Comments on: Should we allow anonymous comments?

By: mumbrella

mumbrella — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:56:45 +0000

Thanks for those points, Tom.

I have given a bit of thought to the plug-ins option for side debates. So far it tends to be the exception where this occurs, so for now I’m inclined to hold off. I had spotted the relevant plug-in though.

On the IP issue, I’m genuinely in two minds. The first principle for a journalist is to protect your source. How badly does somebody have to misbehave before they lose their right to “source” status?

Cheers,

Tim – Mumbrella

By: Tom Kelshaw

Tom Kelshaw — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:29:21 +0000

So two things you could probably consider:

1) Should comments *responding to previous comments* (which flared off into a separate topic, irrelevant but interesting, in the case of Laurel & Gary) be sidelined/formatted differently somehow? WordPress plugins can easily do this for you.

2) By editing anonymous comments that cause a ruckus, aren’t you just encourages people to post fake details, and/or giving yourself a lot more work to do in moderation? Some solutions:

a) Potentially, community moderation could help here. i.e if a comment really sucks, people will “bury” it, but if it’s genuinely interesting, it’ll stay visible despite its scurrilousness.

b) Display anonymous’ IP address for likeminded internet snoops to investigate and disclose sources. This is always a fun game, because often you can trace an IP to a particular building…

Again, lots of wordpress plugins will do either of these for you.

By: A Digital Perspective » The Man Behind mUmbrella: Tim Burrowes - A Digital Perspective

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:02:02 +0000

[...] anonymous comments, this time, regarding Gary Hayes — what’s your current position on anonymous [...]

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 06:46:24 +0000

Hi Tim

Some of us work for companies that strictly prohibit us commenting on any industry blog, chat forum or website without prior approval from the CEO.

That means that we need to remain anonymous whether we want to or not.

Cheers
Lisa*

*Not my real name.

By: Lynchy

Lynchy — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:01:11 +0000

Thanks Anonymous @ 6:31., it’s also been rather nice hearing from you. Now shouldn’t you be back on CB where you belong? I think only attributed comments should appear on Mumbrella, but if there’s something contentious you want to say about any topic, without fear of reprisals, it’s probably wise to say it as an anonymous comment on the CB Blog.

The trouble with putting one’s name to anything, even a comment on a blog, is that you rarely write what you really think. You’re always a bit worried about offending anyone. With anonymous comments, as long as it’s about the topic or the work, and not the person – which, despite the perception, is how it works on the CB Blog – you generally get an accurate body of opinions.

If work is great, it will get through the CB Blog relatively unscathed – the likes of The Big Ad, LynxJet, VB ‘Boony’, MTV ‘Snoop’, Schweppes ‘Burst’, NRL ‘Club Membership” etc. all had 80% plus approval from the bloggers. It’s the average and downright bad (right now, could anything be worse than the Cadbury ‘Farnham’ Gorilla – a client idea of course, not Saatchi’s) that comes in for the full treatment from the anonymous hordes.

Cheers,

Lynchy

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:31:54 +0000

It’s been rather nice hearing from Lynchy. He’s had more to say here than he ever has done on Campaign Grief

By: anon

anon — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:09:26 +0000

It is nothing to do with Michael Lynch, it’s all the people who think he owns the industry…

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:45:35 +0000

please let me stay i promise i’ll be good and sometimes i’ll even have something great to say.

By: William Felt

William Felt — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:39:01 +0000

Sometimes a reader may want to add a comment to keep the discussion going, but has access to sensitive or confidential information that has been acquired under confidentiality conditions. Using an “Anonymous” nickname allows the debate to be continued under surer footing. Tim, being a journalist, you should be extrememly aware that some sources prefer confidentiality.

By: Boyo

Boyo — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:17:20 +0000

To answer Lynchy’s question, I don’t choose to share my whole ID – no particular reason, just habit. But it means that if people want to reply to my point, they can. It’s easier than saying Anon 0801 or whatever.

Hopefully people will still be able to judge me by my comments, whereas when you’re just anon, you’re indistinguishable.

The fact that Lynchy knows my comments and Fraser’s (must look out for him) proves that it works.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:41:56 +0000

I praise you for raising the debate and for trying to stay open to all forms of comment. I am also disappointed by the tone that some comments have but agree that there are benefits to both open and closed approaches.

I say leave it open but work on ensuring that comments are on topic. Create your own guidelines and publish them (see here: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/200.....-approval/ ). The guidelines may want to include harsher moderation for anonymous posts but also allow for those that genuinely want to remain anonymous to do so, e.g. those that may be bound by their employment contracts to not be seen commenting publicly/officially on a topic.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:53:29 +0000

If the comment is good, let it be published. It’s a free world and up to the individual whether they use their name as it is up to Tim whether he approves the submitted comments anyway. My only concern is if the comments take too close a tone to Campaign Brief where the attacks on individuals sometimes crosses the line.
We have had some great comments so far and we are in an industry of personalities so as long as we see the bigger picture we’ll be okay.

By: Jen Bishop

Jen Bishop — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:10:43 +0000

Well, I was going to say that you shouldn’t expect your opinion to be published if you don’t have the balls to put your name to it. After all, us bloggers are in the habit of writing things other people disagree with, sometimes vehemently, every single day, and if we worried about only putting our names to things that made people like/respect us, we’d never write anything.
That said, a lot of relevant arguments as to why anonymous posts should be allowed have been raised, particularly by Rowan, which have made me think again.
I think it’s more a case of deleting those comments which are obviously inappropriate or too personal, rather than the ones which are from anonymous posters. A blanket ban on anons could mean missing out on some of your best comments.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:04:16 +0000

What about “Ad funded comments”?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:55:46 +0000

Yes.

The only reason I read this rubbish is for the occasional good comment.

;]