Comment moderation dilemma |
Loading ...For those that have their own blogs, sooner or later, you are going to get a comment like one we are currently mulling over in the moderation queue. Might take a couple years, as it did for us, but we finally got one.
We’ve been sitting on this one really long comment for a couple days now. It was made on an older post about the matchmaking site true.com and the commenter goes into detail about the siteowner’s personal activities and makes various allegations about the site , none of which I’m that interested in trying to validate (although there are some pointers to follow the bread crumbs). My curiosity with the dating site and writing about it here was the emphasis on no married people being allowed, which the commenter refutes on a number of levels. At the end of the comment is the true.com site owner’s home phone number.
No, no, no.
Our initial reaction was to strip out the phone number and approve the rest of the comment because it’s just someone making allegations and true.com is a public site that people spend money to sign up for and if the allegations are true some of the information might be useful to factor into that buying decision. But the more I thought, it seemed better to hold off and think about it some more and get some other people’s feedback.
A day passed. Two.
This morning I asked a friend about it in IRC and he seemed to agree with me that publishing sans the phone number would be fine. I removed the phone number and prepared to publish it and then read it one more time and stopped.
Thinking again. Time to write out my thoughts. Here we are.
Well, it’s getting later and later and I’m still not sure whether to delete the darn thing altogether or strip the home phone number (no way is that getting published) or just leave in the hopper and keep thinking it over.
(No, I do not want to think about it any more, it’s giving me a headache. So now I’m transfering the migraine to readers, how nice!)
This is the side of comment moderation that totally blows. For situations like this — which are fortunately extremely rare — it adds to the whole comments are a nuisance meme. The comment is on a relevant post which is our main concern (stay on topic), but it gets into stuff that seems pretty caustic on a number of levels, both personal and professional and possibly [gasp] legal.
Then again, maybe I’m just too close to this and it’s not really that bad.
(curious to read this comment yet?)
Caustic comments by readers aren’t anything new here. Check out the Netflix throttling thread (just search it). Plenty of passionate, angry customers there. I don’t have a problem with caustic comments on customer-related issues because not every customer has a website or blog and they deserve a place to speak their mind. I believe strongly in Free Speech. So from that stance, this commenter has the freedom to rail away about negative experiences. I do stop and wonder though about site owner personal issues though. Are those comments really necessary or relevant?
For a site which talks about — and promotes — how important truth is in matchmaking, it does seem relevant.
Hmm commenting policy revisited
This gives me a chance to restate the commenting policy. Readers are welcome to flame me and my opinions with substance in the comments and they will be approved. Those who have been reading awhile and following the comments already know that I don’t mind (just don’t expect me not to engage the flamer) these type comments. Passion is good. Just be creative. “You suck” from an anonymous poster with nothing else isn’t creative or useful to the overall conversation and possibly not even a relevant flame. There is an obvious difference between a related flame and an unrelated flame. Related flames = ok, unrelated flames = not ok. I write about a wide variety of topics so if someone reading is itching to flame me, just wait for the related topic and pounce away.
Readers are not welcome to spam us or flame each other (disagree and respectful debate is fine) nor post personal information (like home phone numbers) which is the case above. Just because something contains personal information or is partially spam, doesn’t mean the rest of the comment isn’t worthwhile and useful to the discussion. We will remove personal information, flames against other readers or spam. Removing personal information is purely a legal concern. Flaming other readers is a community concern. If somebody reading this wants to flame a fellow reader then he/she can do it on their own blog.
Note To other bloggers: in the case of trackbacks, one way trackbacks are strongly discouraged. A one way trackback means you send trackback through your blogging software (or other trackback send program) but do not put a link to the blog entry here at Hmm that you are trackbacking to. In extremely rare and extraordinary cases these might be approved, but I sure wouldn’t advise doing so. Sending a one way trackback is like saying: “hey, I have something interesting to say over here along the same topic, so send your readers over to me, but no way will I send any of my readers over to you.” Selfish netiquette, from my perspective.
And now, your thoughts
I know without sharing the actual comment in question it makes this situation — what to do with comments like this — difficult to properly assess and/or advise, but I’m throwing this out there not only because I’m unsure what to do on this one but also to indicate that every comment that doesn’t meet the criteria shown above is usually approved and to reinforce that we very much want to receive comments.
This is the first comment of thousands that we’ve received that I’m not completely sure what to do with: modify and approve or delete. On one hand I’m waffling toward delete, but anybody who takes time to type up that much text, providing that much detail, deserves at least some degree of deliberation. So on the other, I’m leaning towards approving it, sans the home telephone number. Bottom line: I’d like some other less biased opinions on the subject, if you, kind readers would oblige.
What do you think?
Related Posts- Trackbacks now inline, mixed with comments
- First comment thread at Hmm reaches 100+ comments and gets derailed [site news]
- Comments and Trackback Policy
- Debating what is/isn’t spam in comments sections
- A couple Gmail invites left - Make Me Laugh Contest
- Answering the 10 conflict of interest questions
Well speaking as someone who has provoked a couple of front page responses I have to say you are willing to approve things that attack you. I wish I had been more moderate in the first case. I am still a little mystified what I though was a message of irritation proved the second response.
It is your site, if you think a comment crosses the line you should kill it. You are your own editor. The job of editing is hard but it if it doesn’t meet your standards you have to have the courage of your convictions.
Comment by Paul Benjamin — February 24, 2006 @ 2:09 pm PST
Since the comments express the opinions of the commenter, and not necessarily those of the site or its moderator, I would approve it (sans home phone number or any other personal information). I’m a big believer in free speech, and I think that if content is inappropriate, that only reflects on the speaker. I personally would only censor three types of information: personal, spam, and highly offensive. The last one is the trickiest to evaluate, but I would be as liberal as possible on it. I’d probably even approve an offensive rant and just star out the really bad words. Even an ad hominem attack can be easily answered with another comment that deflates it and reveals the poster’s true quality.
Comment by Sterling Camden — February 24, 2006 @ 2:16 pm PST
Thank you Paul and Sterling for the candid feedback.
Paul - a front page response from me just means the person’s comments made me think deeper about something and I felt was more deserving of a separate post. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, even if I disagree with the commenter
And if it happens twice in a relatively short period of time as it did in your case that’s definitely rare.
If I used a front page response for most of the comments I’ve made here over the years, I’d have another 400+ posts at least. Your situation kind of taught me that maybe I need to watch the timing of things like that and/or tone down the excitement on some of the comments because intentions might be misunderstood.
Sterling - highly offensive comments don’t bother me (aimed toward me or my opinion, but not toward other readers) so much as potentially litigious ones do. I’m no attorney but if a comment strikes me as having a greater than normal possibility of being something involving attorneys and courts I might take a pass. I’m clearly not afraid of being challenged legally and don’t care if somebody says something inflammatory that I know is true because you can’t bag someone for slander over truthful statements. I guess that’s part of my concern here, although I honestly believe the comment doesn’t cross the lines.
Of course now with all my commentary and post now I’ve drawn more attention to this mystery comment than it ever would have had without this, so I’ve kind of made the situation worse. Catch 22. lol
Comment by TDavid — February 24, 2006 @ 2:46 pm PST
Hmm. I suppose that because you do moderate your comments, you can be held legally responsible for their content. That’s why I don’t pre-approve comments on my site, but I do take out the trash after the fact (only spam so far). If anybody comes after me, I’ll plead open forum.
Comment by Sterling Camden — February 24, 2006 @ 3:02 pm PST
comment moderation can often be a touchy topic for some. regarding the current qeued comment that you’re mulling over, i say publish minus the home phone number. as an editor, you’re fully aware that readers frequent or find your site because of content. obviously, content pertains to the actual post that you published. the great thing about comments - based off of personal experience - is that oftentimes, readers present information that may very well be new news to myself (or in this case, yourself). these comments may be fictitious claims or factual statements. as long as the overall subject matter of the comment is on topic & non-threatening, i say approve.
Comment by derek — February 24, 2006 @ 3:39 pm PST
Your site is visible to the public, but it is no more a public space than your local newspaper. Forget about the technology that’s involved. If you were engaged in any other kind of publication, would you grant to anonymous strangers the privilege of publishing their content on your publication without review or edit? This is your website. The content that appears here is your responsibility. Treat comments like anything else submitted for your editorial consideration. If you’re uncomfortable about it, either spike it or edit it until you’re happy. Don’t let strangers mess with your head and don’t let the public visibiity of your site delude you into thinking the public has a right to publish in your space.
Comment by billg — February 24, 2006 @ 7:28 pm PST
I suppose the information I wrote is the issue. I fell strongly about my comment because the person mention is trying to use lawmakers to do his dirty work. I included the hm phone because this person will not responsed and uses employees and pr people to run interference. The point of giving out the phone number is to prevent him from hiding.
As to the detail personal information it goes to creditibility and the fact that this person is a hypocrite. More detail information to follow:
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE = TRUE LIES
Vest once again is trying to get lawmakers to pass his background check disclosure act in Illinois now HB5299. Vest exploits women, doesn’t disclose his own deceptive business practices and is hiding his personal background of abuse and womanizing. I believe Vest should be exposed because he is using our lawmakers to manipulate the industry and continues to exploit women while he lies to the public of his motivates in order to line his own pockets
An online dating site called True.com which touts it’s self as the safer dating service and the owner Herb Vest is behind litigation to require all dating services to disclose if they conduct background checks should be investigated for date bait along with several other questionable business practices.
Vest is being sued in Dallas, Texas by his former fiancee. The details of the woman’s case is very disturbing. Vest who is fighting to require background checks is now fighting to keep the detail affidavit by this woman sealed. Vest sited it would damage his business and personal life.
Some of the details includes Vest with prostitutes, Threesomes with lesbians. Several sexual harassment claims against Vest while at HD Vest, Inc. Cheated on his second wife with a prostitute. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Vest stated: “In addition to screening our own members for criminal backgrounds, TRUE is doing everything it can to make the online dating community at-large a more wholesome environment for courtship – one that is free and clear of predators and criminals”. In another statement “The idea for True.com came from wanting to provide a “safe and wholesome environment for courtship,” Vest said.
True is now turning it’s business to the sex trade. www.askmen.com has a contest to pick the hottest True girl. True.com’s exploitation of women in ads:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2005editorials/april2005.html
http://www.calacanis.com/2006/01/13/should-we-run-these-ampd-ads-or-not/3#comments
http://www.corante.com/dating/images/trueuglymodel.png
In addition you may want to ask Vest about the following business practices.
bloggers have posted claims they have seen documentation of fraud on the part of True. That is, ex-employees who claim that part of their job description was to pose as real people and keep people as members to motivate them to become paid subscribers.
I think that this issue becomes even more pertinent in light of similar allegations currently against Match.com and Yahoo Personals. It is no secret that some “customer service” people that used to work at True are no longer there — and having left under curious circumstances. Vest/ HDVE could be compelled to release names of such ex-employees so they can be questioned about these allegations of fraud. Vest should also be questioned as to whether they have any knowledge of fake/bait profiles being used by True employees at the direction of Vest and/or any of the executive management to essentially deceive or defraud customers or potential customers.
True.com wants disclosures so why doesn’t true disclose Secrets True.com doesn’t want made public!
1. “Is the endorsement from Psychology Today an academic endorsement or a paid endorsement?”
2. “You state on your site that you have a team of experts behind your testing/psychology services… who are they exactly and how do I get in touch with them in order to ask them what they specifically do for True and examples of recent work.” “Or, perhaps you (True.com) is overstating their roles as a marketing gimmick.”
3. “It seems True has been busy altering the authorship of certain online articles in its online magazine from Dr. James Houran to “Psychology Department” — implying Houran is still a part of the psychology dept. and that True has an active psychology dept.” Why is it making these changes in authorship? Does the online magazine editor (Leah Gentry, formerly a journalist with the LA Times) endorse this practice?”
4. Why has True.com not revealed to its customers that they no longer have the benefit of Dr. James Houran? He was arguably a huge value ad to the business and the welfare of the customers, yet customers are not told he is no longer with the company. True pushes for legislation requiring disclosure and yet they curiously are not disclosing that certain features/ benefits of the site are no longer part of the price of membership.”
FYI: Dr. Jim Houran was fired in October and True is sued him. True hasn’t disclosure that there are no experts on staff. Even the security expert is gone. The gimmicks True promotes it’s self with aren’t True!
Also, Vest and his wife has broken their own rule : NO MARRIED PEOPLE ALLOWED. Screen names (undermoose) and (fite) both go into chat rooms. So True.com no married people can contact members isn’t True either.
VEST OFTEN GOES TO THE CHAT ROOM TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON. MARK BROOKS IS ON THE PAYROLL FOR TRUE.COM. VEST USES MARKS BLOG TO PROMOTE HIS COMPANY AND USES A DIFFERENT NAME. BROOK ISN’T INDEPENTENT FROM TRUE.COM
Comment by NY5APPLE — February 26, 2006 @ 12:47 pm PST
NY5APPLE — or whatever your real name is — I’ve decided to approve your original comment without the phone number and this supplemental comment (unedited). You can post home phone numbers on your own website, I’m just not comfortable with posting of other people’s personal contact information without their express consent/permission — no matter what they have or haven’t done — and will remove that from any past, current or future comment.
The fact that you came back and posted again proves to me at least you weren’t just dumping some long diatribe on a bunch of blogs (this being yet another one), but it would certainly add some credibility to your claims if you signed with your own name and website address, since you are using Mr. Vest’s so liberally, and perhaps some contact information of your own so that you have some skin in the game. Maybe you want to be some sort of Deep Throat?
Both comments honestly sound to me like you have some sort of agenda or axe to grind, whichever it is. If it is to expose some alleged ill dealings at the site in question wouldn’t the attorney general’s office or the BBB be a better place? Then again, I suppose I questioned the whole “married people cannot apply” thing at True in that former post, so I sort of asked to get feedback like this.
Anyway, the only thing removed from your original comment was the home phone number, please don’t post other people’s home phone numbers here. If Mr. Vest wants to post his own home phone number, or you want to post yours here, you’re both welcome to do so.
As for the many allegations you have made and what you’ve linked to, I’ll leave that to each reader to decide the merits and if it makes them go hmm. The true.com site with the anti-married people bent sort of left an odd feeling in my mind without any of your statements.
Comment by TDavid — February 26, 2006 @ 3:33 pm PST
I don’t not have an ax to grind. I know the truth about True.com and Vest. Vest’s claims of being moral and passing judgement of others. Vest whats background checks, so he should disclose his. Vest wants the online dating industry to disclose, so Vest should dislose.
This is a case of do as I say and not as I do.
The worest thing is the fraud that true.com is involved with. The customer is being mislead and ripped offed. As for the AG which is a republican and Vest has doanated a lot of money too. He has been notified! There are investigations going on.
As for me. I am an insider. I can not go in to details at this time. Vest is angry and looking for the leak. this guy is paraniad and a pshycopath and I mean this clincially!
Major new media have this story I know that some people mentioned have given interviews as well.
This started with a lawsuit by a woman Vest abused and may very well end with Vest in prison for illegal activities she discloses in her case for SEC, IRS fraud. Now there is business practices the FTC and AG in TX are interested in. Vest may be able to keep the lawsuit against him out of court, but he can’t keep it from being made public. Take pot is about to blow.
Comment by NY5APPLE — February 28, 2006 @ 9:18 am PST