on 02.20.10 @ 06:19 AM
I will stop reading the Noozhawk from this point forward.
on 02.20.10 @ 08:14 AM
on 02.20.10 @ 10:27 AM
I commend Noozhawk on this move.
on 02.20.10 @ 11:53 AM
Good idea! Keep up the good work.
on 02.20.10 @ 12:26 PM
on 02.20.10 @ 12:40 PM
True to a true Libertarian sending mixed messages - Free Speech includes those who write on bathroom walls! I know two “Libertarians”. Both work in the government sector - go figure! Also, comments immediately following actually add flavor to the article. Please allow me to decide where the primary focus of an article should be. I may follow suit and de-Bookmark this paper.
on 02.20.10 @ 01:01 PM
Once again the minority rules the majority. Most comments left after an article are informative and pertinent. Taking them to another web page smacks of protection - will the report stand up to criticism? Making people register will quell most commenting and certainly dissuade those who have any inside information from leaving their opinions. The comments section directly below the story is best for the reader - the most informative and entertaining. Please reconsider your decision to drain this advance in online news.
on 02.20.10 @ 01:17 PM
An eminently reasonable and logical move. No reason to let the puerile tendencies of the few spoil it for the sensible many. If the graffitti-lovers wish to unsubscribe, this community will be better served by their decision. Thank you.
on 02.20.10 @ 01:28 PM
User generated content is the new mass media. After centuries of control being held by the few the Net has given a voice to everyone. I think this site will quickly find that the comments are as important as the stories themselves. This strikes me as an attempt to regain control of information flow. But the market will determine what happens, not the editor.
on 02.20.10 @ 02:12 PM
The people who commend this move are closeted socialists.
on 02.20.10 @ 02:24 PM
What? i feel the comment brings the story home, some of the story’s are so full of it we need a third party to comment . this will be the last time i subscribe to noozhawk.
on 02.20.10 @ 02:30 PM
It will make Noozhawk more like the News-Press. There, too, the comments section, the Letters, are in a separate section; there, too, there has to be real names provided. And, soon, I predict, the two publications will be similar with decreased reading.
For me, the comments section following - much more often than not - has been more interesting than the article. I don’t think I’ve ever made any bathroom wall type responses, but I won’t be making any at all. The main virtue for the reader of an online news source is the interaction with the readers who can be completely anonymous if they choose. Requiring registration ends that anonymity.
on 02.20.10 @ 02:33 PM
I don’t understand the complaints about the new policy. I don’t see that Noozhawk is trying to censor anything, they aer just asking people to register if they want to comment. That’s probably not a bad idea given the story the other day about the man who was arrested after posting a bomb threat on-line.
Besides, now I usually have to read through alot of lame comments to get to the few useful ones. I’ll gladly register if that changes.
on 02.20.10 @ 04:00 PM
I appreciate that I can read all kinds of viewpoints with the commentary articles, but I long ago stopped reading the comments about them because it seems like its only people who don’t like the viewpoint that are commenting.
on 02.20.10 @ 04:23 PM
The bathroom wall analogy is a good one, although on some particular stories, I’ve seen more than 5%.
I think the change will make Noozhawk a more civil and enjoyable place for discussions. Not sure about the separate web page implementation, we’ll have to see how that works out.
on 02.20.10 @ 04:27 PM
I’m not a libertarian, but this new policy makes a great deal of sense. I will gladly register if I feel I need to make a comment and will appreciate the ease if NOT reading others’ comments. I was getting really sick and tired of many of the more extreme comments that were being written, and was considering just dropping my Noozhawk off my list. No longer, this new policy will make me stay with this source.
on 02.20.10 @ 04:44 PM
on 02.20.10 @ 04:46 PM
Outstanding idea. I’m guessing that those who are complaining about this move and threatening not to read Noozhawk may be the bathroom 5%. Good riddance.
on 02.20.10 @ 04:57 PM
To ‘Ridiculous”: I absolute agree with you re let the markets decide. However, this is the Peoples’ Republic of Santa Barbara, where our own Councilman Das Williams has said he “doesn’t believe in free markets” - it’s up to governments [to allocate resources]. I’m not sure what kind of “ist” he is, but clearly not someone I want on the Council.
on 02.20.10 @ 04:57 PM
on 02.20.10 @ 05:23 PM
Ok fine, I don’t mind the registration part, at least the same person can’t pose as 20 different people, but I do not believe the comments need to be moved elsewhere. What is that all about? You won’t be able to refer to the article when writing your comment. I think the comments are the best reading and complimentary to the articles( the most entertaining and interactive, most often, I skip the boring article and just go to the comments).
I also don’t like the idea of using a REAL name to register. Once the Government cracks down on opposition like in Iran, the comments can be too easily associated with the real person, and there is such thing as job discrimination because of a person’s political views. I do not trust Noozhawk with my real personal info, not because they are not trustworthy, but who knows what eyes will have access? (call me paranoid) So if I need to register with private info - count me out,this is why I stopped reading the Independent - they didn’t like my strong non-liberal viewpoints so they censored me by canceling my registration. Is that what Noozhawk plans? Is this a “libertarian ” form of censorship?
[Noozhawk’s note: Thanks for the feedback on the same-page comments here and elsewhere. We’re looking into a solution that will address your points. But again with the censorship questions? How is comment registration censorship?]
on 02.20.10 @ 05:26 PM
So why don’t you just stop publishing the bathroom wall comments instead of punishing everyone?? Once again the 5% of abusers limit freedoms for everyone else. This is Libertarian? You act as though you have no control over what’s posted.
[Noozhawk’s note: Fair point, but define a bathroom wall comment for me. Would you be comfortable if we were defining it for you? We respect that each of us is entitled to our own opinion, but we expect you to maintain a sense of decorum in our forum — you, plural, because I know you always are respectful and I appreciate that. By going the registration route, we’re raising the level of responsibility for those who choose to comment. As I mentioned, I don’t think it’s going to be a problem for the bulk of our readers.]
on 02.20.10 @ 06:14 PM
i agree with levi etal. the most interesting thing is to follow the comments after the story. There are always a few discourteous wackos (5%) and the reader can discern the validity of those comments. registering one’s name just to make a pithy point may be too much of a bother.people like to fire off comments, not register them.. I am mostly afraid, however, that it will discourage people who have inside information and viewpoints and wish to let us know whats going on but don’t want to lose their jobs or upset the PC crowd upset the PC crowd.
[Noozhawk’s note: I can understand your concern about whistleblowing etc., but can assure you it has not been a problem. Very few sensitive tips come through story comments, almost all go directly to our reporters, whose e-mail addresses are included at the end of each article.]
on 02.20.10 @ 06:37 PM
The comments on the Vicente Fox visit well illustrate the value of the current comments policy. Unfortunately, the Noozhawk and News-Press articles this morning both fawned over Fox, without citing the local and state-wide tensions over illegal immigration from Mexico.
The Noozhawk reader comments citing Mexico’s lack of responsibility and its blame-America first attitude are a needed antidote to the biased reporting. Relegating such comments, and possibly censoring them like Edhat and the Independent do will only stife a needed discussion on immigration and other controversial issues.
on 02.20.10 @ 06:50 PM
Exactly, eiretight. Anonymity is important to get people’s true feelings about something, not the Politically Correct version from people afraid of retribution from crazed obsessed stalking liberals. People don’t want those they work with to know their political viewpoints, I personally have been turned down for raises and promotions because of my conservative views.
It isn’t about the stories, and keeping the focus on them. If I just wanted straight stories, I would pick up a News-Press. The whole reason I read Noozhawk instead of some paper from a newsstand is because you can instantly see the reaction of the readers, and give feedback to the authors and other readers. Putting the comments on a separate page defeats the whole purpose of reader interaction. This is a dumb idea.
I did not leave Noozhawk, it left me. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
My preference - keep the comments on the same page, register people anonymously - make it easy (just ask for an email address and a pseudonym) to keep down the sock puppet comments (one person acting like 20)
Problem solved - maintain privacy, keep the comments associated with the article where they belong!
Don’t punish everyone just because you allow are not able to control the 5%! Seems to me that you screen comments, why not screen those out? This is like Mexico and Vicente Fox blaming US for the drug cartels they can’t control!
on 02.20.10 @ 06:52 PM
I don’t know what Noozhawk that “Mixed feelings” is reading but I see plenty of non-liberal op/eds on this Noozhawk. It’s refreshing to see left, right, and center all mixed together on one Web site. As long as Noozhawk doesn’t censor those op/eds, I couldn’t care less what they do with the comments.
on 02.20.10 @ 08:51 PM
This certainly got a lot of responses. I think that is a very good thing.
on 02.20.10 @ 09:03 PM
I don’t see where he/she said there were no non-liberal op/eds on Noozhawk. He/she was talking about the Independent.
on 02.20.10 @ 09:05 PM
“But just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that you should —”
Does that mean that YOU become the decider of what should or should not be said? This does not sound Libertarian, it sounds Communist.
[Noozhawk’s note: For all your prolificacy and erudition, you really don’t read very closely, do you? Where did I say I would be censoring comments? This is about registering to post a comment. You can choose to do it, or you can choose not to; it’s your choice. But just think of all the time and heartburn you’re going to save if you decide not to. Have a nice day.]
on 02.20.10 @ 11:17 PM
“you really don’t read very closely, do you? Where did I say I would be censoring comments? This is about registering to post a comment.”
I could say the same. You really don’t read very closely, do you? Wear did I say that you would be censoring comments?
If I am to believe what you wrote, the premise for doing this is NOT simply “registering to post a comment”
“5 percent of Internet users treat it as a bathroom wall. Those are the folks we’re targeting with our new policy, and we hope they’ll come out and join us. After they’ve washed their hands, of course.”
How do you “target” those people without censoring them?
There - NOW I’ve said it.
“just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that you should”
What do THOSE words mean, if you do not intend to censor?
Since you presumably had the power to censor anyway, please tell us just what IS the purpose then, if not to censor those 5 percent? Because that’s what you said, in an indirect way. What does “washing ones hands” mean and who is the decider of whether or not ones hands are sufficiently washed? Forgive me for reading between the lines.
I have always appreciated Noozhawk BECAUSE it is not a whitewashed new source and I compliment you for even allowing that 5%. Please don’t make me change my mind and head for the Daily Sound, which doesn’t even see a need to SCREEN comments.
Those who are offended by the 5% can certainly avoid reading the comments without moving them to another page.
[Noozhawk’s note: I’m typing ve-r-r-r-y slowly. You do realize “bathroom wall” is an analogy, right? Good, we’ll stick with it.
No. 1, 95 percent of our readers go in there and do their business, respectful of others who would like to use the facilities as well as the attendant keeping it clean. But No. 2, 5 percent go in there with no respect for others, making it a very unpleasant place by taking advantage of the circumstances to essentially vandalize it — you know, graffiti.
Right now, Noozhawk isn’t watching who goes in and out. We’ve trusted that everyone respects us and what we’re providing as a courtesy just as much as we trust them. Reluctantly, we’ve concluded that not everyone can meet that expectation of civility and responsibility once the door is closed. So, like a gas station requiring that you ask for a restroom key, we’ll be requiring that you register with us if you wish to post a comment.
Will that solve the problem? Maybe not, but we hope that requiring that brief interaction with the operator will make the user more mindful of maintaining a basic standard of decency once inside our property.
We’re not barring entry to anyone — and we’re certainly not interested in watching you — but if you don’t like the rules, there are plenty of other places down the road where you can go. Happy motoring.]
on 02.20.10 @ 11:57 PM
I will miss having the comments attached to the article. I don’t mind sending in my name or e-mail or fill out a form. Can you please reconsider just that?
[Noozhawk’s note: Thank you for the suggestion. We are working on just that.]
on 02.21.10 @ 01:21 AM
Thanks for the explanation and the promise not to censor. It sounds reasonable. I agree with Charlie though - putting the comments on a separate page would really take away from the interaction between readers, and the association with the articles. It helps balance opinion, rather than just showcasing the author’s point of view.
Thanks for hosting us low-life graffiti vandals.
[Noozhawk’s note: You’re quite welcome. We’re happy to do it and we really do welcome all points of view. We know story comments are snap reactions but we’d love to elevate them toward constructive solutions and suggestions for some of the vexing issues we’re always reporting on. We think we can.
As for the separate page, yes, we’re testing a workaround so we can shelve that aspect. Thanks to all of you for that suggestion.]
on 02.21.10 @ 01:23 AM
Bill, I’m flushed with pride at that last answer. It appears you were on a roll, seats down.
on 02.21.10 @ 01:32 AM
This will probably reduce the amount of time I spend on your site. Was the change brought on by the suggestion or request of an advertiser?
[Noozhawk’s note: No. Why do you ask?]
on 02.21.10 @ 01:44 AM
Now that I think about it- I’m gonna miss comments from people who rarely contribute and would not bother to register - usually it’s something really important that urges them to do so - as a previous poster noted, some kind of inside information from somebody with a personal association with the subject -
Can’t wait for all the comments from the same old same old usual cadre of commentors - all the usual suspects - just like the Independent. They are like co authors on every article. I have a feeling you will be left with ONLY that 5%.
I would have respected more if you asked for and considered feedback BEFORE making this decision. but…nothing good lasts forever, right Bill? Well there is still the Sound for us bathroom wallers… Happy motoring.
on 02.21.10 @ 01:46 AM
You would need a fulltime staff to “weed out” offensive comments. However, I agree, often comments tell the rest (or even most) of the story… given that publications must be so careful about what they publish lest they be accused of God-knows-what nowadays. And they are not needed on ALL articles anyway.
I have no problem registering. I will continue to use my pseudonym however—in this town it’s difficult to be “honest” because so many folks in this “liberal” town are actually terribly closed-minded!
Finally, is it true the comments will not follow the article they pertain to? That doesn’t seem user-friendly to me… but other than that, it’s fine. Figures that the few would make it more difficult for the many, but so it goes. Welcome to democracy!
And if you’re paranoid about Big Brother, you probably should be. But I’m guessing Big Brother is probably paying more attention to big national pubs, where you do have to register before you can comment.
on 02.21.10 @ 03:15 AM
Tax and spend liberals and government unions are so happy about this move..Union puppets win this one..
on 02.21.10 @ 01:07 PM
Enforced civility is the opposite of Libertarianism.
on 02.21.10 @ 01:26 PM
Comments on a second page is like a “free speech zone” relegated miles away as in the RNC convention or WTO.
on 02.21.10 @ 01:27 PM
Why doesn’t the Moderator just do his job and delete the bad stuff?
on 02.21.10 @ 01:42 PM
You don’t have to use your real name. But I won’t reveal how….
on 02.21.10 @ 01:46 PM
A BAD MOVE NOOZHAWK
This will be my last post!
As for the %5 (Wacko’s as remarked below), I HAVE THE CHOICE to ignore them.
We cannot post anonymously if big brother is watching. The only reason I see, to have to register is so law enforcement can use the information.
on 02.21.10 @ 02:23 PM
I completely back the decision to have us register and hope it will encourage people to write more objectively and without the potty talk that has been written before.
I am glad for the possibility that the comments will continue to be posted with each article.
on 02.21.10 @ 02:28 PM
I enjoy the bathroom wall commentators - they add life and color, what is the problem with that? It gives a true representation of the breadth of humanity.
Just because they are morons, or not nice and polite they should be excluded? This reeks of political correctness. Free speech means just that - it isn’t supposed to be limited to “polite speech” or “respectful speech” or nicey-nice speech.
As far as I have seen, people have been abiding by the posting rules - no vulgarity,no libelous attacks… Yes people have been a bit abusive of each other, but so what? If they can’t take it they should not participate!
on 02.21.10 @ 02:30 PM
There is an old adage - if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Why mess with something that everyone is happy about and nobody is complaining about? Sometimes people just love to change things, not to improve them, but just for the sake of change. I call them busy bodies. Leave it alone.
on 02.21.10 @ 02:36 PM
This will certainly discourage anyone with inside information on a story, that rarely comments, from spontaneously adding what they no. I can’t tell you how many times I have wanted to comment on stories, click the button and it says you must register. I just say forget it, it’s not worth the trouble.
I always liked the openness of Noozhawk which drew me away from the Independent site, where the same old cadre of registered commentators are the only ones making comments, and you can predict exactly what they are going to say because they have said it so many times before. Noozhawk is always alive with FRESH input from the ones who rarely comment, but have a close personal association with a particular story. This will change the flavor of Noozhawk forever.
At least allow GUEST commentators who don’t have to register.
on 02.21.10 @ 04:24 PM
What an INSULT to your readers to think that we are not adult enough to know what is bathroom talk and what is not. Even in some of the wild comments, there is at least a shred of truth. Why try to hide the trust? How dare you treat us this way! You might not know how to handle all of what is written, but we are educated and quite capable. You and all the members of your board are losing their credibility if you take this action!
on 02.21.10 @ 04:52 PM
Wow, what’s with all the outrage? Seems pretty reasonable to me. I love the Big Brother paranoia too. Believe me, Noozhawk is the least of your worries.
on 02.21.10 @ 05:04 PM
here’s what is probably going to happen. The obnoxious 5% usually have no idea their statements are offensive. No matter what their side of the coin is, they are self-righteous and they love to see/hear/expound their own blather. Therefore they will register and happily post their drivel. will this be censored? If not- how will registration make a difference? AT any rate, if only 5% are a problem I do not find it a problem to scroll past them. Where it WILL make a difference is for people who want to throw in something they know as an insider and will be disuaded from doing so if they have to register. These are the very comments that I like to read in Noozhawks.
the biggest disadvantage
on 02.21.10 @ 05:08 PM
I think SB Frank protesteth too much…
on 02.21.10 @ 05:56 PM
Only liberals want you to be afraid to offend someone’s sensibilities. This is the opposite of libertarianism. It is a back door way of controlling speech in a free speech country - by intimidation and control. It is what started the strange and dangerous phenomenon of “political correctness”.
If the bathroom wall posters wish to speak let em! Most often it simply pegs them as a moron and they are ignored. So what, we can take it.
I say if you need to expel gas - let ‘er rip! Maybe you calmed some hostility that might otherwise have been used elsewhere in a violent manner. People need to express themselves! Freedom of expression is what this country is all about. LET PEOPLE TALK THE WAY THEY ARE INCLINED TO TALK! What is with all the control mechanisms?
on 02.21.10 @ 07:02 PM
so far, we’ve established that the really valuable comments will not happen any more because someone with “real” inside scoop is not going to want to register, but they will post anonymously… I know that to be a fact, I’ve given some info even that I’d not post after “Registration”...
Next, we’ve established that segregating comments to another page is a foolish idea for a variety or reasons.
My observations of the “comments on the comments” by the Noozhawk itself are equally disturbing. First off, you respond to the deluge of criticism about the second page commentary and reverse your position. Next you talk circles around yourself trying to explain how free speech needs to be filtered through some sort of bathroom filter… says who? Frustrated, you then lash out at anyone questioning such tactics as overbearing and wrong…
WTF is “Registration” anyway? Who does that serve? Certainly not the posters… No, this only serves those “collecting” the information. All “Registration” does is to remind everyone that “We know who you are… so do not say too much”...
Shame on you Noozhawk.
Your policy change is not well thought out, or even thought out at all - witness the reversal on the “separate page” idea already. Now try to just reverse the rest of this ill conceived plan and we can get back to normal… anything less is a blow to the Noozhawk’s integrity itself.
on 02.21.10 @ 07:25 PM
Don’t know why anyone is surprised at this. Noozhawk has always been a joke, which is why I stopped reading it a long time ago. McFadyen pretends to be a journalist and he pretends his reporters are, too. Shouldn’t waste your time.
on 02.21.10 @ 08:59 PM
Good post Anthony - right on target. Bill has adopted an “its my paper so I will do what I want” attitude, without even soliciting feedback from those they serve. Kind of sounds like Wendy McCaw. (not that there is anything wrong with that). that’s ok there is a humbling thing called competition. That’s where Noozhawk and the Daily Sound got their footing in the first place. I hope they remember their humble beginnings.
on 02.21.10 @ 09:01 PM
I always thought,“comments are moderated, and will not appear until they’ve been approved”, as stated when you make a comment, as a way to delete the nasty ones. Having comments following an article seems appropiate to me. I ignor the offensive ones, mostly they put me on alert to some strange minds out there.
on 02.21.10 @ 09:05 PM
I say let Bill do it, then I call for a registration, advertiser and readership boycott until he changes his mind. He doesn’t know it yet, but without comments he will lose his readership, because anonymous posting is the only reason most people look here - mostly to see the bathroom wall comments and the opinion battles that are what America is all about!
on 02.21.10 @ 09:18 PM
I don’t think anyone of any particular political or philosophical affiliation, be you Libertarian, Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Buddhist, etc. needs to worry. Well, Anarchists might :)
The issue in my mind is about effective communication that fosters constructive discussion. I’ve seen too many comments @Noozhawk where the poster obviously hasn’t thought before typing. Those posters are often angry and are just shouting and pissing at the internet. Why? Maybe it makes them feel better to have something/someone to shout at. Perhaps its because its easy for them to do so. Perhaps its because there are no consequences to them. Perhaps they are trolls who get a kick out of inciting others. Or maybe its because they don’t realize that the freedom of speech granted to them by Macfayden on *his* website ... comes with some responsibility for civility. At least that’s what he’s asking for. I think its a fair request.
In the end, some of those angry shouters will end up registering under an alias. That’s OK because at least we’ll know who they are and can just ignore them if we want. And with no more sock puppets, it’ll be easier to follow and participate in discussions.
on 02.21.10 @ 09:21 PM
I support the registration.
Too bad about the cowards who are afraid to be exposed for their inanities.
I agree that keeping the comments following the opinion makes more sense since the connection is beneficial to understanding the comments, and their objectivity.
But it is nice to know that Noozhawk is trying to improve its quality.