Trust, But Verify: TidBITS Commenting System Succeeds
At TidBITS, we tend to talk for a long, long time about site changes before we do the work. This can be agonizing. Why can’t we just do X already, whatever X is? But there’s a big upside: we often have the whole conceptual framework in place, and it’s just a matter of a little – okay, sometime a lot of – script programming and database manipulation to bring our ideas to fruition.
That’s how we created the TidBITS Commenting System, which enables anyone to append comments to one of our articles. Adam Engst wrote about how we designed the system and how it works in “Introducing the TidBITS Commenting System” (3 July 2009).
Ten months in, we’re rather pleased about how well the TidBITS Commenting System has worked. I chose this point to take a look at comments because of a debate that’s been broiling about anonymous comments and their place on news sites.
Most notably, we require that each commenter verify himself or herself for each browser used by following a URL in an email that’s sent. That email links to a page that sets a browser cookie. (In the future, we’ll have full-fledged accounts. We’re testing the Take Control account management system now, which will eventually be extended to TidBITS readers; see “Reading Take Control Ebooks on an iPad (or iPhone or iPod touch),” 7 April 2010.)
This is in line with a general direction by media sites to require some sort of external verification, instead of allowing commenters to post without any outside-the-system check. The New York Times recently reported on this general trend, as the idea of purely anonymous commenters might be on its way out. Facebook Connect and Twitter verification have been part of that trend, too, enabling people to use a single identity to comment across multiple sites. And a change at Gawker Media blogs that instituted a stricter
commenting system caused a quick drop in comments but ended up generating more and better comments over the long run.
Some sites, of course, simply don’t allow readers to post comments at all. Our dear colleague, John Gruber, has never allowed comments on Daring Fireball, prompting a short-lived joke site called “Daring Fireball with Comments” that revealed the true horror of what could have been. (I won’t link to the site, because it’s now just a mock-up of an iPhone with a note to John thanking him for taking the joke well – and a thousand junk comments promoting exciting drugs.)
For our part, we wondered if asking people to enter and verify an email address would be too high a bar, as low as that might seem. We don’t benefit financially from additional page views of posts with comments (perhaps a few dollars per month at best), so we neither wanted to pump up comments to inflate page views artificially, nor to discourage readers.
The results have exceeded our expectations. We’re nearing 4,000 comments made across 440 articles by nearly 1,900 people – about half the articles and links we’ve published in that period. And while we certainly have our regulars, we also see that many people are willing to register in order to leave a single comment.
Some of our more popular articles have had dozens of comments, and have provoked terrific discussion that extended the articles in directions we couldn’t have imagined. For instance, Adam’s “Have We Entered a Post-Literate Technological Age?” (18 August 2009), generated 91 comments, many extremely thoughtful. But we’re happy if an article attracts only a comment or two with useful information.
We are also totally cool with being corrected when appropriate. If we misspell a word, use clunky language, cite a fact incorrectly, or rely on tortured logic, we hear about it in the comments, and we often update the article to address the problem. (Thanks for keeping the tone polite and helpful in such criticisms!)
The response to the 1,000-character limit (about 150 words) hasn’t been bad. Most people stay within the limit, and only occasionally does someone need to post a second comment to finish their thought. We’re not Twitter, but neither do we wish to encourage epics.
As administrators, we gave ourselves a few simple commands to edit or delete comments, and to ban users. A banned user could, of course, register again with a new email address, but we’ve had to ban only 30 people, or about 1.5 percent of our commenters. Most were for egregious spam, and just a couple for over-the-top inappropriate behavior. We delete comments only occasionally, and mostly when they’re no longer relevant after an update to an article (no one needs to read about a spelling mistake that was fixed), and we use an extremely light hand when editing, fixing typos if we can, or removing excess quoted material.
I’ve been running mailing lists and forums since 1990, when I had a desktop-publishing list with a staggering 1,000 worldwide subscribers (mostly in academia, but also through Internet gateways such as The WELL). In that time, I’ve never designed nor participated in any discussion or commenting system that required so little handholding.
Sure, we know that TidBITS readers are the best – you really are – but we also expected to get griefers and trolls who like to find systems to exploit. The email verification loop isn’t a big deal for people who want to make other people unhappy, but apparently that, plus some AJAX elements we built for posting, have prevented any real abuse. So far. (We also have virtual tripwires set to alert us to attacks, so hopefully we’ll be able to shut down any that do occur.)
We’re happy with what we built, although we’re still thinking about what else we can add, beyond the near-future addition of identifying messages from staff members. Once we have our account management system in place, a variety of possibilities present themselves, and we’re pondering what to do first.
So what would you like to see? As you know, your comments are welcome.
One very useful thing to add would be an RSS feed per user that includes his own comments as well as replies to these. One major trouble with comments on web articles is that people may reply days later and if you don't go back and check you will never read these replies.
I usually keep the tab open a day or two and check back if I left a comment but this is really an annoying thing to do. If I had my own RSS-feed for that I would immediately see if someone replied even weeks later.
We will *absolutely* offer this when we have accounts set up for TidBITS users to use. Then you'll be able to log into your account, and choose custom RSS feeds, including a feed of your own comments.
(You can also subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments on a particular article. Each article has three linked RSS feeds: TidBITS general feed, a "firehose" comments feed of all comments on all articles, and a per-article comments feed.)
This sounds very good indeed!
One of the best things about your system is that it doesn't require me to remember YAPW (yet another password). More sites should work this way.
Just wait! You'll be able to. But not required to.
Thanks for this most useful article. I'd be interested to know your thoughts about Facebook Connects.
And, yes, the system does work well.
One key advantage of your set-up is that many of your users, me included, will have whitelisted the tidbits.com domain - so your verification messages don't get lost in the junk.
I'll have to talk with Rich about these single sign-on services, since on the one hand, they're a great convenience, but on the other, you are linking previously unlinked sites in potentially unanticipated ways.
I've used my Google Account as a sign-on for a few sites, and aside from the convenience, I like the fact that I can rescind my Google credentials later on quite easily. I don't know how easy it would be to do that with Facebook Connect or other services.
The best news in all this is that you actually do read the comments.
For many sites, I get the feeling that comments are just a sort of "feel-good" measure to let people sound off without serious consequences, for better or for worse.
Heck yes, we love reading the comments, in large part because they're usually interesting. And it's a lightweight way to respond and add more information for all subsequent readers too, which makes it more efficient than email, where the exchange is just one-to-on.
Disqus does wonders.
Edit to explain myself LOL...
Disqus allows me to login ONCE and participate in all blogs and web pages that use it. I see ALL replies to my comments, no matter the blog, I have a running log of all the comment s I have ever made and can see the replies.
I also use Disqus in my own blogs (I have sevral) and the vetting and flexibility for a blog administrator is stunning. You have total control over who can comment, how they are verified and you can turn on tagging and reporting and all the rest.
yes, perhaps you are looking for some homegrown in-house thing. But otherwise, you should at least give Disqus a serious look.
Just food for thought. ;)
No, I have no, none, zero affiliation other than I am a happy user of it (as a commentator and as a blog owner).
We've thought about third-party systems, but we're more interested in people who want to be part of the TidBITS discussion than in letting anyone who comments anywhere have a lightweight way to participate here.
We don't want to discourage participation, but want it to be intentional. This imposes a slight bar, but it's worked out. We don't want twice as many comments; we want more good comments.
Disqus et al doesn't let us set the authentication bar to the precise level we want. I comment on sites using Twitter auth and Disqus all the time, however; it's an ok system, but has some real display/load time issues.
I've not looked at Disqus recently, but I seem to remember that they stored all the comments, too, which I found slightly troubling. We've worked hard over the years to keep our entire archive of articles online, and I'd hate to lose all our comments if Disqus were to go away at some point in the future.
Glenn wrote "we know that TidBITS readers are the best - you really are." Amen. It's a refreshing change from the "real" world where any mention of Apple or Mac seems to enflame the trolls.