Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Reuters faces the same challenges a lot of news sites face: nutty, angry, off-topic comments; a general devolution of civilized exchanges in its comments section; and a sense from their non-insane readers that it's just not worth it to join the conversation. From the Reuters Blog:
I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on Reuters.com and on other major news sites. On some stories, the “conversation” has been little more than partisans slinging invective at each other under the cloak of anonymity.
I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead Reuters.com are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.
Here's how they're going to address these issues. First, the nuts-and-bolts approach:
...here are some examples of the type of comments that fall foul of our moderators:
– racism and other hate language that isn’t caught by our software filters
– obscene words with letters substituted to get around the software filters
– semi-literate spelling; we’re not looking for perfection, but people shouldn’t have to struggle to determine the meaning
– uncivil behavior towards other commentators; debate is welcome, schoolyard taunts are not
– incitement to violence
– comments that have nothing to do with the story
– comments that have been pasted across multiple stories
– comments that are unusually long, unless they’re very well written
– excessive use of capital letters
These all make sense, I guess. ESPECIALLY THE ONE ABOUT THE CAPITAL LETTERS!
But they're also implementing a merit-badge system, which is interesting:
Our new process grants a kind of VIP status on people who have had comments approved previously. When you register to comment on Reuters.com, our moderation software tags you as a new user. Your comments go through the same moderation process as before, but every time we approve a comment, you score a point.
Once you’ve reached a certain number of points, you become a recognized user. Congratulations: your comments will be published instantly from now on. Our editors will still review your comments after they’ve been published and will remove them if they don’t meet our standards. When that happens, you’ll lose points. Lose enough points and you’ll revert to new user status.
The highest scoring commentators will be classified as expert users, earning additional privileges that we’ll implement in future. You can see approval statistics for each reader on public profile pages like this, accessed by clicking on the name next to a comment.
It’s not a perfect system, but we believe it’s a foundation for facilitating a civil and rewarding discussion that’s open to the widest range of people. Let me know what you think.
Of course, we here at Ricochet believe we've solved a lot of this already, using something we like to call the free-market. Everyone here has skin in the game, as I like to say (ad nauseum, I know.) We're all in this together. Nobody pays $3.58 a month to bang their spoon on their highchair and be disruptive.
Oh, sure, we have our flare-ups. And occasionally an editor steps in. But mostly, what we're trying to build here is a community. And it's interesting, to me at least, that the folks at Reuters are trying to do the same thing. Maybe everyone across the web is realizing what we at Ricochet realized two years ago: conversation, community, and civility are all inextricably linked.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Trending: Civility?
Jan '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
If i had a nickel for each time Rob said "skin in the game".... I could pay for my Ricochet membership...
Dec '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Let's just hope Obama never finds out about this place. He'll start a trade war with Columbia, the price of coffee will go through the roof, and next thing we know no one will be able to afford civil conversation.
Aug '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
You forgot the fourth C. "Cash."
Aug '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Perhaps it is obvious, but those of a right of center bend find virtuous, both civility and sound reasoning. "Skin in the game" just keeps those who have no real interest in the conversation from freely ambushing those who post on this site. They still want to &*%$*&:)!! CUSS US OUT, but they won't pay to do it. We who've forked over the dough think of it as a contribution to a good cause, like our annual contribution to NR.
For now, our little family is safe. It will be awkward and difficult for Soros to reimburse all those would be opponents for their membership fees.
Dec '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Ricochet is the only gated community I can afford. I ain't leaving.
Mar '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Another suggestion: why doesn't Reuter's just do away with comments all together?
Ricochet is explicitly a discussion-based site. We come here not only to express our opinions, but to hear what others want to say, even (or especially) those who don't agree.
Reuters, meanwhile, is a news site: 99% of its visitors want hard news and edited material. The people who post comments there don't do so to discuss, but rather to spray their opinions like graffiti.
There are too many digital outlets for any one site to focus on providing news and simultaneously attract people interested in genuine discourse (RIP News Feed). I think the genius of Ricochet is not just the paywall, but the fact that good discussion is the only function here, and not just one of many.
Mar '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
double post.
Edited on Oct 21, 2011 at 10:35amAug '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
The pay-to-play approach works. Period. Even at NRO the comments get a little more than testy from time to time. I'm surprised they haven't taken a similar approach.
Oct '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
"Reuters faces the same challenges a lot of news sites face: nutty, angry, off-topic comments..."
But enough about their news reporting.
Oct '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
I'm skeptical that it's a function of political philosophy that makes Ricochet civil given what I'm seeing over at the comments section at NRO. I suspect it's a combination of our contributors setting a positive tone and all of us having, yes, skin in the game. Turns out you really do take better care of something that you feel you have ownership in.
I'd also really hate to think that about writing anything that would make Peter Robinson upset. He just strikes me as the most kind and decent person on the planet which makes stepping on his toes feel profoundly wrong.
Oct '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
dittoheadadt: "Reuters faces the same challenges a lot of news sites face: nutty, angry, off-topic comments..."
But enough about their news reporting. · Oct 21 at 12:21pm
Okay. That made me laugh which makes the price of the subscription that much more valuable.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Ricochet:
"Where you get to be the barbarian inside the gate. For only $3.58 a month."
And yes Mr. Long I worked *very* hard on that.
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
This is the only site where I read the comments. (Besides mine.) Even sites whose audiences are rather mild in temperament, like the newspaper where I work, the snide and the snark and the smirky self-righteousness smothers every story, no matter how anodyne the subject matter. But news organizations can't drop comments, because they're now seen as an invaluable part of having a "conversation." Well, it's no more a conversation than battle ball is a friendly game of catch.
Actually, there's another solution to the pay-to-comment model, and it's looking good. (Yes, it exists.)
Edited on Oct 21, 2011 at 12:49pmSep '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Turns out you really do take better care of something that you feel you have ownership in.
If every US adult voting age citizen were forced to pay a minimum $3.58/month of taxes, regardless of circumstances, would it help? It could be a supplemental Cain 358 plan.
Dec '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Ricochet exists in the comments. It's the only place where two quickly dashed off sentences can result in 130 bits of rational dialogue.
Mar '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
James Lileks:
Actually, there's another solution to the pay-to-comment model, and it's looking good. (Yes, it exists.) · Oct 21 at 12:48pm
Edited on Oct 21 at 12:49 pm
Wow! What if they combined this with pay-to-comment!
Sep '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Basil Fawlty
James Lileks:
Actually, there's another solution to the pay-to-comment model, and it's looking good. (Yes, it exists.) · Oct 21 at 12:48pm
Edited on Oct 21 at 12:49 pm
Wow! What if they combined this with pay-to-comment! · Oct 21 at 12:56pm
That would be a pay-to-lament model.
Sep '10
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
DrewInWisconsin
You forgot the fourth C. "Cash." · Oct 21 at 10:17am
And the fifth - the constitutional right to complain.
Mar '11
Re: Hey, Reuters, Here's a Thought: Skin in the Game
Pseudodionysius
Basil Fawlty
James Lileks:
Actually, there's another solution to the pay-to-comment model, and it's looking good. (Yes, it exists.) · Oct 21 at 12:48pm
Edited on Oct 21 at 12:49 pm
Wow! What if they combined this with pay-to-comment! · Oct 21 at 12:56pm
That would be a pay-to-lament model. · Oct 21 at 12:59pm
Or pay-to-flay.