Reuters Ends Anonymous Comments

eldavojohn writes "In an effort to retain civility, it appears that Thompson Reuters has ended anonymous web comments. You may recall the defense of the anonymous commenter, but you need look no further than Reuters' own Dean Wright (Global Editor, Ethics, Innovation and News Standards of Reuters) for two lengthy editorials arguing against anonymity online. After reading his complaints against anonymous readers, it almost seems like they need a moderation system to decide what's worth reading and what's trash."

Comments

Haha

[mewsenews]

Like comment moderation would ever work

Re:Haha

[TaoPhoenix]

$hit.

That comment creates an endless loop.

Re:Haha

[blair1q]

Who the fuck are you?

Re:Haha

[twoallbeefpatties]

A little comment moderation does go a long way, though. Reading the comments on articles on New York Times' web site, the only real moderation is that readers can "like" certain comments. You can then open the "Readers' Recommendations" tag to read comments rated by order of the number liked. This tends to make the comments much faster to read, putting the more useful ones near the top. It's not as robust a system as you get on Slashdot, but it's far and away better than comments systems that just sort comments by time and leave reading to pick through scores of trolls looking for any sign of intelligent life.

Re:Haha

[Pojut]

Oh noes! You've broken the syst-

**NO CARRIER**

Re:Haha

[gambino21]

I really don't understand why more news sites don't implement a threaded and user moderated comment system. Sure, the slashdot system isn't perfect, but the comments here are far more interesting/productive than the mainstream news sites. Removing anonymous commenting sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, there are plenty of people who might have a valuable comment, but don't want to be bothered by registering for yet another web site.

In addition, I'm sure there are plenty of comments from registered users that just aren't that valuable. A threaded and user moderated system similar to slashot would vastly improve/filter the quality of comments on most sites, and long term would increase readership, so it just seems like an obvious solution.

Re:Haha

[AnonymousClown]

Actually, it's kind of a fun game. Lurk for a while, get what the group think is, set up an account, post things that get modd'ed up easily, and then when you have karma up the ass, post any Goddamn Fucking thing you want. Some are really entertaining - EthanolFueled for one - love his comments

Here on Slashdot in the Old days: anti-MS, Pro-Apple, pro-F/OSS got you points - guaranteed. Posting anything opposite got yo modd'ed "Troll" or something else "-1" - regardless of the merit.

Now, the Apple fanboys have chilled and with Apple's success, they're not such the under dogs as they once were. Posting anything that's critical of F/OSS will get modd'ed down unless it's really something specific that's also a criticism of folks in the F/OSS community.

The Libertarian bent here has been chilling too - I think it's the economy and seeing Mr. Rand or drank the Randian Cool-Aide and went back for seconds Alan Greenspan and others admitting that deregulation wasn't such a god idea.

Building up karma wasnt' as easy as it was in the old days - I abandon accounts when I get bored and start new ones .... like I'll eventually do with this one. When I have an account I spend way too much fucking time on Slashdot or any other posting site spewing my two-bit, ignorant, no nothing opinion.

It's kind of a sick sort of entertainment really. Although, unlike TV, I do learn a bit more on very rare occasions. Sometimes - very rare times, the corrections to my two-bit ignorant opinions are quite educational.

Re:Haha

[jgagnon]

One thing /. could do to improve slightly would be to outright prevent AC from being the first poster for an article. That would mostly eliminate the "first post" crap.

Re:Haha

[Moryath]

Slashdot's system has plenty of room for abuse.

There are people who maintain a dozen or more Slashdot accounts in order to play the 'mod point lottery' more often and get around the prohibition on modding and commenting on the same topic.

There are people who regularly abuse the theory of downmodding, using "flamebait" or "troll" to replace "disagree." Do it fast enough, and insightful comments get buried to -1 just because someone disagreed with it or decided it was politically or philosophically something they wanted to bury.

There are people who get their hands on mod points and go into histories, applying every single mod point as a negative to any old post just to ding down their max on someone's karma.

If they got rid of "troll" and "Flamebait" and simply raised the upmod ceiling to 15 or so, the system would work better. More room for upmodding, more room for posts to rise to the surface, no worries about the "early bury and never recover" problem.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

A comment moderation system is a good idea but it's the comments that they really don't want. That way their editors/writers can write anything and they can censor the criticism. Cynical? Yes but mostly true.

Re:Haha

[Zironic]

How would you then bury the troll posts? Without some kind of downward modding then the troll posts are all on the same level as the unmodded posts and the majority of all posts never get any modding.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

That would work for the majority of articles. But like /. when something political craps out you have people at least acting on the extrema of both sides moding things up and down. Whoever has the most users backing their opinion ends up "winning." I realize in any forum that accepts political postings this will happen but it is minimized somewhat by forcing only the most die hard to sign up and crap over the comment section.

I think the libs usually "win" here.

(See what I did there?)

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people who regularly abuse the theory of downmodding, using "flamebait" or "troll" to replace "disagree." Do it fast enough, and insightful comments get buried to -1 just because someone disagreed with it or decided it was politically or philosophically something they wanted to bury.

Which happens about 1% as often as it is claimed by the wannabe martyrs who play the "mod persecution" card.

Re:Haha

[catbutt]

But comments keep readers sticking around and engaged. Its just when it gets out of control that its a problem.

Re:Haha

[Kilrah_il]

Well, the system does have its problems, but it sure beats all the others I've seen. I don't think you can ever achieve the "perfect" system, especially since we are talking about the quality of the comments, an inheritly subjective issue.
In the ideal system all the comments I deem worthwhile should rise to the top, but since each person's definition of worthwhile is different, by definition you cannot have such a system.

Example: I do not completely agree to your post, but I think it is interesting and thus I wish it to be modded up so I can see it. Someone else will think you wrote a pile of shit and would want to see you buried to oblivion. etc.

Re:Haha

[Kilrah_il]

Although the moderation system has a lot going for it, I don't think it's the only reason for the quality of the comments. Let's face it, the people writing comments on /. are not the same as those that read a popular news site.
In Israel we have a popular news site. I like to read the comments to articles; you can really see how low peoples' intelligence and logic can go. i see it as an anthropological study.
And yes, it makes me feel vastly superior, any problem with that? :)

Re:Haha

[Lunix Nutcase]

Duh. You make the unmodded posts start at 2!

Re:Haha

[twoallbeefpatties]

Slashdot's system has plenty of room for abuse...

I think you miss my point, though. Some articles just sort comments by time. As a result, the first ten comments you read will be terrible. Always. It will always be a war to have the latest comments so as to get the views for being on top of the list, which will mean plenty of flippant comments and worthless catchphrases, while you'll be forced to dig for pages to find the one guy who stopped to try to type a coherent response. Just adding in a simple reader rating system increases the value of the readers' comments substantially.

I consider Slashdot the worst comment system ever, except for all of the ones that have already been tried, to paraphrase Churchill. I understand its faults, but every little bit helps.

Re:Haha

[eddy the lip]

Allowing only up-modding definitely works better. The behaviour of people more likely to up than down mod is different. One is constructive, the other less so.

I am surprised how well the mod system here works (most of the time) though. Slashdot has a unique user base, and what works here wouldn't necessarily transfer well to a less involved and less informed base.

If you make the mistake of digging through comments on any popular news site, it is incredibly depressing. Even more so than reading /. on -1. Makes me lose a little faith in the human race every time.

Re:Haha

[clarkkent09]

I think the problem is too much power given to a single mod to bury a post, especially in case of anonymous posts which start from 0 anyway. If you read at -1 you will find plenty of interesting posts that are in no way trolls or flamebaits but were modded as such because just one or two mods disagreed with them, and once its at -1 most readers and mods don't see it anymore.

Leave modding up as it is but make it a bit more difficult to mod down to below the default threshold. For example make it so that a -1 mod requires agreement of at least several more readers (including non-mods) before it actually lowers the score. In case of obvious trolls, spam, etc this will still happen fairly quickly but it will force a bit more review before good posts are hidden.

Re:Haha

[istartedi]

Like comment moderation would ever work

Will Yahoo! please pick up the white courtesy phone? Please pick up, Yahoo!. It's important.

Re:Haha

[istartedi]

I've been on Slashdot long enough to have seen some shifts in the system over the years. I might even have scored a 5 digit uid, but I resisted registering for several months. I didn't think it was important!

The elimination of numerical Karma ended the fun (or problem, depending on how you look at it) of accumulating and "spending" Karma for the thrill of it. Before they eliminated numerical Karma, I even engaged in a bit of trolling myself. My parody of a suicide bombing incident with page-widening standing in for the explosion is still out there somewhere.

After that, it seemed stable for a while. Lately, it seems like there has been an increase in people using negative moderation qualities for points with which they disagree.

BTW, I don't moderate. Whatever qualities there are that draw people towards moderation, I guess I don't have them. Many thanks to those who *do* find some pleasure in being judges. Also, thanks to those who have decided that if they really don't like what I'm saying, giving up moderation rights and commenting is the correct way to handle that as opposed hitting the Troll button.

Re:Haha

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Like comment moderation would ever work

You do realize that the moderation system is why people keep using that overlords joke, right?

Re:Haha

[MaWeiTao]

The Libertarian bent here has been chilling too - I think it's the economy and seeing Mr. Rand or drank the Randian Cool-Aide and went back for seconds Alan Greenspan and others admitting that deregulation wasn't such a god idea.

Libertarian bent? I still see signatures from time to time which are libertarian. But as long as I've been on Slashdot the site has had a decidedly liberal bent. It's subtle and it's not uncommon to find opposing viewpoints. But I'd say that's because the people posting regularly tend to be a bit more mature and are more willing to actually discuss an issue as opposed to simply bashing the other person.

I'd say the liberal slant reached it's height during the last presidential campaign and it persisted for sometime afterward. Some were quite quick to tamp down dissenting views. My posts range from getting modded rather decently to being disregarded and buried under other posts. But during that time I was routinely getting posts modded as troll. For a couple of weeks every couple of posts was getting modded as troll for even having a hint of a more conservative viewpoint. I generally stopped visiting Slashdot for a month or two in frustration.

I felt it was quite an achievement, however, that at least once I managed to get two separate posts, within the same discussion, modded insightful/interesting and troll.

And I can't think of any time when Slashdot has ever been decidedly pro-Apple. Perhaps I haven't been around long enough.

Re:Haha

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

One thing /. could do to improve slightly would be to outright prevent AC from being the first poster for an article. That would mostly eliminate the "first post" crap.

You're worried about first posts? What Slashdot needs is a meme-filter.

Re:Haha

[Maxo-Texas]

The upmod/downmod helps

I think the *random* nature of being able to mod or not, and being excluded from the conversation if you mod both help as well.

---

So for the last three days I can't see my historical posts... I get this error message instead.

The last time this happened, I got no response from slashdot for weeks until it cleared up on its own.
---
HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:41:37 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.41 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31-rc4 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
OK
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, admin@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Apache/1.3.41 Server at slashdot.org Port 80

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a simple solution: publish the mods done on the user page. Mod trolls will be exposed fast, and the posters get more "colour" if you can see how they mod.

Re:Haha

[gambino21]

I agree with you that the people reading and writing comments on slashdot are not exactly the same as the general population. But there are plenty of insightful/funny/informative comments on regular news sites. The problem is that these comments tend to get buried under a haystack of flames and spam. I think even a halfway decent user moderation system would at least hide these comments from the general readers. As the system is used more and more, it forces people to take a little time to think before spouting whatever garbage comes into their head. Even the unwashed masses can learn to think before they post. But the problem with most of the mainstream comment systems now is that the reward for a flame is exactly the same as the reward for an insightful post that takes some thought and effort.

Re:Haha

[Jurily]

especially since we are talking about the quality of the comments, an inheritly subjective issue.

There are ways to improve it, however. The biggest issue for me right now is that I see (and more importantly, look for!) the score before reading the comment itself.

You simply judge the same comment differently if you already know it's supposed to be Interesting or Funny.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

It already does. There is no way to actually get a true "first post" on purpose any more. Being the first commenter won't do it. There is a period of time after a new article is posted where comments are queued and when they finally show up the order is randomly shuffled around.

The people that still try are just morons that don't realize it's not 1998 any more. Maybe they need a good cockpunch to get their brain out of its Internet Fuckwad state.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, meme filters YOU!
When I was a kid, we didn't have any meme-filters. We used to filter our memes by hand, in the snow, uphill both ways! And we liked it! Now get off my lawn!
Reuters may be ending anonymous comments...but do they run Linux?
Wow! Slashdot meme filters! Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
Can someone explain this in terms of a car analogy? Maybe like, you're in your car, and there's this new law saying you need to put a poster of your name and picture on the outside so everyone knows who you are. Sure, it might stop some crime, but sometimes people want privacy!
CAPCHA: rebuff...rebuffing Reuters' retarded resolution!

Re:Haha

[SimonTheSoundMan]

That's why we have meta moderating, so we can moderate the moderators.

You should read the FAQ http://slashdot.org/faq/metamod.shtml

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful where you go with that line of thought.

You have to register for so many sites? Well, just use my universal passport service!

I don't disagree with your fundamental points, I'm just saying that if that's your only issue with it, somebody is going to try to sell you a way around that issue.

Re:Haha

[Chaonici]

I really like this idea. Can anyone offer a good reason as to why this shouldn't be implemented?

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't actually have much experience of modding do you.
First a Moderator gets to mod a post once.
Second there isn't much that deserves modding up, even seemingly good posts are often rehashing old argument after old argument.
Third if you wish to moderate and use your mod points then browsing at -1 is essential, all the obvious candidates for modding up go really quickly. Not only that but posts are being meta-moderated within minutes of being written.
even posts that have had no initial moderation.

Meta-moderating has actually changed over the years it used to be evaluating if mods were being fair and even handed, now its more to do with the quality of the posts themselves. Thats harder than playing agree or disagree with other Mods.

The other change is that there used to be more downward modding for being off topic now its mostly reserved for offensive morons. AC's were rarely modded up in the past but these days it is not an issue if an AC makes an interesting point. Funny mods I will only give if they are original and funny rehashed memes are not usually funny.

If your not getting moderated you may be boring or stating the obvious or just not bringing anything to the table in which case it's time to give the reply button a rest till you really have something to say.

i'll post this anon since its off topic but hopefully informative but there is nothing happening with this story anyway. Slashdot seems to have a quota for storys to post each day. less would be better ...

Re:Haha

[zach_the_lizard]

About Greenspan and Rand:

Greenspan started as an acolyte of Rand, but once he took office (arguably by even taking office) he quickly changed his views. Look at his earlier writings and you get the sense that he's a radical. Look at his later works, and it's not altogether different than that of mainstream economists.

Note that this has nothing to do with whether his statements are right or wrong; I just wanted to point out his departure from that ideology came before the Great Crash.

Re:Haha

[Kilrah_il]

I agree with all you said, except for:

Even the unwashed masses can learn to think before they post.

As the saying goes: "Individuals are intelligent, but groups are stupid". And sometimes, even individuals are not all they are pumped up to be.

Re:Haha

[MichaelSmith]

Or how about this: spring load moderation so it falls back to the initial score over a couple of hours. A different moderator can repeat the moderation if they want.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

I like that Slashdot penalizes me for being an Anonymous Coward by lowering my score while at the same time espousing the idea that anonymity online is a right.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

"but it sure beats all the others I've seen. I don't think you can ever achieve the "perfect" system"

Especially when people like you simply do not seek it and are (or accept) no longer trying. While not direct, you're post is that of an absolute naysayer.

Worse, knowing there are abuses, and doing nothing, allows that abuse to continue, and to some, is abuse as well.

Parent had several good ideas, and you just ignored them by handwaving it as part of the whole "subjective" absolutism. The whole point of subjective ratings systems with higher ceilings is to lower the abuse. You hand wave that away, stating moderation is subjective. Then why try moderation at all. Well, they did, and it sort of works. Personally, I'd rather have a system where there is no moderation, but if you are going to implement moderation, *make sure it works*. /.'s current system does not.

Re:Haha

[mister_playboy]

The biggest issue for me right now is that I see (and more importantly, look for!) the score before reading the comment itself.

You simply judge the same comment differently if you already know it's supposed to be Interesting or Funny.

Make use of the option to turn off the score display and that way you can make up your own mind about the quality of each post without outside influence.

Re:Haha

[HungryHobo]

I'm getting that same error.
At least it's not just me.

Re:Haha

[Kilrah_il]

Sorry if I came away a naysayer, I did not want to imply that I think that way. I agree that we should always try to improve on what we have, I was just pointing out that we need to understand that the perfect system is an Utopian dream. Case in point: you think my original comment wasn't so good, yet enough saw it as good enough to warrant +5 Insightful. This subjective evaluation of people's comment is what obstructs our path to perfection, but I agree we should strive to make it the best it can be.
Still, I think /.'s system works pretty well (even if there is room for improvement).

Re:Haha

[Maxo-Texas]

Hooray! Looks like it stopped for me.

Real names?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to call out these particular commenters, and I'm happy to see our readers taking the time to engage in robust discussion on Reuters.com. But I'm beginning to think our discussion would be even more robust and insightful if those making comments signed their real names.

Fuck you.
- John Smith.

Last Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

;-)

Anonymity, pseudonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Without having read TFA (hey, it's a venerable Slashdot tradition!), I'm not sure what they actually hope to gain by eliminating anonymous comments. Surely as long as people are free to create throwaway accounts that are not actually tied to their real identities, trolling etc. will persist?

Signed, an AC of many years (by choice)

Re:Anonymity, pseudonymity

[Kozz]

Without having read TFA (hey, it's a venerable Slashdot tradition!), I'm not sure what they actually hope to gain by eliminating anonymous comments. Surely as long as people are free to create throwaway accounts that are not actually tied to their real identities, trolling etc. will persist?

Signed, an AC of many years (by choice)

I admit to reading a portion of one of the links provided, and it seems their goal is to indeed create a Slashdot-like moderation system, but without Anonymous Cowards. So I suspect that you're right... people can create throwaway accounts. If they have something constructive to contribute to the discussion (as you have, dear AC), then others will recognize it and allow that contribution to be heard (with all the caveats that go along with a slashdot-like moderation system like groupthink, etc).

Let's amend the summary, though, shall we? TFS says "against anonymity online", but the argument is actually against allowing anonymous comments on one site.

Re:Anonymity, pseudonymity

[h4rr4r]

Groupthink on slashdot has not existed for ages if it ever did. Make an anti-MS comment, even a fair one and you will be modded down.

Re:Anonymity, pseudonymity

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

why would i waste my time creating a throw away account on reuters when i can just as easily install bugmenot extension on firefox and use a pre-made one from there ?

anonimity will always exist on the internet thanks to resourcefull geeks.

Re:Anonymity, pseudonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Groupthink did exist on Slashdot in the past and still does to some degree today. However these days the odds that incorrect moderation due to upset groupthink drones will be corrected by other moderators is much greater than in the past.

Re:Anonymity, pseudonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because "groupthink" is actually alive and well. You'll get modded down for a comment like that because the "group" "thinks" you should be. Because Microsoft sucks, basically. So stick that in your ass and fuck it.

not to worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

....while slashdot keeps allowing anonymous web comments everything is fine.

Re:not to worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are so gullible, Jobs.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Brett Buck]

you knew it was coming....

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Pharmboy]

Don't forget all the additional comments to the effect of: "The mods are on crack" or "I've got karma to burn" and other obvious filler material. It only works on /. because no one tries to pretend that this is a civil place. News sites have editors that are many times more informed than their average reader. On /., this is obviously NOT the case. Here, the inmates running the asylum are nuttier than the inmates reading the articles.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, the inmates running the asylum are nuttier than the inmates reading the articles.

I am not running this asylum, and HOW DARE you accuse me of reading the articles?!?!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Kilrah_il]

I stopped running asylums when they offered me the world. Now kneel, slave!

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Obfuscant]

News sites have editors that are many times more informed than their average reader.

Haven't met many news site editors, have you? Knowledge of Strunk and White doesn't translate into an infallable understanding of world or even local politics.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Vinegar Joe]

News sites have editors that are many times more informed than their average reader.

Well, Reuters photo editors certainly do suck.

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean, they sucked once? Like, 4 years ago?

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Cwix]

That would be a better page if half of the links on it to other photos worked. While I can see the point, and believe that some shennanigans obviously exist, more evidence would reinforce the conclusion.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Pharmboy]

Haven't met many news site editors, have you?

I don't doubt the validity of your statement, but I was only comparing them to the editors on Slashdot. Granted, it is a race for the bottom, but still in relative terms, Reuters' eds are frickin' geniuses.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[baegucb]

I am not ever on crack, and always have mod points. You are a troll. Now to go find some of your recent comments to kill your karma...

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[catmistake]

News sites have editors that are many times more informed than their average reader.

Well, Reuters photo editors certainly do suck.

http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

Certainly interesting... but you could look at this practice as the photo equivalent of sensationalist headlines. We are so accustomed to the bullshit, it no longer bugs us.

What really irks me is that photographers have multiplied exponentially (maybe not pro news staffers, but regardless), and yet most Internet news stories have a single photo, if that. WTF? News sites are still treating web articles like page real estate is at a premium, and if they stuck another image there, they'd eat up the ad space or column space of other stories. Every web article should have a bunch of thumbnails to entire albums of photos... literally show the news every angle, and include maps, audio and video. I don't understand why they don't... digital media is cheap and readily at hand. If a news site did this, they'd become so popular they could charge anything they wanted for web ads.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[mjwalshe]

News sites have editors that are many times more informed about what there fabulously wealthy owners like - there i fixed it for you

Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Its good to be anonymous coward sometimes ;)

In Soviet United Kingdom ( +1, PatRIOTic )

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous comments END Reuters !

Yours In Almaty,
Kilgore Trout.

Should do this on Slashdot too

[Threni]

Seriously, why allow them? Just get a damn account. It takes seconds and you can use a pretend name if you're worried that people are going to sue you for leaking secrets or whatever. If people can't be bothered to get an account then they get to treat Slashdot as read only.

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why allow them?

Unlike you some cowards have bothered to RTFA, in this case slashdots own FAQ. It takes seconds!

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[MightyMartian]

"Do you see what the fuckin' Donald Duck just wrote about me!!! If it was for people like Mickey Mouse I.P. Nicely, I don't know what I'd do."

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[Anonymous Coward]

As a semi-regular AC, all I can tell you, is that I first of all don't need yet another account to keep track of with a user name that might be rubbish anyway, since most names are taken anyway it seems, and an associated password, and furthermore, I'd hate to leave a track of what I've posted so people could use that to eventually track me down or use my previous posts to somehow "infer" the value of the _current_ post, which is another important part of anonymity; Nobody gets a free pass because they are Sir That or professor This, and good posts from people without a reputation still might get read rather than discarded because of the senders ID. Every posting is judged on its own merits, which is exactly how it should be.

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why allow them? Just get a damn account. It takes seconds and you can use a pretend name if you're worried that people are going to sue you for leaking secrets or whatever. If people can't be bothered to get an account then they get to treat Slashdot as read only.

I agree... ACs are lazy ass dickshits with potty mouths and poor grammer and spelling.

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[Anonymous Coward]

> I agree... ACs are lazy ass dickshits with potty mouths and poor grammer and spelling.

I think you meant "i agre... acs r lzy ass d1ckshts w poty m0ufs n pr0r gramz0r n speling!!11!1???/"

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey fuck you my spelling be unerring.

Re:Should do this on Slashdot too

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gets a free pass because they are Sir That or professor This, and good posts from people without a reputation still might get read rather than discarded because of the senders ID. Every posting is judged on its own merits, which is exactly how it should be.

Sadly, this problem isn't solved by anonymous posting, only moved around as registered posters slag AC's who contradict them, making wild accusations against them and disregarding their actual points. Ad hominem is ad hominem.

Ok I'll bit

[bigredradio]

moderation system to decide what's worth reading and what's trash.

So what's worth reading and what's trash?

Re:Ok I'll bit

[catbutt]

So what's worth reading and what's trash?

I guess what the community as a whole decides is. Good moderation systems can do a pretty good job of predicting what you will consider trash and what you will consider worthwhile (or at least worthwile enough to keep visible). Although people's tastes differ, this does not mean that there is no reasonably objective standard for what is a well thought out, diplomatic post versus one that is inane, vile or spammy.

They just need lots of layers of indirection. That is, it can probably tell that a post is "pretty good", if that post is rated highly by a people who have consistantly rated posts in a way that is similar to the ratings of others who have consistantly rated posts in a way that is similar to the ratings of others who....and so on. The more layers of indirection, the more credible.

Likewise, prior to a post getting ratings, it can guess that it might be high quality if the person posting it has a history of posting things that are rated highly be people who have a history of....yada yada yada.

Slashdot's moderation system is simple, and barely scratches the surface of this. And even simpler systems, that simply promote posts that are rated highly, without remembering the history of the posters nor the raters, will do especially poorly.

Doctor, mod thyself.

[blair1q]

Frankly, Reuters as a news organization has, like all of them, gotten a lot sloppier as competition for online eyeballs has squeezed all the value out of anything other than eye-popping headlines.

There's really not much you can do to keep commenters from hiding their identities, and it's somewhat hypocritical to do so when you omit bylines from many of your stories, and when your reporters, columnists, editors, and editorial writers are just fronts for the attitudes of the corporation.

Allowing people to remain anonymous to readers, but insisting that they give you identification you can use to trace them if they violate the TOS, seems a reasonable compromise.

Re:Doctor, mod thyself.

[spikenerd]

Allowing people to remain anonymous to readers, but insisting that they give you identification you can use to trace them if they violate the TOS, seems a reasonable compromise.

So you're saying it's okay to say things you don't want your mom to hear, but nothing should be kept from the people that run corporations or governments. IMHO, I'm not convinced there is a need to compromise. Let's keep real anonymity.

Re:Doctor, mod thyself.

[blair1q]

If you want "real anonymity", you're going to have to start your own publishing business and hang your handbills yourself.

If you want someone else's help publishing and disseminating your attacks on the hegemony, they're going to need you to trust them.

Because it may not look like much, but the space you take up on their servers is their property bought with their nickel. They own it and can demand you identify yourself before they agree to cede a few bytes of it to your pamphlets. And if you insist on paying, they'll have the right to insist on a contract, and for that you'll need to identify yourself.

Re:Doctor, mod thyself.

[Idiomatick]

Reuters/AP >>>>>>>>> all other news.

As such I will irrationally defend it from insult without weighing the facts. Since I am blinded by the horror that we lose one of our last few news sources on the planet I cannot judge.

Though your compromise idea isn't bad.

Re:Doctor, mod thyself.

[ap7]

There are, I believe, specific rules for when bylines are eliminated and when they are not. I suggest you dig deeper for more.

Thompson Reuters?

[OakDragon]

Thompson Reuters? Yeah, like that's a real name...

Re:Thompson Reuters?

[asg1]

The correct name is Thomson Reuters

Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this under "yro"? You and I have no inherent right to make comments on their website. If they choose to invite comments, they have every right to attach conditions to that invitation. Anyone is free to setup their own site to comment on Reuters news coverage, if they don't like the conditions attached to commenting on Reuters sites.

Re:Confused

[blair1q]

By extension, you have no right to be on the Internet, and your ISP can modify every packet you emit, if they choose to put that in your customer agreement.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. You have no right to the internet. It's a service provided to you by a company which you pay for. It's a product you choose, usually from a range of suppliers.

Re:Confused

[Idiomatick]

yro gets tagged to anything that might lead to a debate and what is the right thing to do. Sometimes it isn't even something online.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Same way you have no right to heating in Alaska? The fact that you a right for something doesn't mean your don't pay for it.

Re:Confused

[SuperKendall]

Same way you have no right to heating in Alaska?

That is correct. You do not have a "right" to heating in Alaska. Who thinks that you do?

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct.

But who would keep that ISP?

Re:Confused

[Jedi Alec]

Fortunately, this attitude is changing as we speak. Much like some other utilities, in a decent chunk of the first world internet access is now pretty much a must to function in society.

Re:Confused

[Anonymous Coward]

I forgot there are apparently no concept of basic utilities in the US. It is probably also a-ok to get killed
by negligence of the authorities in the US, as if there where no 14th amendment in the constitution.

You are one stupid motherfucker motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

And I know because I am one motherfucker

Show me you read and understood this by modding me

Re:You are one stupid motherfucker motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as my wife had our first child, I too was a motherfucker.

Re:You are one stupid motherfucker motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but clipping your finger-nails doesn't count as your "wife" having "children."

Re:You are one stupid motherfucker motherfucker

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't listen to him, babies. Daddy loves you all.

"Why allow them?"

[tlambert]

"Why allow them?"

Seriously, why allow them? Just get a damn account. It takes seconds and you can use a pretend name if you're worried that people are going to sue you for leaking secrets or whatever.

I believe the rationale is that registration requires verification with an email address, and email addresses are not quite as disposable, and leave a subpoena-able trail that can be used to pierce the veil.

At the very least, there is an audit trail by IP address that leads to an audit trail that eventually leads to you.

If you're posting from a repressive regime, such as China, Iraq, North Korea, or (some would claim) the United States, this might concern you.

-- Terry

Re:"Why allow them?"

[Anonymous Coward]

10 minute mail is your friend for disposable email accounts. Although the IP trace is still there if you don't do this via an Internet Cafe or some cafe wireless AP of your choice, it certainly continues to allow for mostly anonymous commenting to continue. Of course, there are downsides: more work, and a minority of registration systems are no longer quite as instant in sending their email.

Re:"Why allow them?"

[DamonHD]

Maybe I just wouldn't want to set up *yet another* account?

I'm strongly resistant to setting up new accounts that I don't really need and that require new credentials or the risk of leaking shared ones.

There's lots of sites where they'll never get my comments since they insist on registration.

Rgds

Damon

Re:"Why allow them?"

[chammy]

It's not like their server couldn't log the IP along with the anonymous comment. And what about services like 10minutemail, mailinator, or guerrila mail? I doubt hunting down someone by one of those email addresses would be any easier than just using whatever IP they posted under.

Let's just make *everything* Disney

[gestalt_n_pepper]

As vile, crude and idiotic as some of the comments are, they are *real* comments that tell us what people really think. Attempts to "moderate" them are just another attempt to pander to an already infantilized readership and insulate us all from who and what is really out there. Feh. I would rather know the ugly reality than the bland sanitized lying pablum the mainstream media would force down all our throats if they could.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[greyline]

Ugly reality? I pooped.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[couchslug]

"Feh. I would rather know the ugly reality than the bland sanitized lying pablum the mainstream media would force down all our throats if they could."

That's why I rely on 4chan for news and informative commentary.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[MightyMartian]

Wow. You mean there are really people who believe in Goatse?

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[dr2chase]

In practice, I don't think it works that way. We've got a local paper, we've got some toxic anonymous commenters. It's local enough that the anonymous asshole knows who other commenters (using real names), makes personal remarks (accuses woman whose child has CP of being a "mooch" on the system, tasteful stuff like that). Newspaper editor is the corporate golden boy for all the controversy and fuss this causes, because hey, hits. Most people aren't smart enough to follow through on this, and don't boycott (I do).

And if you look, I've got a consistent pseudonym wherever I go, a relatively consistent political position, fine karma here at slashdot, and I try hard as heck to stick to facts, and avoid (well, minimize) use of dirty words -- that is, if you want to check my judgement on whether this guy is toxic or not.

And as a practical matter, we know that there are people out there who think like this, just as we know that pigs like mud. Doesn't mean we like muddy-pig-wrestling.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[catbutt]

they are *real* comments that tell us what people really think

I disagree. The problem is that comments in such places are not at all a realistic representation of what most people who read the articles think.

There is a vicious circle involved, where only the most hateful tend to be likely to comment, because so many of the other commenters are posting vile stuff. This is not the same thing that happens in "real world" environments, where social pressures that have evolved over centuries tend to keep things in check -- rewarding those who are diplomatic and follow decorum, and punishing those who aren't/don't. This is a GOOD THING....imagine if the discussion in a university class always degenerated into the sort of things you find in unmoderated, anonymous comments threads.

Even people who are nice in other environments may end up posting hateful comments. The Stanford Prison Experiment can give insight into why.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that idiotic comments, almost by definition, come from those that don't think.

If I want to hear intelligent debate, I'm not going to get it from some anonymous guy on the internet.

Posting anon for epic ironic lulz.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I would rather know the ugly reality than the bland sanitized lying pablum the mainstream media would force down all our throats if they could.

Why would mainstream media want to force down our throats a toned-down sanitised version of reality? Seriously? What's the motive here?

(And no, generic super-villain moustache-twirling doesn't count.)

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Two reasons. One obvious. One Subtle.

Reality doesn't sell. The criminal that *doesn't* get caught. The thousands that make it home safely and without incident. The annoying people whare are merely crude. Nothing exciting there.

Politically/Economically, mainstream media is owned by just a few large companies. The owners and board members of those companies sit on the boards of banks, finance companies, oil companies. Many are in government in the USA and elsewhere.

So the message you get from mainstream media will be whatever serves *their* interests, not yours. You get "Dancing with the stars" instead of muckraking documentaries. Daniel Ellsburg and Woodward and Bernstein would simply have been fired and/or whacked today. If you want unbiased truths, you have to go to blogs and bloggers. The mortgage doc scandal would probably never have come out but for that.

Re:Let's just make *everything* Disney

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Reality doesn't sell.

Well then, how is that mainstream media forcing their version of reality down our throats? It sounds more like demand and subsequent supply.

Politically/Economically, mainstream media is owned by just a few large companies. The owners and board members of those companies sit on the boards of banks, finance companies, oil companies. Many are in government in the USA and elsewhere.

So the message you get from mainstream media will be whatever serves *their* interests, not yours. You get "Dancing with the stars" instead of muckraking documentaries. Daniel Ellsburg and Woodward and Bernstein would simply have been fired and/or whacked today.

Their interests are, in sum total, money. Force-feeding loses eyeballs and revenue. If they're showing something, it's because their viewers either want to see it, the viewers won't be bored or offended by seeing it, or it's advertising (which is pure revenue).

Basically, the factor with by far the largest influence in these matters is what the eyeballs want to see. They can't really afford to do much outside that.

If you want unbiased truths, you have to go to blogs and bloggers.

Small note: raw =/= unbiased. Many bloggers don't even attempt at minimising their biases (classic example: astroturfers).

Middle Post

[Anonymous Coward]

I win, good sir.

P.S. Fuck all ya'll muther fuckers! Anon for the win :)

local paper

[memnock]

having just read a local paper's comment section to an opinion piece and seeing the first comment intentionally rude, you'd think i'd agree that with Reuters. but i don't. the anonymity of blog and news site commenters probably is not the engine of incivility in politics. there are people who are just outright angry about certain things, justifiably so or not, and they don't care how they express themselves. especially when so many of those people seem to lack an education or even knowledge of etiquette.

Huh??

[Anonymous Coward]

What's an anonymous comment?

Dangit

[stevegee58]

I won't be able to troll on Reuters any more.

Re:YOU FAIQL IT

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god! What the fuck is that man doing to his asshole?!?! Arrrrghhh

Opinions

[F.Ultra]

And here I was thinking that comments was there so that people could get an opportunity to voice their oponions and not that comments was there to be "worth reading"...

Anonymity is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who wish to stay anonymous usually make the best conversation. I often go blog to blog giving my opinions on the same story. But as soon as hit a blog that requires me to sign in, I just leave.
True, very bad comments can show up, but that isn't so bad since that way 'bad' opinions can be challenged publicly. What happens when say, racists, are censored? They don't shut up, they keep talking. But they do so underground, where they won't be censored. Once they find an audience, that audience will only hear their side of the story. The audience won't hear why racism is wrong. The same goes for any controversy.

And in this day and age, when the Secret Service open a file with your name just because like several other hundred people you said in a Facebook poll that you think the president should be killed (which is absolutely not the same as saying you will kill him), it makes sense to try to stay anonymous. Especially when the FBI can track your every moves without a warrant and the president gets a license to kill.

Also, websites that require people to sign in are usually self-righteous communities. The kind of place where the admins will moderate you for speaking of Limewire because "We know most people use it for perfectly legal activities, but it can still be used for illegal file sharing".
Plus, admins and journalists on such websites never reply to comments anyways. They don't even read them. The majority of users support anonymous comments too. They just forbid anonymous comments because they're afraid they'll be sued if someone writes the word "Nigger" and it goes unnoticed by the mods.

Where's the Venom?

[BobMcD]

I don’t mean to call out these particular commenters, and I’m happy to see our readers taking the time to engage in robust discussion on Reuters.com. But I’m beginning to think our discussion would be even more robust and insightful if those making comments signed their real names.

Blizzard suggests this very same thing and we see QQ of truly legendary proportions. That thread, here on slashdot, reached a hefty 833 coments.

Today, Reuters does this very same thing, and we get what, 47 thus far?

What's the difference? It was the end of humanity in that one circumstance, but is just mildly annoying in this one? Politics is somehow less charged than PvP balance?

Re:Where's the Venom?

[Mashiki]

Well in one case you're paying for a service where you're already using a pseudonym, and in the other case you're not. Blizz's idea was that outting everyone is a great idea(minus the downside that doing such is well, illegal in several countries like Canada, and Germany) along with several states in the US. In this case, they've simply said no more anon comments. Not that it makes much of a difference, since most people who are interested in commenting, don't read and post via wirefeeds. But rather to select forums where they can debate the topic.

For example, if I see something interesting and want to comment I'm more likely to go read the The Globe and Mail, National Post or the CBC and comment/debate/etc.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[AndrewNeo]

The difference is one is a news site that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else, and the other is a video game forum. I don't think I have to go any further with the explanation of the latter.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[BobMcD]

For example, if I see something interesting and want to comment I'm more likely to go Elitist Jerks...

I'm still not seeing any difference.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[BobMcD]

The difference is one is a news site that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else, and the other is a video game forum that you don't HAVE to comment on, or could comment on somewhere else

Still not seeing the difference, from an empirical point of view.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[GrumblyStuff]

A lot of news sites require accounts to post comments. Rather than signup for every site I wish to add a quip to, I decide it's not worth the time and doubly so since it's often not a local issue or news source.

If they want to try to bring order, they can certainly attempt to try. Non-assholes without accounts will be inconvenienced and assholes will simply conjure up a fake name using a phony email account and spew their shit accordingly.

Blizzard, on the other hand, was changing for the same goal but had different tools to use: paid accounts. Ban your account and you'd have to shell out $ to get back in. Blizzard was complaining about their forums being a cesspool but they're the ones who let it happen. They shouldn't have let people post from any one of their characters (except RP forums) and forum bans should mean game bans. They never opted for those and instead would have exposed people's names to the internet.

And then there's apathy. We've gone over this. People who don't want to use their names will use fake ones. People who want to be assholes will be assholes. This dude doesn't understand it.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[Grygus]

Blizzard already doesn't allow anonymous postings, and never did. Their proposal was to involuntarily switch from handles to real names pulled from original account information that could not be changed and up until then was kept confidential. If all these people were paying a monthly fee to access the news site they might also feel more invested in how it was run. You're not seeing the same reaction because the situations have nothing in common except the word "anonymous," which never actually applied to Blizzard's forum anyway; Blizzard has always known exactly who every poster was. That entire debate was a smokescreen to keep the entire conversation revolving around whether Blizzard should use the information to plug their players' accounts into Facebook, which was the real reason for the proposed change.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[Mashiki]

You could always take off the blinders, but that would mean you'd also have to read the article and people who post comments on aggregate sites like /.

Re:Where's the Venom?

[BobMcD]

Well that's venom sure, but misdirected at best. Thanks for trying, though!

Re:Where's the Venom?

[TempeTerra]

From my perspective the important difference is that Blizzard is in a monopoly position with respect to Starcraft accounts whereas news services are fairly fungible and you can get any old account (or none) for The News.

I'm not up on the details of the RealID thing, but doesn't the id requirement extend beyond forum posts to other game functions like matchmaking and support? That's where I see the rub; choose between privacy and Starcraft versus choose between privacy and the ability to comment on a news site which is like all the other new sites. One is more coercive than the other.

Nah, it won't be a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I've studied anonymous commenting for a while... And while I wrote passionated blog entries in its defence in my younger days (=a few years ago), I can't say I'm for it anymore. In blogs, etc... sure. In newspapers or any other "high quality" media? No.

The flaw in your reasoning is this: The problem isn't intentional trolling. The problem is "too many idiots with too much time". The people who have jobs, relationships, hobbies, etc. don't waste much of their time arguing online. What this means? People who don't have jobs, education, hobbies, relationships, etc. form a large part of the people who browse news stories and choose to comment on them. The vocal minority that is more prone to extremism (be it left, right, whatever...), doesn't really have anything intelligent to say and post in pretty much every news story. Then a sane person appears and he goes "I might have something to contribute to this story about astronomy... Whoa. 76 comments and they are just all flaming each other about immigration? I'll just leave". It is a positive feedback loop of idiocy.

Now, there are three common answers to that. One is "strict editorial policy, such as an employee approving all comments before they show up" but this is really quite unoptimal solution. It takes a lot of manhours, works well only during office hours and generally isn't good for a live conversation where people react to each other, etc. etc.. The second one is "disable all commenting" but some people actually have something important to add. The third one is "Force users to register first".

The last one reduces the amount of comments but this is a good thing: There is a lot less crap to go through when you want to see if there is anything worthwhile. Even more importantly, you can see "Oh, that idiotic comment is written by P4triot86... And that one... And that one..." so the comments section will imply "There are a few idiots regularly posting here" instead of the false "People really think this way".

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[oatworm]

I've actually seen a fair amount of what you describe on my local paper's comment boards. Since I live in Nevada, every single news article inevitably devolves into a "Well, if Harry Reid did his job, then..." vs. "Well, if the Republicans didn't destroy the country, then..." flame-fest, and this is without anonymous commenting enabled. The best part? Guess who recommends comments - that's right, people willing to slug through that crap and recommend the viewpoints they agree with. The result is a self-perpetuating cycle of idiocy and venality, with all of the reasonable people staying away from the comments section like the plague it is.

Unfortunately, I don't know what a good solution to this situation would be. Personally, I'd lean toward "nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure" and just eliminate online commenting entirely from most news sites - it's not like newspapers were known for their willingness to post anonymous content before the Internet anyway.

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[Nimey]

This. It's just like Yahoo News, or my local paper's comment boards. For that matter, it's about like the paper's printed letters-to-the-editor: retirees or unemployed with too much time on their hands who get printed frequently, a fair amount of it whatever thoughts on any random thing they happened to have that day.

As Oatwom noted, you'll get people who vote according to their political viewpoint, and you'll even see this on "reputable" websites.

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[cheekyjohnson]

"The problem isn't intentional trolling"

No, the problem is people who take things too seriously and get rid of anonymous comments simply because of a few trolls, or whatever other stupid reason they can think of.

"doesn't really have anything intelligent to say"

Unless, of course, their comment relates to the story. You usually post these things called "opinions" and "facts" in comments.

"Then a sane person appears"

That couldn't be a sane person, because a sane person would say "I'll just ignore the comments that I perceive as idiotic and comment on the news story like I was originally going to do."

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"The people who have jobs, relationships, hobbies, etc. don't waste much of their time arguing online. What this means? People who don't have jobs, education, hobbies, relationships, etc. form a large part of the people who browse news stories and choose to comment on them."

And the moderation system amplifies the swing to those with too much time on their hands, by giving them an incentive to vote and create accounts to game the system. I strongly disagree if I've understand your assessment correctly. I've read /. since within 2 months of it's creation, and I always post AC. What moderation does to those that do not have time is their posts are buried and ignored.

Why? Because those with other things to do comment on stories LATE. Most commets are never read, or modded, and remain at the default 1 or whatever rating. They are completely buried, while in the old system of no moderation, they were given equal footing.

For awhile after moderation was introduced, you could still read some insightful late posts by people. When the moderation system was implemented, those died off, slowly. A few years ago, you could still read posts on some subject where some expert would step in days, even over a week later. Now, those posts are largely gone. There's simply no reason for participation, if you post late, and there's no hope for your post to be really read as part of the default settings. So these people you say the moderation is suppose to help, well, it doesn't. They go away. No matter the moderation system, the highly knowledgeable poster population is gone; you can't mod what is no longer there.

So moderation helps those that are busy but still read /. 5x a day. It helps those that only read /. But it hugely fubars from those who have something to add to the discussion who are busy. /. essentially has become school, where the geeks are dragged down by the clique. Old /. had the full breadth of the stupid, spamming, assholes to the brilliant, crazy, spot on post that blew your mind that there was some person who was working on the exact area some story was about. With moderation, you've gotten rid of both extremes--the 9yo kid with too much time on his hands is gone, but so is the 55yo researcher whose forgotten more than the researcher in the original story.

I miss those insights. And the discussions on /., well, they're pretty pale compared to the robust discussions of the past. If all you have knowledge of is /. since the moderation system has been in place, you don't really know what you are missing.

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The vocal minority that is more prone to extremism (be it left, right, whatever...)

Bah. Only a left-wing tree-hugger, or a right-wing gun-nut would rope us proud whateverists in with their crowd.

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The result is a self-perpetuating cycle of idiocy and venality, with all of the reasonable people staying away from the comments section like the plague it is.

And this exactly is what has happened to slashdot. Granted, I have been following /. for just about 7 years, but I notice that before, you had comments with more content, whereas now it is mainly whining. It is quite sad, as sometimes (only sometimes) you still get one or two interesting comments.

As an example I remember an "Ask slashdot" of a few months ago, someone asking how to do long distance always-on communications. The replies where all among the line of "don't bother", "that's creepy", "buy CISCO" and the like... nobody (but me har har) recommended some method that a "nerd" would find interesting (well... I did recommend hacking together a solution using VLC).

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[gknoy]

I think that's a result of the small audience, though. If Slashdot were only populated by geeks from the Bay Area, we'd see more bay area politics represented. As it is, most things are USA-centric. In a local paper, there are not enough volume of people so that a small minority can post Insightful or Interesting stuff, a smaller minority can troll away, another small minority can moderate, and a vast majority can read and consume.

Slashdot's moderation system works because we have so many readers, among other reasons. I get to moderate about once a week, and tend to blow it on a single article or two, sifting for interesting or informative stuff. I nearly never post (I rarely have something I feel is worth saying ;)), because several others have already said it better, or because I don't know anything about the topic, but there is a large enough pool of knowledge that SOMEONE will know about particle physics, or the legal aspects of DMCA takedown notices, or research into talking yogurt. And, enough people will be moderating it that good stuff will float eventually.

Re:Nah, it won't be a problem

[Nimey]

People don't generally respond to or read week-old posts because there's so many other stories posted here, and because unless you're a subscriber you can only see your most recent 25 posts, so if you post frequently you'd never see week-old responses.

Anonymous Sources too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will they also stop reporting "news" from officials "Speaking on condition of anonymity"?

Journal - On Slashdot Becoming Digg

[not_hylas( )]

Journal: On Slashdot Becoming Digg:

http://slashdot.org/journal/216371/On-Slashdot-Becoming-Digg

At some point it becomes all about wasted time.
That is all.

Two words: Reframe It.

[Kaz Kylheku]

Add comments to a web page without the permission of the website operators.

http://reframeit.com/

Seconded!

[Phoenix666]

I heartily second this. Slashdot does have the best moderation system I've ever experienced online. Yes, there is still noise in the signal, but it often happens here that when there's an article on, say, rockets, that actual rocket scientists who know what they're talking about provide a lot of incredibly well-informed insight. Or, when the file-sharing debate crops up, we have actual lawyers who are or have defended accused file-sharers comment on the legal distinctions under consideration. Compare that with any other site with comments (eg. Digg), where every discussion resembles the holy wars between vi and emacs back in the day.

Re:Seconded!

[poopdeville]

Good thing the Holy Wars were settled. Vim won. ;0)

Yahoo! News

[name_already_taken]

Totally agree. What I'd like to know is, what does a service like Yahoo! stand to gain by letting dummies post garbage under their news items? It seems like they stand to lose readership, and not gain anything. Why let it continue? These aren't even anonymous comments - the person's Yahoo! ID is posted right along with their wackadoo rantings.

Take a look at the comments under any Yahoo! News article. They are 99.999% cranks, nutjobs, idiots and other assorted ne'er-do-wells. That and spam for "Get an iPad/iPod/iPhone for free" or dating sites.

I sent an email to Yahoo! corporate asking why they are letting idiots crap all over their product. I didn't get any response, nor did I expect one, but it's a question worth asking. What does Yahoo! gain by having every news item be followed up with "It's all Obama's fault" (seriously, he even gets the blame for the weather now) and "Why aren't these people working on a cure for cancer?"-type comments?

Ok that didn't really help

[Anonymous Coward]

F1RST ANONYMOUS POST!!!

No one will comment.

[MaWeiTao]

I predict that eliminating anonymous commenting will bring an end to commenting in general. Sure, there will be a handful of people who will still be compelled to comment, but most wont venture. It's no different than most people, when in public, avoiding sensitive subjects. The people who will comment will more likely be those who already are compelled to post political commentary on Facebook.

Then there's the whole other issue of having your name plastered on every site you post comments.

The big problem is that the vast majority of people are nowhere near as well informed as they'd like to believe they are. There's an interesting problem society faces today: people know a little about a lot of things. We're probably exposed to more information than we've ever faced before. But it's all disseminated in bite-sized chunks that offer little to no substance. So we're aware of many things without really understand the complexities behind them. And I haven't even gotten into the issue cherry picking and bias. Compound these problems with the fact that humans tend to polarize everything. It's all or nothing.

So we have millions of misinformed, occasionally ignorant but very passionate people commenting on everything. And far too often, because they're incapable of cogent arguments the proceedings devolve into irrational name-calling. Of course, this is all facilitated by the fact that generally these interactions are anonymous.

Slashdot offers the best solution I've seen so far on any site. That said, it's dependent on three few factors:
1) The maturity and knowledge level of those posting.
2) That the site isn't heavily dominated by a particular mindset. All the moderation in the world wont help if group think takes over.
3) There's some level of responsible oversight by those running the site.

It may just be that news sites don't make for the best discussion forums anyway. Discussion forums might be better left to sites like Slashdot where there's a more specific draw.

Yahoo comments suck

[FrankHS]

I used to read the posts on Yahoo but they are so full of garbage lately that I had to give it up. One in twenty comments actually has anything serious to say about the subject. Most are trolling, spam or someone ranting about a subject that has nothing to do with the topic.

One thing they could do is to make it easier to flag messages. On NPR, you can flag a message with a couple of clicks. Yahoo wants to know your life history.

I don't put my real name on these thing. 99 + % of the people who read it are harmless. But I don't like the idea of posting my real name in this world of identity theft. I'm not paranoid, it just seems a sensible precaution, like locking your house when you go out.

GET THE NAME RIGHT.

[girlintraining]

It's ThomsonReuters. No P. Jeez. /Someone who works there.

Re:GET THE NAME RIGHT.

[The Living Fractal]

It's also pronounced "Royters" and that is just plain weird. ;)

News comments

[Anonymous Coward]

The #1 thing I hate about news websites anymore is the comments I happen across at the bottom of stories. I really wish these were hidden, BY DEFAULT.

Why? because the comments are so predictable it is annoying. Rarely is there any thought provoking comments or perhaps relevant technical insight, say a petroleum engineer commenting on an oil spill story or a medical professional on a medical article.

Typical comments

Kidnapped or injured child? Parents fault
Unsolved crime story? The perpetrators must be minorities or immigrants!
Business story? Nobody should make over 50K! Everyone else is just lucky
All negative stories : [current president name here]'s fault!

Re:News comments

[bomanbot]

Try shutup.css

Its a custom stylesheet that autohides comments on a lot of popular web pages. There are even some browser extensions for it so you can toggle it on and off at will.

Gmail will get an increase in accounts ...

[jobst]

just because to stay anonymous ... I can give myself whatever name it will be with a matching email address ... soooooo what's the point?

I've been posting here for 10 years anonymously

[Anonymous Coward]

And now no one ever reads what I write.

'Thomson' Reuters

[ap7]

It is Thomson Reuters and not Thompson Reuters. How difficult is it to get the name right of an organisation that is central to your story?

All systems can be abused

[SuperKendall]

Slashdot's system has plenty of room for abuse.

I agree, but so does any system, other than publishing no comments at all.

I've read a ton of different forums, and Slashdot is the only one where I feel like anonymous comments work, at all. Yes you can get mod storms or people abusing the system with multiple accounts, but in almost any story what I like is that by and large, good AC comments get voted up, bad AC comments get voted down, and I see well written comments both from people I agree with and disagree with reaching +5. What other moderated forums does that ever happen on? On Slashdot I feel like I am seeing the best across a spectrum instead of looking down a narrow tunnel with blinders on.

Of course...

[SuperKendall]

Actually, it's kind of a fun game. Lurk for a while, get what the group think is, set up an account, post things that get modd'ed up easily, and then when you have karma up the ass, post any Goddamn Fucking thing you want

To what end?

Yes of course there are people like you that derive pleasure out of throwing sand in the machine. But not that many, especially these days - there just aren't enough people like you to have a major negative impact.

The Slashdot system and posting audience has basically evolved to work around damaged users, and that's why it currently works better than most other moderation systems.