Discussion
  • Read More
    Max ReadMax Read
    8/19/14 1:21pm

    For good measure, here's the email I sent out to staff today:

    I've taken the opportunity of the latest re-introduction of the Pending Comments System to celebrate the grand Gawker Dot Com tradition of THE COMMENTER PURGE.

    In this case, I have nuked our entire follow list. The only person "followed" by Gawker Dot Com right now is Lauren Bertolini.

    All of you should continue to look through your notifications and comments on your posts to select the best, smartest, funniest, or otherwise most relevant comments and promote them by replying or starring them.

    Over the next few weeks, we should slowly and carefully repopulate our follow list. All of you have the power to "follow from Gawker." Commenters who are followed from Gawker will have the power to approve greyed-out comments and render them full-color under the "All Replies" section. As of right now, only the author of a specific post can move them from "All Replies" to the default "[AUTHOR]'s Conversation" view.

    Our old follow list had 1,000-plus commenters, and I would say at least three quarters (and probably more) were shitty, shitty commenters. I would like our new follow list to be smaller, smarter, and more interesting. It should also be more dynamic. If we're following someone who made a shitty comment, or who is promoting or responding to trolls and idiots, that person should be un-followed. We want to operate on a Zero Tolerance For Stupidity system.

    I trust you guys to know what constitutes a good follow candidate and what is not. Good: A person who has demonstrated themselves to be an engaging expert in a subject that we cover frequently. Bad: A person whose screen name you think you recognize. Good: A person who is frequently funny. Bad: A person who frequently comments but adds nothing.

    For a more comprehensive list of qualities that make a good commenter (and one you can reference) see this comment here.

    Let me know if you have any questions.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      disastergirlMax Read
      8/19/14 1:26pm

      Once we are plucked out of obscurity, are we approved commenters? As things have been, it seems like it's not "sticking"

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Max Readdisastergirl
      8/19/14 1:28pm

      You have to be followed by Gawker to become approved. A simple recommendation or reply just moves that single comment out of the grey.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KittensAndUnicorns_v2_The UprisingMax Read
    8/19/14 1:23pm

    do you have to be an approved commenter of a certain writer to be shown on the writer's post? or, once you are followed by any writer from gawker, does that mean your comments are approved across all writer's posts? finally, if you are an approved gawker commenter, that doesn't necessarily mean you are also a jezebel or deadspin commenter...?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max ReadKittensAndUnicorns_v2_The Uprising
      8/19/14 1:30pm

      If you are followed from Gawker (by any writer at Gawker), your comments are approved across all Gawker.com posts. You need to be followed by Jezebel or Deadspin to be approved on those sites.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      AstrixMax Read
      8/19/14 1:32pm

      There are 156 posts in the article regarding the boy who was shot by his grandmother. Not a single one of them has been released from pending. Are we to believe that not a single post in that thread was worth discussion? Or is this merely the writer ignoring their responsibility?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    LannisterLionMax Read
    8/19/14 2:13pm

    This is all massive BS. We shouldn't have to jump through hoops to be seen in legible font. Not allowed to criticize the articles? I guess the trolls and terrorists have won. They are probably laughing all the way back to their porn forums.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max ReadLannisterLion
      8/19/14 2:19pm

      Can I ask, in all seriousness, why you think you have the right to be seen in a "legible font" on this website?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Max Read's BeardLannisterLion
      8/19/14 2:30pm

      If you would just make comments that I like to read, your font shall be legible. Please comply.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Syphilitic Scalia SaysMax Read
    8/19/14 2:48pm

    So I have a question that was posed yesterday but wasn't seen. As someone who doesn't sit on this site all day but rather checks in from time to time on articles that interest me, sometimes well after they have been posted. If I post a comment so late (like this post for example), how do I know the author is going to see it and I will have a fair shake at being approved? Is there going to be an allotted amount of time an author is going to monitor a discussion before moving on?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max ReadSyphilitic Scalia Says
      8/19/14 2:53pm

      Comments appear in an author's notification queue when they're made—I still get notifications about comments from articles that are years old.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Syphilitic Scalia SaysMax Read
      8/19/14 3:09pm

      But is there a point where you say "Ok, I'm done going back to the 'Pending Comments' article I wrote yesterday." and leave everyone else who is grey idling?

      This is my biggest issue with this system: Unless you jump in very early, you comments will be ignored since they fall into this grey soup of pending comments, never to be read by other commenters and by the author. Why bother commenting on something if others aren't going to interact with you because your comments aren't seen? I know I dread, and maybe others as well, clicking the "View Pending" comments button because the light grey on the white is very hard to read and I really don't want to have to contend with rapeporn.gifs again. The whole experience becomes very frustrating and very tedious to the point where it is almost not worth coming here.

      Don't get me wrong, I enjoy coming here, but there must be a better way of dealing with this.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Taylor BermanMax Read
    8/19/14 1:28pm

    Can we block other writers?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Lacey DonohueTaylor Berman
      8/19/14 1:31pm

      "Unfollow tcberman for Gawker." CLICK.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CleverUsernameMax Read
    8/19/14 1:40pm

    I feel like the Commenter Purge should be a biannual event. We can develop some sort of online test for early re-following: "Here. Read the following paragraph and provide a single comment. Go!"

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max ReadCleverUsername
      8/19/14 1:45pm

      I agree, kind of!

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      SomeStupidGuyCleverUsername
      8/19/14 2:13pm

      Yes! This sounds like it could be accompanied by a Festival of some sort. I nominate CleverUsername to head up the planning committee.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    stacyinbeanMax Read
    8/19/14 1:39pm

    I'm curious how this affects the writer's time, is time spent approving/following considered an administrative task (and is it paid that way) or is it a direct part of working with each of their posts? I guess I'm just wondering how much of a pain in the ass it is?At the same time I'd like to thank you for dealing with it because there is only so much mouth-pooping I can look at on a daily basis.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max Readstacyinbean
      8/19/14 1:46pm

      It's a pretty big pain, but honestly I'd rather spend extra time making sure that almost everything on the page reads well than just shrug my shoulders and hope that the most popular comment is not also the dumbest.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MsxHstacyinbean
      8/19/14 2:20pm

      I predict that HamNo is going to refuse to promote most comments and commenters. So it only works if the writers are willing to engage with the commenters.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    BigGayHomoIIMax Read
    8/20/14 11:43am

    Max, the above standard for Gawker approval seems a little harsh, in light of the reasoning for the reinstatement of "approved commenters."

    The thing is, I engage in debates not to hear a chorus of others who agree with me or are on the same level of discourse intellectually, but to hear the opinions of everyone else...no matter how much I disagree with them.

    It seems all well and good to apply such strict standards to approving commenters as you've laid out above, but think about where you're falling short. Looking at those standards, only people who Gawker writers (a group of mostly college educated and industry vetted wordsmiths) see as peers will often find approval. Obviously, there will be exceptions to that, but you're just bringing back the flaw that existed in the system before, that the thoughts of those less grammatically inclined and those who aren't Rhodes Scholars, will be largely marginalized.

    The exact reason for the unpopularity of the comment approval system before was because the thoughts and contributions of those who did not align with Gawker were extremely marginalized. I'd suggest even that the current guidelines show contempt for the idea that someone may disagree with you. The thoughts and perspectives of even Bush (1 & 2) supporters, gun nuts, racists, bigots, et cetera should be heard.

    If the purpose of this effort was to prevent the horrific incidence of rape GIFs and other inhumane examples of trolling, simply do not approve commenters who are obviously here to make a single, fleeting comment. Nobody is going to come here, create an account, and make enough comments to become noticed and approved simply to reap that reward by publishing a rape GIF. And remember, Gawker can always un-follow in the event someone spoils the party.

    As for this:

    Augment the story or add to it. Provide new information or context. Or at least a genuinely funny joke. Don't comment just for the sake of hearing (seeing?) your own voice, or to start a side conversation with friends and regulars.

    This is half the appeal of Gawker. We're on here during business hours to bullshit through the work day, and maybe become a little more informed. Sometimes, that useless post is meant to lighten the mood and catch people off-guard. If you want all discourse on this site to be serious and to the point, you'd better be more serious and to the point in how you publish, IMHO.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max ReadBigGayHomoII
      8/20/14 11:52am

      Why don't you wait a few weeks and see how the new system shakes out, and get back to me if you think it's made comments worse?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BigGayHomoIIMax Read
      8/20/14 12:03pm

      Based on your response, it seems like you've just glazed over everything I wrote and decided that my comment isn't worthy of more than a smiting for daring to challenge the purpose and conditions of the re-introduction of comment approval.

      I know you're a busy guy, but I'd rather no response than a response that is largely Putin-esque. I mean no insult, but honestly, when has it been a good idea to say "wait, you'll see, this'll work out in everyone's best interest."

      It's your site, I just figured I'd give you something to chew on.

      EDIT: I think my point has been proven. For all the effort I made to produce an honest and reasonable post, I still haven't gotten your stamp of approval.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    kooklaMax Read
    8/19/14 3:42pm

    I've followed Gawker since the days of Defamer. I've seen a zillion iterations of the commenting system. Kinja was one of the best versions until it was taken over by trolls. I'm suspecting a lot were kids on summer vacation. Whatever it takes to get back to people having dialogues, being witty and stop steamrolling the conversation, I'm down. I enjoy Gawker and Jezebel for their content. I enjoy a lot of regular commenters who add to the dialogue and especially the ones that challenge others to rethink their point of view. Good luck with getting back to what this site once was when I first bookmarked it.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max Readkookla
      8/19/14 3:43pm

      I mean, to get it back all the way we'd have to re-hire Lisanti.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      kooklaMax Read
      8/19/14 3:48pm

      Or Richard Lawson! I'm his biggest stalker... I mean, fan!

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    KulturVulturMax Read
    8/19/14 1:47pm

    It seems like Gawker is demanding a higher standard for commenters than the one the writers are held to.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Max ReadKulturVultur
      8/19/14 1:54pm

      Well-put.

      Reply
      <