Slashdot Mirror
Montana Newspaper Plans To Out Anonymous Commenters Retroactively (washingtonpost.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Eugene Volokh reports at the Washington Post that in a stunning policy shift, The Montana Standard, a daily newspaper in Butte, Montana, has decided to replace commenters' pseudonyms with their real names. "The kicker here is that the change is retroactive," writes Paul Alan Levy. "Apparently unwilling to part with the wealth of comments that are already posted on its web site under the old policy, but also, apparently, unwilling to configure its software so that comments posted before the new policy is implemented remain under the chosen screen names, the Standard announces that past comments will suddenly appear using the users' real names unless users contact the paper no later than December 26 to ask that their comments be removed." In a November 12 editorial outlining the new real-name policy, the newspaper said, "We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse — as have many sites where comments from anonymous posters are allowed."
The paper's new policy has proven controversial among readers. "This is the end of open and honest comments on this site," wrote one user, who goes by the name BGF. "It is easy to put your name to your comments if you are retired. But it is another thing altogether if you have to worry about upsetting your peers and bosses at work." The newspaper editor, David McCumber, says he has extensively investigated the feasibility of configuring the newspaper's software to keep comments posted before the new policy is implemented under the chosen screen names. He says he was told by his content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible. "Based on that, I am trying to do what is most equitable to all of our readers," says McCumber. "When a relatively small city is at the center of your market, just about everybody commented about is known, and the anonymous comments sting."
The paper's new policy has proven controversial among readers. "This is the end of open and honest comments on this site," wrote one user, who goes by the name BGF. "It is easy to put your name to your comments if you are retired. But it is another thing altogether if you have to worry about upsetting your peers and bosses at work." The newspaper editor, David McCumber, says he has extensively investigated the feasibility of configuring the newspaper's software to keep comments posted before the new policy is implemented under the chosen screen names. He says he was told by his content-management software experts that such a configuration is impossible. "Based on that, I am trying to do what is most equitable to all of our readers," says McCumber. "When a relatively small city is at the center of your market, just about everybody commented about is known, and the anonymous comments sting."
Have gnu, will travel.
this should be as simple as testing comment date if less than transition date then post pseudonyms.
Not sure why some people have computers.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
And with a paper that size, it'll only take one or two of them succeeding to replace it with a smoking crater.
I'll go start the popcorn--BRB.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
So some people signed up to use the paper's website but gave their real names even though they posted under a pseudonym. Didn't the people who gave their real names create the problem in the first place? Sure, the paper is wrong in doing this, and some crackpots who took offense ar something said are likely to kill some people. But in the end this will serve as a good lesson to the survivors to not give your real name on-line when there is no good reason to do so.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Your readers posted comments with the expectation of anonymity. Why should they ever trust you again? This is less desirable than simply deleting all existing comments.
Also, I don't know the specifics of this content management software, but your expert is most certainly wrong.
They are breaking the terms under which posters made their previous posts. So much for ethics. While some of us don't mind using our real names, if the site allowed nyms in the past, they should at least honour that. Who do they think they are to say, in effect "I have changed the terms of the contract. Pray I don't change it again," because now they've shown that their agreements are not really agreements.
And just how are they going to check that people's names are their real names? "Oh, this doesn't sound like a real name ...?" Or people who had good reason to post anonymously to avoid being sued in retaliation for whistle-blowing? Or being outed as gay, lesbian, trans? Or a Ben Carson supporter? Or, with the current wave of Islamophobia, a Muslim? Hope their reporters complain that their "off-the-record" sources have dried up and fix this.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.
"In a November 12 editorial outlining the new real-name policy, the newspaper said, "We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse — as have many sites where comments from anonymous posters are allowed."
Like the "real names" policy of facebook ever forced people into only engaging in civil discourse ... you're a newspaper - couldn't you at least do a BIT of research on how this has not worked in the past?
Someone doesn't know how the Internet works ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They would be on much firmer ground to invite an opt in and delete all pseudonymous comments from those who don't.
... consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse...
The paper is doing what it accuses others of doing. The retroactive revealing of the authors of anonymous comments clears the bounds of civil discourse in street shoes.
.
imo, The Montana Standard is violating all manner of rules of Journalism if they go through with this most egregious stunt.
No, he was told by his content management software "experts" that his experts are incompetent (they just worded it differently)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Then reassign all old comments to that user. How fucking hard can that be?
Twinstiq, game news
if you give your information to a website, you should assume it will become public.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If you're white, middle-class, cisgendered, belong to a mainstream religion, have political views within the mainstream, and live in a cosmopolitan community, yes.
If you're a closeted gay atheist anarcho-communist in a small town in "flyover country", maybe not so much.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Oh look, a typical "look something bad happened to me so lets change something".
Why did it take you so many words to express a sentiment that could be summed up in one sentence? "I welcome anything that takes away anonymity and freedom because someone said bad words to me on the internet." It's like calling to ban kitchen knives because someone could stab you with one.
It's also hilarious, by the way, because you posted this bullshit anonymously, too. (Unless your name is SirDrinksAlot.) Nice going about proving the GIFW Theory right. You even managed to stuff racism into the debate... and of course, the obligatory "Yeah, I'm all for X but I think it should be banned and removed everywhere". Great job!
Software is software. If it's possible to do with "free" (open) software, it's possible to do with proprietary. The difference is who you pay to do the work.
Many software houses do not offer customer solutions or implement features based on customer feedback. Microsoft is an example of a large firm that does this (despite claims to the contrary). It's entirely possible the vendor writing their comment software is unwilling to comply.
A quick look at their source suggests that they are using something called BLOX CMS, and their nameservers are run by TownNews, which is apparently the company behind BLOX.
BLOX is advertised as "Cloud-based" with "No hardware or software to install & maintain".
This all suggests that they actually cannot make such a change, by virtue of using an SaaS solution they have no control over.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
"impossible" here is codeword for "we don't know how to do it so you'd have to fire us and hire better people".
Let's take your example a bit further. The nasty comments are there. They already exist. What benefit is there to de-anonymizing past postings? Will it really help if you know the names of the people who wrote those vile things?
Not allowing future anonymous comments isf one thing. De-anonymizing existing comments is entirely another.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I don't think it's the anonymity that brings out the worst in people, but the separation of comment and audience. As I sit here typing this, my "audience" is a bunch of pixels on the screen. It's all too easy to remember that there's an actual human on the other side of those pixels. Most people wouldn't say horribly offensive stuff to a person's face for various reasons ranging from it's rude to they don't want to be fired to they don't want to get punched in the face. Online communications take away many of those societal pressures to stay polite which leads some people to act as though the people they are communicating with don't deserve basic human respect.
This isn't to say that using real names wouldn't keep some people civil - it might for some people - but the vast majority of online idiots will continue to be idiots whether they post as a pseudonym or their real names.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
As opposed to your "nothing bad happened to me so obviously nothing needs to change?"
Not every bad thing means change needs to happen, but you can't just dismiss offhand any account of bad things happening and resultant calls for change.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Open and honest can be a problem. For example, I used to work as tech support in a Catholic school. Not super-devout catholic, but we had a chapel and occasionally a bishop would visit for a guest sermon. I happen to think the church is composed of sex-hating prudes who'll shelter child molesters to protect their claim to moral perfection and happily watch people die of preventable disease rather than permit the use of condoms. But at the time, I couldn't have said that under my real name - because if my employer had found out, I may well have lost the job.
Speaking under your real name is not always good for one's career, or relations with one's family.
You'll see the "real" identify people registered under, which for this example will be "These J. Nutz".
In software nothing is simply impossible. It's only impossible under the given constraints: time, money, hardware, knowledge, intelligence...
One may even doubt if his experts said just "impossible", instead of "impossible on given deadline, or budget or whatever".
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
Remember when YT forced everyone to merge their stupid Google+ accounts with their YT handle? My YouTube identity all of a sudden was forced to be my real name. Now if you decide to voice an opinion that someone might disagree with, you get to worry about retaliation.
1) Dumb for the admins - c'mon you can't figure out how to implement policy on a date and not have it wreck old posts?
2) Dumb for the paper's management - once your online presence dries up, people will bail on your paper
3) Dumb for the readership - Why stick with a paper that has such stupid policies?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
I was just wondering what would have people posting with their real names (assuming they put them in their profile) done to prevent your daughter from being a victim. Or are you just trying to reduce the pain after the fact. The simple thing is don't read the comments because there's going to be idiots on there.
There are always going to be some people in society that will make improper comments. The Internet just makes it easier for their comments to be heard. These real name policies do nothing to stop the trolls because they don't verify the names.
"We have encountered consistent difficulty with posts that exceed the bounds of civil discourse"
Translation: people might post things that will cause the politically correct authoritarians to make things inconvenient for us by throwing shitfits on social media unless we censor the things they want us to censor.
Anonymous posting has nothing to do with protecting insane horseshit like death threats or calls to violence. Anonymous posting allows a dissenting voice against the PC narrative that is currently trying to silence all of its opponents through censorship and mob tactics.
The racists are full on racist regardless that their names are shown. Every time a crime is reported, and a minority is in the headlines, you get non-stop bashing. When they fail to report the race, the comments complain that they're trying to cover up the race, and do it anyways. This is in one of the most liberal cities in the USA, too. It's so sad how far we've fallen.
Persecuted individuals are one class, as are people who shouldn't speak on a topic because it might include privileged or sensitive information where context of a real name would cause problems. Even on /., I find myself self-censoring posts because it wouldn't be that hard for someone to figure out who exactly I am, even without /.'s complicity.
Posting to fix fat finger mod.
Real names have never actually worked for improving discourse. What they've done is allow the trolls to attack people directly instead of being limited to doing it online.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
"impossible" here is codeword for "we don't know how to do it so you'd have to fire us and hire better people".
A script to substitute the pseudonym in the field(s) where their real name is stored seems easy enough. This way the pseudonyms for past comments become the real names for those comments. Future comments will be under the submitter's real name once they create a new account and agree to the new policy.
Tell that to Brendan Eich.
Speaking under your real name is not always good for one's career, or relations with one's family.
Or for your personal safety or liberty, if you happen to be critical of the mayor or other official with some degree of power. It takes just a phone call to the local chief of police to make your life a mess.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
And it's entirely possible that you won't find someone to modify open source software.
I'm not sure if you've looked at job search sites. There are no shortage of programmers available for every language in the US. All you need is one guy who knows the language the OSS was written in and the money to pay him in order to make your desired changes. Even if it's something under draconian management like the Linux kernel, you could always fork it.
I don't think it's the anonymity that brings out the worst in people, but the separation of comment and audience.
THIS. My standard example is to observe how people behave in cars when stuck in traffic, compared to how they would behave if just walking down the street. Even that little bit of separation causes all sorts of madness and "road rage" that generally doesn't happen when people are in contact directly.
Would you randomly start screaming at someone if they were walking a little too slow in front of you? Most people wouldn't. But a lot more people will lay on their horn and hold it for five seconds or more (not a polite short "tap" on the horn to get someone's attention) and/or roll down the window and start ranting, gesturing wildly, etc.
If you were instead walking behind someone on the sidewalk, you'd likely ask politely to get around someone. Or, if you instead were just grumbling behind them, they'd likely hear it and move out of the way or say "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you needed to get by..." or whatever. Communication can happen, because you see the person's face and demeanor -- maybe they're elderly or lost or whatever.
But when you're separated in two cars, communication is less likely. Rage develops because you get stuck "in your own head" ranting and working yourself up, rather than communicating and sorting out the issue with another person directly.
This kind of build-up of emotions and loss of civility happens exactly the same way with the disconnect on the internet. The automatic assumption many people have is that others are idiots, jerks, shills, etc., because frustration builds up -- particularly if written communication fails in successive posts... just like the guy holding down the carhorn and making obscene gestures which he might never do to someone's face.
Make all of the old accounts inactive. Make everyone reregister (or not, as they prefer) under their real names for new accounts. If someone can show that they were previously posting under their own name, reactivate that account by hand. That will probably be a full time job for someone for a few weeks.
I would not be too surprised if they got sued under their plan. One lawsuit, even if they win, would cost a lot more than the costs of doing this right.
Don't forget internet feuds - there are many stories of flamewars getting seriously out of hand and leading to one site SWATting the other, or submitting anonymous tip-offs to police about a claimed serious crime, or contacting an opponent's employer to spread malicious rumors in an attempt to have them fired.
i look forward to the next slashdot article, "newspaper involved in class-action lawsuit for harm done to reputations of thousands of forum users"...
If you give them enough money, they'll do whatever you want. The question is only of the relative cost. Getting something custom done in open source is sometimes a matter of asking and waiting, or of paying a developer to do it for you. Getting something done in closed source might be a matter of filing a request under your support agreement, or it might mean a very expensive contract.
Again, they already spoke. What is it about the difference between past and future that you don't understand?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Why anyone would give a newspaper's comment platform their real name and e-mail address is beyond me. Make up a name, use a burner e-mail account from mailinator.com and don't worry about unintelligent boobs retroactively deciding to out you. Next time you're asked for your name and e-mail address, ask yourself how much you trust the service who's asking, and what value there is to you in providing accurate information.
Simpler still is to lock their current accounts with the pseudonyms in place, and then make them create a new account with their real 'verified' name in order to continue position
This entire 'technology problem' is nothing more than an exercise in public shaming
And, don't forget that Facebook has been doing the same thing over the course of the past few years
...yes, but nobody tries to implement those.
We're talking about real tasks here, not parlour tricks.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You mean a small minority of people that got fed up with the People's Republic of California?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Why on earth do people use their real names on sites like that?
Other than my bank, nobody gets my real name. All the stuff I order online goes to a packet delivery machine, usually addressed to my cat, which is also the proud owner of my ISP account and other things.
This is why I use the editor's name when I sign up for such things.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Impossible is always code for "I'm too dumb to do it". I hear impossible all the time. And never once has it been true.
Learn to love Alaska
All they have to do is update the database to overwrite the "real name" with the pseudonym before going live with their new policy.
Not necessarily. If they've outsourced their website to some other company, they're at the vendor's mercy. So "impossible" is a codeword for "we were too shortsighted to have our own website built, and contracted with some shitty cloud provider, and we just do whatever they want."
Guess what. With proprietary software, you can pay the owner the software. And I GUARANTEE you, if you pay enough, they'll do it. Which is the same as open source software.
Now you're talking about absurd and unaffordable amounts of money. Can you imagine how much money you'd need to pay Microsoft to make a custom version of Windows 10 for you without Metro? It's just not something they want to do. They might not even do it for any amount of money, unless you buy out the company outright, because it goes directly against their corporate vision.
With FOSS, this isn't a problem; there's always someone willing to do the work for you. And you don't have to buy out the original company to get what you want.
Could some mischief be achieved by planting some comments now? Use a service like mailinator to get an anonymous account, but make the name associated with the account "Donald Trump", or "Bernie Sanders", or any of the other candidates, and write a comment that is mildly offensive now, but appears much more offensive if written by that candidate. Wait until January, then make sure the comment gets noticed.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
So you're saying that you think Ted Turner is behind it?
We say the very same shit real name or not.
I can't blame the paper for going the cheapest route. I can blame them for believing patently false info fed to them by their content-management software experts and going with what they THINK is the cheapest route.
I assume their goal is to have a non-anonymous content system going forward, keep their existing comments, and keep the "comment history" of non-anonymous commenters intact and so future comments are connected to past ones made by the same person.
I also assume they want to have all of this done by a certain date and under a certain budget.
Given the short time-frame I assume the remaining work, if any, is expected to take less than a few months.
Their options are:
* Stick with their existing configuration (does not meet the criteria above)
* Dump their existing comment system and start over with a brand new one, possibly losing their entire comment history (does not meet the criteria above)
* Dump their existing comment system and NOT replace it (does not meet the criteria above)
* Keep their existing comment system as an archive but not allow any new comments (does not meet the criteria above)
* Pay $BIGBUCKS to "do the impossible" and get a system that can keep historical comments anonymized but give them what they want going forward (likely does not meet the time and budget criteria above, by a longshot)
* Pay $BIGBUCKS in direct, measurable costs of lawsuits and lost customers and $MOREBIGBUCKS in lost goodwill (likely does not meet the budget criteria above, by a longshot)
The question is, which criteria are they willing to sacrifice? If they continue on their current path, they are choosing to sacrifice the "budget" criteria. I hope they have good legal insurance and enough capital to survive the public relations nightmare that lies ahead of them, or they may wind up needing to hire a good bankruptcy lawyer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I agree that this is a horrible idea and so is real name policies too. The real solution is to actually fix the problems with using real names. A recent example is this fiasco:
http://ryanspahn.com/my-google...
https://news.ycombinator.com/t... (the first comments are not hard to find)
You mean they made a reasonable decision to pay a whole lot less for software that already exists. Said software has limitations as does all software but there are probably other solutions to this problem that they just aren't willing to pursue for whatever reasons.
...are the two problems this paper is facing.
They're using Blox CMS from an outfit called TownNews, which is a division of Lee newspapers. Blox is a CMS/PAAS that focuses on newspapers. It is closed source, but is built with PHP and uses MYSQL (or MariaDB maybe). It employs a proprietary templating language called UTL that uses syntax that reminds me a bit of Django templating.
Blox is a very good news CMS. I've used a bunch of them. I don't love any of them, but Blox is the best.
You can modify Blox pretty much any part of Blox, there's no real lock in.
The issue is that there's likely no one in the nesroom who can actually do it.
Major metro newspapers will often have a handful of news focused developers. A newspaper the size of the one in this story is lucky to have a minimally competent IT guy keeping the paper's network up and all the desktops running.
The paper as a whole is probably struggling to keep the lights on. It's not going to contract custom software development.
No, not really. They didn't pay for any software at all; that's the whole problem. They paid for a service. If they paid for some software, they could just stick with what they have instead of pissing off users by divulging their identities when the users had never agreed to that before, at least until they could get the software made so that old comments used the pseudonyms while newer comments switched to the new policy.
Instead, they bought a service which apparently doesn't offer this ability. I don't know if there's a legal case to be made here, but it seems to me that their website had a policy before where people could make posts anonymously (or pseudonymously), and now they're changing to a real-name policy. That would be OK, except they're making it retroactive, which is certainly wrong ethically, and quite possibly legally, depending on the wording of their prior user agreement policy. You can't just go change agreements like that retroactively. And the fact that the SaaS vendor doesn't support this is no excuse. Either they need to switch to a new vendor, get the vendor to change, or eliminate the service (and comment section) altogether.
No, not really. They didn't pay for any software at all; that's the whole problem. They paid for a service. If they paid for some software, they could just stick with what they have instead of pissing off users by divulging their identities when the users had never agreed to that before, at least until they could get the software made so that old comments used the pseudonyms while newer comments switched to the new policy.
Instead, they bought a service which apparently doesn't offer this ability. I don't know if there's a legal case to be made here, but it seems to me that their website had a policy before where people could make posts anonymously (or pseudonymously), and now they're changing to a real-name policy. That would be OK, except they're making it retroactive, which is certainly wrong ethically, and quite possibly legally, depending on the wording of their prior user agreement policy. You can't just go change agreements like that retroactively. And the fact that the SaaS vendor doesn't support this is no excuse. Either they need to switch to a new vendor, get the vendor to change, or eliminate the service (and comment section) altogether.
Yes, like I said, there are other options that they are not willing to pursue for whatever reasons. That doesn't mean it was a poor decision to go with an SAAS vendor over paying somebody a lot more money to create, test, and maintain a custom solution to a problem that's already been solved. Money that simply may not be there. Print publications aren't exactly a high growth industry.
I should say that I don't agree with their choice. If the only option is to wipe the old comments then that is what they should do.
I, too, don't believe much is impossible so far as software is probably the most abstract and malleable construct that Man has devised and created. I say that with a huge caveat though; when someone asks if I can add a feature or write a piece of code my response has always been "with sufficient motivation and time anything is doable". That being said, while I usually _start_ with "yes", many things come down to "I can do this, but it's not worth doing" or "I can do this, but something else is shipping late". That's the nature of the game.
As an example, I tried to explain to someone earlier today why trying to do high end DSP apps for Android phones would take massive resources due to the engineering envelopes that are inherent to the system (high level, JITted language with GC, multiple hardware profiles with a short life span, and the need for low level access on a platform where you're on top of many layers of abstraction makes for a lot of interesting challenges that would devour resources). I'm not saying it can't be done, but I surely wouldn't invest in it.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
The thread isn't about affordability, it's about how you have more options than prop software. Assuming someone will pay for it, most software vendors do not like creating custom versions of software. It sets a bad precedent, complicates SDLC, and sets bad expectations with the customer. The sales guy can say the custom version is "unsupported" but you will end up providing support to maintain customer relations. This is why prop don't customize their offerings per customer.
GNU and BSD software gets customized all the time. Major distributions do it, major customers do it. In fact few people use the vanilla kernels, and software. Most customizations are simple tweaks or integrations with other software or feature addons. The customers understand that this is their version of the software and they can't go running upstream for support. For this reason, this works in GNU and BSD.
Anyway, back to the article, the vendor was probably charging too high of a price to make the feature worth it. The proper decision here was to remove or archive all the old comments prior to the first official announcement.
With the vast majority of commenters being trolls, this won't go over too well :-)
So now, when you say shitty things, you have to use your name. You figure driving in your car and picking your nose, nobody knows it's you, because you're in your car. Suck it up, say what you think. You may have to be a bit more civil, but that's why we have education. I can tell you you're wrong in a way that doesn't set the world afire.
This is another example of how you data that you wish to remain anonymous can easily change. For example a company could initially say that they will not reveal anything about your name and require you to enter a phone number, email address, and other information in order to register and say that they will not share this information and even indicate this in their terms of service. They could change their Terms of Service at any time or another company can come along such as Facebook and buy out this company and decide that your real name should be on your comments and sell your name and other information to data brokers and telemarketers to make money.
Most of the time application modification is not a kernel level endeavour
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Impossible is always code for "I'm too dumb to do it". I hear impossible all the time. And never once has it been true.
Obligatory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
It doesn't matter what software is running their system.
They have enough control over it to have pseudonyms replaced with real names. Whoever is doing this change should be able to easily manage this issue through dozens of options, many of which are a single line of code or a single query modification.
It seems clear, for them to have this response that they:
1) Are not doing the updates in-house
2) Forgot to do proper planning didn't address this when requesting the changes
3) (and this is the BS one) Aren't willing to pay the extra $5 it would cost to address the issue (I know, after factoring in meetings, organisation, etc, etc, that's closer to $5000 or possibly $50000, but it's still cheaper than the loss rolling it out as is is likely to cost them)
tldr:
If it's "impossible" to maintain the pre-existing behaviour, then how was it not impossible for them to change it in the first place?
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
But your real name is Captain Carrot.
The only question is:
are you a 6'6" Discworld Dwarf
or a DC Comics rabbit superhero
Haha, good catch!
Here's a hint: my nickname translates to "head banger" ... :)
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant