TechCrunch switched to Facebook’s new commenting system a week ago. Now they’re taking a look at what it has done to their comments:

Since we flipped the switch on for Facebook Comments last Tuesday morning, you’ve probably noticed that the overall number of comments have fallen dramatically. This is completely expected and definitely not a bad thing. Previously, many of our posts would get hundreds of comments (and sometimes more), but at least half of those would be of a quality best described as weak to poor. And of those, about half would be pure trollish nonsense.

Simply put: with the previous system, roughly half of the comments were more or less useless.[…]But the other interesting thing we’re seeing is that whereas trollish garbage used to infest the comment section, now we’re seeing almost the opposite. Many people are now leaving comments that gush about the subject of the article in an overly sycophantic way. It’s quite odd. The cold pricklies have turned to warm fuzzies.

I would take trolls over sycophants any day of the week. I really hope Facebook comments aren’t the future of the internet.

43 replies on “Internet Comments Minus Anonymity Aren’t Very Interesting”

  3. I see Paul has brought his SLOG post to Blogtown; I mean Steve has brought Paul’s SLOG post to Blogtown because he finds it interesting.* I do too! My question: I’m a very active reader of both SLOG and The Portland Mercury’s Blogtown, specifically because the comments are not dominated by either sycophants or trolls. Both papers have done something to make a richly rewarding in-between, and I want to know what that is. What did you do, staff of these papers? And what do other commenters think has been helpful for making a non-troll, non-sycophant world possible and rewarding?

    * Steve, or Mercury staff re-posters — I see Paul reposted Sarah Mirk’s Blogtown Comicon post on SLOG earlier, but with his own byline and his thoughts. Could you do the same here? Then we’d get Paul’s great scanning AND your opinion, both of which are really interesting, to me anyway.

  7. I think comments at Blogtown have gotten less interesting since you removed the option to post without an account. I used to post often, but have no interest in posting if someone can click on my name and see every comment I have ever written. I think the Oregonian’s incident with Brian Owendoff shows the danger with this type of anonymity, you leave crumbs with every post that someone can connect to figure out who you are. I feel like people are more likely to give an honest opinion if they are not tied to an online persona, ‘anonymous’ or otherwise. Truly anonymous commenting makes the substance of the argument the issue, as opposed to the person making the argument.

    I always posted without an account under the same email, which is tied to my real name, so if I were ever accused of saying something illegal it would be up to the Mercury to decide if they should protect me in court. This is a risk I can live with, being ‘outed’ by a reader like Jeffries or Owendoff is not. I have a job in business, it has nothing to do with most things I would like to comment on, but I will not risk the Jeffries treatment in order to post.

  8. Oh, ROMald McDonald you’re sooooo clever. If you try hard enough, one day you’ll be as good a commenter as Todd! (Although, I do miss your old avatar; the taco one, not the precocious hippie)

  9. @stadler: It’s a local blog, and we have occasional meetups – gotta imagine the tangible connection to real life helps. Blogtown comments definitely became friendlier (and more fun, for me at least) after the first meetup. (I don’t see eliminating anonymity in any way conferring the same benefit, BTW.) Plus, good comments beget good comments, and for whatever reason we’re lucky enough to have some very funny longtime commenters. (We also don’t hold our commenters in total contempt, as I think some media outlets do. Maybe that helps too.)

    I’m afraid to think about it any further in case it falls out of the sky.

  10. @AyeAnonymous I don’t think the Mercury has any obligation to protect the identity of its commenters. Presumably, if someone posted something that incited violence against anyone, the Mercury would not hesitate to reveal that person’s name to the police.

    Trollish comments, on the other hand, are another matter entirely.

  11. I’m one of the few totally non-anonymous commenters here, and I rarely gush unless it’s piss and/or bile. But maybe that’s just me.

  12. @Chundo: My icon is Matt Brody from Baywatch, as painted on the backglass of the Baywatch pinball machine. He’s saving a babe! Hippiewhat?

  13. I’d be interested to hear from other commenters who post using their real name or some variant thereof.

    I use my real, actual identity because then I feel accountable for what I say tend to be less of a douchebag. I don’t act like a dick if my real name is on a comment, blog post, or tweet. I think more before I post, and am less likely to be a hateful ass. I’ve not found that this makes me more sycophantic. It makes me more responsible.

    What say you Todd, Matthew, etc.?

  14. I have the thinnest veil of anonymity for all my doings on the internet. It would be no real challenge for anyone to figure out who I am, but they’re not going to do it with a Google search.

    I don’t think we have a problem on Blogtown with trolls so much as we have a problem with openly crazy people. Even so, there’s only three of those.

  16. @Chund Li: Oh, the other old one. Yeah, that’s me as a hippie kid. But I felt it was too personal to use! I’d rather hide behind a celebrity icon.

    @JStreckert: I don’t use my real name, because then I wouldn’t even feel comfortable using phrases like, “dick,” and “hateful ass,” due to google and whatnot catching them and then my parents searching my name and finding all my swear words. And then my posts would be even lamer than they already are. Not that you were asking me…

  17. @SuperChundy – The Mercury did go to court in 2008 to defend a commenter’s anonymity, but you are probably right about the threat thing. My point is that I am okay with the Mercury knowing who I am, just not the rest of the world. I know better than to scream fire in a crowded theater. I have never had a comment edited by the staff. I am confident they would protect me assuming I don’t cross that line, even if I don’t know exactly where that line is. I do not necessarily trust the rest of the people who comment here though; one day I mention my neighborhood, another I mention where I went to school, later I mention my occupation or the name of a pet, suddenly through the magic of Google I am outed by someone who disagrees with my opinion on something that is really not at all relevant to my life and every pithy comment I ever made is subject to scrutiny by people with whom I have a business relationship. Not worth it.

  18. Brian Libby’s blog went the non-anonymous route a while back and has virtually no comments now, FWIW. I used to go there to read his posts AND the back-and-forth amongst his readers (including the trolls), but now it’s boooooring.

    personally, i value anonymity because I have business partners and associates who don’t share my politics, and I’m not willing to jeopardize those relationships. or shut up.

  19. @AA Indeed. Unbeknownst to me, the Merc does make it a habit of protect the anonymity of its commenters (good to know).
    http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/archiv…

    Although, the one caveat is that the comment in question has to be on topic and presumably not threating someone (also good to know).

    But, then again, I’m not sure that the Merc staff makes it a habit of matching email addresses with screen names in order to satiate their curiosity of who’s commenting here. (Besides, WSH.)

  20. I post using my name because writing in public is what I do for work. I like connecting all the work, whether in comments or a catalog essay or a novel. But I have no problem with pseudonyms. As with Commenty Colin (who I always misread as “colicky,” and who might not be named “Colin” at all), as long as you use the same pseudonym throughout you are not writing anonymously — you are writing as someone, as a person with a name.

    I’m 100% for pseudonymous commenters, as long as there’s a name and a history. And I think meeting up is a huge plus. So long as the commenters share a world, they’re likely to care what impact their comments have. Caring ≠ sycophancy. Often it equals wicked top flight humor, such as @Cat&Beard’s brilliant retort.

  21. Also can anyone explain the context of this post: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2008/0…

    Why did WSH needed to lay down the law? What is the meaning of this now cryptic statement: “Starting today—the past is the past”? And most importantly, why I’ve never seen these rulz before?

    (Also is it just me or did the old Blogtown commenting system look better i.e. the block quotation of other posts and in terms of aesthetics.)

  22. Chundy – Two words: Matt Davis.

    Kidding, kind of, but Matt did have a knack for stirring up the commenters. Things used to get ugly. That post was basically Steve announcing that we were going to start enforcing our terms of use, instead of the more hands-off approach we used to take. (Although these days we hardly ever have to pull comments–spam, occasionally, and every now and then someone will flip out in the I, Anonymous comments, but that’s about it.)

  24. So Alison why does the SLOG allow unregistered comments while Blogtown just has that meaningless “UNREGISTERED” on and off box? I was really disappointed when you stopped unregistered comments without any discussion, and I feel like comments have dropped off in terms of numbers and variety of viewpoints. I never saw trolls as a real problem here before the change, it seemed like a perfect example of a self-policing community. Now it just seems a little quiet.

  26. I used to get published sometimes, and I like seeing my name in print/onscreen.

    I don’t censor myself much here, but if I was younger and likely to be applying for many future jobs I might. I do occasionally refrain from insulting organized crime figures or regimes in countries where I may want to travel someday. Other than that, anything goes!

    I could use a second, anonymous account, too, I suppose, but I’m too lazy (though it might be fun flirting with myself).

  27. My main reason for preferring pseudonyms is the freedom it confers to speak my mind. Should a Google Search link me to some comment that excluded me from getting a job, house, etc., I’d be pretty bummed.

    That said, I use my real name on Twitter and Facebook. But those are more or less easy to lock down.

  28. You should’ve worked harder on the pseudonym, as I’m pretty sure you’re Jerry Fruitcup, Sandy High School class of ’93.

  29. Pretty much agree with Fruit Cup, and like Alison said, the meetups went a long way toward softening some of the edges. Unless one of you is a total piece of shit, it’s hard to be mean to people you know IRL.

    Stadler also has a good point about people being only semi-anonymous when they comment regularly anyway: I feel like I know the other regulars fairly well, even if I’ve never met them. While I don’t know their name, they’re not “anonymous” in the context of Blogtown.

    All of this is a long way of saying that I don’t desire real names for commenters – it makes things boring: quality moderation can and should fix the problems of total anonymity.

    Remember all those faceless, violent bar patrons from Road House? They could have all been given green tea and nametags, and they would have “cooled” themselves, but everyone would agree the Double Deuce would be worse because of it.

    That’s why you need a Dalton. Someone who understands that people who really want to have a good time won’t come to a slaughterhouse, but who isn’t overbearing about policing – in other words, someone’s who’s nice until it’s time to not be nice.

  30. I don’t go to anyplace that requires a facebook log-in. But if you need to be autonomous with a facebook log-in you may want to watch the movie Catfish (2010).

  34. @ Chundy, I’m pretty sure it’s Alison – I thought it was weird that she carries her medical record around with her, but this theory would explain that.

  35. Chundy,

    I figured Alison, too, but pretty much everyone on staff has told me I’m too stupid to have a good time, so now-as is my wont-I’m confused.

  36. TSW: well, let’s find out, whoreson.
    And thank you for giving me the opportunity to use one of my favorite medieval insults.

  38. Tecnhically it’s me, yep. “Web editor” got tacked onto my job description about a year ago. Don’t worry TSW, I won’t let anyone call your mom a whore. (Steve also keeps an eye on things.)

    @Aye Anonymous – okay… I think our comment system is broken. We recently updated to a system like the Stranger’s (which provides the option of only viewing comments from registered users) but it appears certain parts of it just aren’t working. It is possible that our web development guys made a conscious decision to eliminate unregistered comments on our site—I don’t think that’s the case, but I’ve got an email in to figure out for sure.

  43. Crap, I have to make a comment that will offend Alison or WSH to get banned. I may as well quit trying.

    I have figured out how to get Courtney fingernails with nerves and blood supply but it is against international law to do it.

    1> One can splice dog or cat DNA into Courtney or
    2> One can remove some monkey DNA from Courtney so that nerves and blood in the fingernail will be from her bird or reptile genes.

    You do know her favorite food we can slip those genes into ?

Comments are closed.