Dear Readers,
We at the NCP don't mind anonymity – obviously. But we do prefer that one assumes a single identity with which to associate one's words. If one can't use one's real name for professional or personal reasons, we grok that. But the next best option, we have felt and continue to feel, is to adopt a nom de plume for reasons of consistency and at least a semblance of accountability. Simply spewing forth nasty comments is oh-so boring.
For that reason, we initially chose to limit comments to registered users. Some of you liked that. But others made reasonable argument (see jdublyou) advocating open commenting, so we agreed to try it out.
Statistically, for what it's worth, the numbers went up when the comment restrictions came off – but not so dramatically we feel compelled to continue this experiment. We still prefer our initial stance.
Thoughts?
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The number of people visiting didn't significantly rise when commenting restrictions were lifted. The number of repeat visitors coming back to view active message threads caused the spike.
I think you are better off letting anons comment.
I favor the Mr. Ed approach. Make people post under a name if they really have something to say. It's so much more pleasurable to only click to read comments about one of Postmaster's posts when there are worthwhile ideas being discussed and not conspiracy-vendetta rants.
Unfortunately, Blogger-hosted blogs (like this one and most others in Humboldt) don't have a setting that requires commenters to chose a blogonym. It either allows anonymous comments or it doesn't.
Blogs hosted by WordPress (like Bob Morse's Talking Tech blog) allow pseudonyms (or even plain old "anonymous") but require an email address to comment (though it won't be published). But even this appears to deter comments.
It's all about what you want to put into it, Postmaster. If you're going to allow anonymous comments, which many people clearly appreciate, you're going to have to moderate. Otherwise things can spiral downward to where reading comments is a waste of time.
Ah, but if someone really has something worthwhile to say, requiring him or her to invest 1.5 minutes in creating a Google account seems little enough to ask.
The point is to make the blog entertaining and interesting for readers; hence, some standard must be set. Ideally.
Thanks for the discussion.
The only thing you have to fear is fear itself. Keep it open, but monitor it.
It is your blog so you get to do it anyway you want. The tone of a blog changes dramatically when you allow anonymous comments. I believe you have to decide what your objectives are. If it to inform, use as a forum for your own ideas, and occasionally generate intelligent dialog then your approach works. If it it to allow a venue for people to snipe at each other the anonymous format is the way to go. For those blogs that allow anonymous comments the great majority of comments appear to not relate to the original subject, but are aimed at previous comments. It can be entertaining and annoying at the same time.
Are you looking for comments to your posts or are you riffing for your own pleasure? I don't mind comments as long as they come with a name for consistency. "Anonymous" is just too lame. Now, "Mousanony" that was clever. But, I was busted by "Simshank" over that ill-fated moniker. People, find a non-de- plume. It ain't that difficult.
BTW, Hayduke...great name.
"Simshank"
Awesome.
Post a Comment