in authority or are an authority of what is or is not .... acceptable.
In conclusion, great feature for obvious sandbox antics and attacks, spam. Otherwise .... more obvious agenda writers and a tool that will be used and most certainly abused.
My halfpenny.
-
@ ■ Michael Cosgrove
Richard, you are welcome on my posts for as much "debate and expansion of thought" as you like.
Because you are polite, and not one of the reasons the tool exists.
:)
awww... I bet you say that to all the girls * shows some leg and bats eyelashes * LOL I couldn't resist.
Thank you Michael.
I have been trying to tone down a bit and keep things somewhat civil. =)
-
It would probably been more fitting here and since my recent blogs are vote-less and comment-less, I'll repeat what I had to say re: Insults of quality here:
I fear we are embracing the bland. While it's good we not insult one another, politicians and parties and others off site should remain fair game. Are insults sometimes invited? I believe so. Idiot, fool, stupid and moron don't cut it, but, "Yer momma wears army boots"? Er....passable. While there is always a victim to an insult. in may be delivered with a rapier or by a two-by-four. The truly witty insult is one of life's pleasures.
There are things as bad as insults, that can vary to great degree, and those can be the head games some like engage in.
-
For those of us who have been here a while, you might remember when DJ was much more than just a news site, but it was also a community. It was a place where people came to share ideas and points of view. And just like a real community, friendships were formed and also enemies were made.. And there was a sense of family to it as well. Cynthia was known as "mom." And Muse, Wolfman and Hogg became brothers. And Samantha came to be known as my Twisted Cousin. And in the early days, through some of those wild and vehement debates, sometimes someone like Muse would come in for comedy relief. But through all of this or inspite of it, we had a chance to learn from one another. And by doing so, we learned more about ourselves which gave us a chance to grow as individuals.
And like a real community, DJ members would host parties. Rickman used to invite members to his dinner parties. And who can forget his proposal to Pam?
But like anyone or anything which takes itself too seriously and forgets how to laugh at itself, there comes a sense of loss, and that sens of loss is the humour. There's a point where too much PC just becomes laughable.
And to those who made DJ what it was, Phree, Lensman, Picasso, Gotthescoop, Amaranth (with all her rants), Wonderlaugh and Bot Boy, it sure was a gas! And as Bob Hope would say, "Thanks for the memories."
-
Excellent points, 666divine (#28). Friendships are fine but I'm not that enamored of cliques. They can act in unison to the detriment of the site. There's lots more but it's 9:00 PM here and I'm one of the few Western stalwarts speaking to one or two other people, so I'm cutting out. Let all those anonymous votes give the illusion of life.
-
@ ■ 666divine
For those of us who have been here a while, you might remember when DJ was much more than just a news site, but it was also a community. It was a place where people came to share ideas and points of view. And just like a real community, friendships were formed and also enemies were made.. And there was a sense of family to it as well. Cynthia was known as "mom." And Muse, Wolfman and Hogg became brothers. And Samantha came to be known as my Twisted Cousin. And in the early days, through some of those wild and vehement debates, sometimes someone like Muse would come in for comedy relief. But through all of this or inspite of it, we had a chance to learn from one another. And by doing so, we learned more about ourselves which gave us a chance to grow as individuals.
And like a real community, DJ members would host parties. Rickman used to invite members to his dinner parties. And who can forget his proposal to Pam?
But like anyone or anything which takes itself too seriously and forgets how to laugh at itself, there comes a sense of loss, and that sens of loss is the humour. There's a point where too much PC just becomes laughable.
And to those who made DJ what it was, Phree, Lensman, Picasso, Gotthescoop, Amaranth (with all her rants), Wonderlaugh and Bot Boy, it sure was a gas! And as Bob Hope would say, "Thanks for the memories."
Wonderful memories 66. Don't forget Jaguar, gohomelaker,Brandigal, cgull, permafrog and I am sure there are many more I don't recall at this moment.
Those were the fun days and I think anyone that wanted to could jump in to the fun.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
Wonderful memories 66. Don't forget Jaguar, gohomelaker,Brandigal, cgull, permafrog and I am sure there are many more I don't recall at this moment.
Those were the fun days and I think anyone that wanted to could jump in to the fun.
Thanks for reminding me. I knew there were a few that I missed, oh yeah, Momentsintime, and Debbie, too!
Remember when I first got on the site, you and I didn't start off on a good note and that was my fault. But like a good Mom, you taught me something! Thanks!
-
@ ■ skeptikool
Excellent points, 666divine (#28). Friendships are fine but I'm not that enamored of cliques. They can act in unison to the detriment of the site. There's lots more but it's 9:00 PM here and I'm one of the few Western stalwarts speaking to one or two other people, so I'm cutting out. Let all those anonymous votes give the illusion of life.
Yep, Kool. Let it R.I.P!
-
@ ■ 666divine
Thanks for reminding me. I knew there were a few that I missed, oh yeah, Momentsintime, and Debbie, too!
Remember when I first got on the site, you and I didn't start off on a good note and that was my fault. But like a good Mom, you taught me something! Thanks!
You and I didn't get off on a good note but things worked out and we learned to respect and like each other. :)
-
@ ■ 666divine
Thanks for reminding me. I knew there were a few that I missed, oh yeah, Momentsintime, and Debbie, too!
Remember when I first got on the site, you and I didn't start off on a good note and that was my fault. But like a good Mom, you taught me something! Thanks!
I'm still here.....I miss doing those op-eds that were thinking pieces but not based on a news story.
-
@ ■ KJ Mullins
I'm still here.....I miss doing those op-eds that were thinking pieces but not based on a news story.
Yes, I miss them too. I used to look forward to them.
But, I fear I might be hijacking Chris's thread. And now he can opt to delete my comments. But you wouldn't do that to me Chris, now would you?
-
@ ■ 666divine
Yes, I miss them too. I used to look forward to them.
But, I fear I might be hijacking Chris's thread. And now he can opt to delete my comments. But you wouldn't do that to me Chris, now would you?
Thanks Divine.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
You and I didn't get off on a good note but things worked out and we learned to respect and like each other. :)
That seemed to happen to quite of few members. Scoop began hating Phree and me because she thought we were both sent by Satan (which would be Lensman, ha ha and a wink) and within a short period of time, we all laughed at ourselves and became friends.
-
@ ■ 666divine
That seemed to happen to quite of few members. Scoop began hating Phree and me because she thought we were both sent by Satan (which would be Lensman, ha ha and a wink) and within a short period of time, we all laughed at ourselves and became friends.
Alas some people simply aren't able to admit a mistake. It is pretty obvious that Chris messed up since he can't even show us the remark he "claims" I made or tell us to whom it was said. Pretty unprofessional. All we have to go on is his letter to me in which he says:
In two separate comments you were condescending, you were confrontational and I believe you used the word "idiot" to describe someone (the same offense you just reported).
"Condescending" and "confrontational?" On DJ? That is almost laughable given the stuff he has turned a blind eye to in the months since his mistake. The really funny part of course is when he says "I believe you used the word "idiot" to describe someone
BELIEVE!!! He "believes" I "may" have called someone an "idiot?" He does not even know if I did or did not and he hasn't a clue who it might have been but in his mind that is sufficient grounds for the “nuclear option,” making me only one of two writers to be PERMANTLY bared from writing fir DJ.
The funny thing is that a search of my writings for the last two years will reveal that that is not a word I even use. But I did quote George Bernard Shaw and HE used the word idiot.
If his mission had been simply to demonstrate a new method of restoring lost eyesight, the miracle of curing the blind would have been entirely relevant. But to say "You should love your enemies; and to convince you of this I will now proceed to cure this gentleman of cataract" would have been, to a man of Jesus’ intelligence, the proposition of an idiot.
We know that Chris was guilty of sloppy leadership when he failed to find out for sure if I had in fact said what he claims I said and to whom BEFORE taking such a drastic step and then to have kept a record of it so that he could show us. It is also clear that he was guilty of sloppy reading when he mistook a quote for a comment.
And since no one even knows who this mythical “someone” was that I was supposed to have mortally wounded with the word “idiot” just how serious a “crime” could it have been? Far worse things have been said since then by people who have long records of genuinely abusive behavior and he has failed to do anything at all, much less over react as he did in my case.
One is tempted to wonder what exactly prompted his decision in my case since it is obvious that even if I had actually said what he claims I said that this would in no way justify his over reaction.
-
Divine, I used to love how things were until people could not defend themselves without getting thrown off of here. Honestly, I would rather if we had serious moderators on here than just this delete feature. Unfortunately I don't think DJ has the money to hire them. But, some people have manipulated the rules here to the point that they were constantly getting away with insulting others. Others had no way of fighting back, and that was a repressive environment to be in. In essence this arms those individuals with a way to protect themselves.
Larry, I like commenting on my own stuff, and I refuse to be censored on my own articles especially when my integrity is targeted by people. So needless to say I am not liking your idea.
-
Thanks everyone for the feedback. We'll continue to watch and see how this goes and we encourage you to give us more input along the way.
If there are mixed feelings about this feature, we'll watch to see how it's used. The group here who worries it will stifle real conversation says they won't delete comments. We think that's a good thing, and thus it seems there isn't much worry of mass deletion happening because so many of you say you won't delete. Great.
It looks as though everyone is worried about the hypothetical for now, so let's watch to see what actually does happen. We encourage all of you to keep comments on your articles, but in the event you get spammed or trolled, you can choose the course of action. Flag it as abuse to minimize the comment (if enough people do, it will be permanently collapsed); you can block someone who you don't wish to see commentary from (it will hide their comments from your view only, thus ensuring you don't have to deal with someone who is trolling); and in severe cases of spam you can now delete.
A lot of you seem to enjoy debate on various articles, and while we can see the concern in having comments deleted en masse, we don't think the reality will be quite as severe. This feature forces people to play by the rules, and if not they will be removed from the feed. Simple as that. How many of you would delete a good argument that goes against what you believe, but was not an attack?
-
@ ■ Chris Hogg
Thanks everyone for the feedback. We'll continue to watch and see how this goes and we encourage you to give us more input along the way.
If there are mixed feelings about this feature, we'll watch to see how it's used. The group here who worries it will stifle real conversation says they won't delete comments. We think that's a good thing, and thus it seems there isn't much worry of mass deletion happening because so many of you say you won't delete. Great.
It looks as though everyone is worried about the hypothetical for now, so let's watch to see what actually does happen. We encourage all of you to keep comments on your articles, but in the event you get spammed or trolled, you can choose the course of action. Flag it as abuse to minimize the comment (if enough people do, it will be permanently collapsed); you can block someone who you don't wish to see commentary from (it will hide their comments from your view only, thus ensuring you don't have to deal with someone who is trolling); and in severe cases of spam you can now delete.
A lot of you seem to enjoy debate on various articles, and while we can see the concern in having comments deleted en masse, we don't think the reality will be quite as severe. This feature forces people to play by the rules, and if not they will be removed from the feed. Simple as that. How many of you would delete a good argument that goes against what you believe, but was not an attack?
"How many of you would delete a good argument that goes against what you believe, but was not an attack?"
I suspect very few people indeed would do that, and, if there are any, I shall not be one of them, simple as that.
Most of us enjoy hard discussion, and the more the better, as long as it does not involve the use of insults, flaming and trolling.
It aint rocket science. :)
-
Personally I like the idea of being able to delete those comments that are clearly not related to the articles, by that I mean spam. It means you can tidy up your own articles comments without waiting for someone else to do it.
I agree with what Michael says above, hard discussion is good and it can be done without insulting others. Hopefully the deleting of comments will be done sensibly and people won't just delete comments because they were written by someone they don't get on with.
@ ■ Chris Hogg
How many of you would delete a good argument that goes against what you believe, but was not an attack?
Not many I hope. I truly don't mind if people disagree with the content of an article that I have written. If a debate opens up then that's even better but as soon as it starts getting personal that's when I'll think about hitting the delete button.
-
@ ■ Chris Hogg
Thanks everyone for the feedback. We'll continue to watch and see how this goes and we encourage you to give us more input along the way.
If there are mixed feelings about this feature, we'll watch to see how it's used. The group here who worries it will stifle real conversation says they won't delete comments. We think that's a good thing, and thus it seems there isn't much worry of mass deletion happening because so many of you say you won't delete. Great.
It looks as though everyone is worried about the hypothetical for now, so let's watch to see what actually does happen. We encourage all of you to keep comments on your articles, but in the event you get spammed or trolled, you can choose the course of action. Flag it as abuse to minimize the comment (if enough people do, it will be permanently collapsed); you can block someone who you don't wish to see commentary from (it will hide their comments from your view only, thus ensuring you don't have to deal with someone who is trolling); and in severe cases of spam you can now delete.
A lot of you seem to enjoy debate on various articles, and while we can see the concern in having comments deleted en masse, we don't think the reality will be quite as severe. This feature forces people to play by the rules, and if not they will be removed from the feed. Simple as that. How many of you would delete a good argument that goes against what you believe, but was not an attack?
It is a pity that there is no feature that forces the staff to admit their mistakes, behave in a fair and professional manner and treat all members of the DJ community equally.
-
There are times when getting off topic is fun and enjoyable such as what 66 has done here.
Btw 66 how about karateblossom who Howard dubbed the lady wrestler. That is fun stuff.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
There are times when getting off topic is fun and enjoyable such as what 66 has done here.
Btw 66 how about karateblossom who Howard dubbed the lady wrestler. That is fun stuff.
Yes, Mom. There was a time when the site had "personality." And that is what made it different form all other online sites. And also what made addicts out of all of us. But now, with all this sobering up.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqk3osxS4wQ&feature=related
-
"There was a time when the site had "personality"
Well, things change.
D Silverberg's article shows that the readership is changing, and rapidly.
And so are their needs and methods of operating.
We all have the choice of change if we don't like what's going on in a particular place.
-
So "things change." The only consistency in life is change, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's for the better.
-
The change was to make it into a real news site.
For awhile after it changed they kept a category where we could go to and have the fun we once had but would not be paid. The change went into effect I believe the first of Sept. 2007. In August of that year Wolfman and I were discussing of me writing about him and where he had been when he just disappeared. I had been keeping in touch with him during that time.
We had decided that the story would come out on Sept. 23 for his 45th birthday on the 20th and also his one year anniversary on digitaljournal on the 23rd.
When the new ruling would be in effect at that time he told me to forget writing the story as I wouldn't be paid for it.
I told him I wasn't writing it for the money it was for him so I went ahead and wrote it.
I hope Chris doesn't mind as I am going to put the link to the story on just so those who would want to see how it once was they can. If they click on some of the links it will show some of the fun we used to have.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/229075
-
To 66 one of my daughters this is for you-------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-L6rEm0rnY
-
Euhh, is it all right if the rest of us live on the site?
How about if someone started an "Old -Timers" group?
Go have fun.
-
Thanks Mom.I love that song and I actually saw the musical when it appeared here at Toronto, twice!!
-
@ ■ 666divine
Thanks Mom.I love that song and I actually saw the musical when it appeared here at Toronto, twice!!
I also saw it in Toronto!! What a great musical it was.
-
@ ■ Michael Cosgrove
Euhh, is it all right if the rest of us live on the site?
How about if someone started an "Old -Timers" group?
Go have fun.
An old timers group would be great but I am afraid many of the old timers are gone. Hey but things always change and we all must accept that or we will always be living in the past.
But even with may O.Ts gone there are many new ones who are great.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
The change was to make it into a real news site.
For awhile after it changed they kept a category where we could go to and have the fun we once had but would not be paid. The change went into effect I believe the first of Sept. 2007. In August of that year Wolfman and I were discussing of me writing about him and where he had been when he just disappeared. I had been keeping in touch with him during that time.
We had decided that the story would come out on Sept. 23 for his 45th birthday on the 20th and also his one year anniversary on digitaljournal on the 23rd.
When the new ruling would be in effect at that time he told me to forget writing the story as I wouldn't be paid for it.
I told him I wasn't writing it for the money it was for him so I went ahead and wrote it.
I hope Chris doesn't mind as I am going to put the link to the story on just so those who would want to see how it once was they can. If they click on some of the links it will show some of the fun we used to have.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/229075
Great read Cynthia! Thanks. I almost didn't believe my eyes when I saw 684 posts!
I also had a laugh when I saw that history really does repeat itself over and over about half way down your article. But I'm not telling =)
-
@ ■ Richard Bass
Great read Cynthia! Thanks. I almost didn't believe my eyes when I saw 684 posts!
I also had a laugh when I saw that history really does repeat itself over and over about half way down your article. But I'm not telling =)
Do you mean I have to go back and read it to see what you mean. Sigh, I am supposed to be doing laundry.
-
@ ■ Richard Bass
Great read Cynthia! Thanks. I almost didn't believe my eyes when I saw 684 posts!
I also had a laugh when I saw that history really does repeat itself over and over about half way down your article. But I'm not telling =)
Nuts!! I still don't know what you mean. Care to enlighten me by user contact if necessary. :)
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
The change was to make it into a real news site.
For awhile after it changed they kept a category where we could go to and have the fun we once had but would not be paid. The change went into effect I believe the first of Sept. 2007. In August of that year Wolfman and I were discussing of me writing about him and where he had been when he just disappeared. I had been keeping in touch with him during that time.
We had decided that the story would come out on Sept. 23 for his 45th birthday on the 20th and also his one year anniversary on digitaljournal on the 23rd.
When the new ruling would be in effect at that time he told me to forget writing the story as I wouldn't be paid for it.
I told him I wasn't writing it for the money it was for him so I went ahead and wrote it.
I hope Chris doesn't mind as I am going to put the link to the story on just so those who would want to see how it once was they can. If they click on some of the links it will show some of the fun we used to have.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/229075
Thanks Cynthia. That's when the site had "personality." :)
-
@ ■ 666divine
Thanks Cynthia. That's when the site had "personality." :)
"Thanks Cynthia. That's when the site had "personality."
Isn't it terrible that the site has no personalities now!!
God, we are so naive!
I mean, you people were all so great, right?
We new ones are all so dumb, huh?
Ah, the good old times.
(No, but are you older people really saying this? lo!!!??)
-
@ ■ Michael Cosgrove
"Thanks Cynthia. That's when the site had "personality."
Isn't it terrible that the site has no personalities now!!
God, we are so naive!
I mean, you people were all so great, right?
We new ones are all so dumb, huh?
Ah, the good old times.
(No, but are you older people really saying this? lo!!!??)
What is your problem, Michael?
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
Nuts!! I still don't know what you mean. Care to enlighten me by user contact if necessary. :)
You have mail. =)
-
Thanks Richard :) Funny that I never thought of that.
@ ■ Michael Cosgrove
"Thanks Cynthia. That's when the site had "personality."
Isn't it terrible that the site has no personalities now!!
God, we are so naive!
I mean, you people were all so great, right?
We new ones are all so dumb, huh?
Ah, the good old times.
(No, but are you older people really saying this? lo!!!??)
Ah come on Michael. I know that 66 didn't mean it the way you are taking it. When folks start reminiscing about the past things like that are said.
Take some woman who has become a widow her deceased husband was the most perfect man on this earth. Even if she you used to think he was a no good son of a gun and the rest of us still think that. :)
There are many here now with great personalities and I would list some but invariably I would miss some so won't do it.
-
@ ■ Cynthia Trowbridge
Thanks Richard :) Funny that I never thought of that.
Ah come on Michael. I know that 66 didn't mean it the way you are taking it. When folks start reminiscing about the past things like that are said.
Take some woman who has become a widow her deceased husband was the most perfect man on this earth. Even if she you used to think he was a no good son of a gun and the rest of us still think that. :)
There are many here now with great personalities and I would list some but invariably I would miss some so won't do it.
Thanks Cynthia, but I can speak up for myself. I never implied that new members lack personality, But to make myself clear, in my opinion, I believe that all the new changes to DJ has caused the site to lose some of it's personality.
Add a Comment
|
 |
|
Email this blog