Should we allow anonymous comments?

The fact that you can post comments and encourage dialogue is one of a few things which truly differentiates Mumbrella from your competitors, so you shouldn’t get too heavy handed with editing them. As a reader I am quite happy to ignore the odd bit of baseless criticism and character assassination. For good or bad, it is also one of the characteristics of some parts of our profession, so to filter it out and pretend that we all love each other dearly would make it unrepresentative.

I don’t mind anonymous comment so long as it’s half intelligent.

But don’t let it get like Campaign Grief. Obscure links to a five year old ad from Czechoslovakia that happens to share the same colour scheme so is therefore a rip-off are a bit bloody tedious. Some of the Leo Burnett / Earth Hour debate was going that way last week.

Just a quick note to correct some inaccuracies – I didn’t say you should change your tone. I said you should consider changing your tone if you don’t like the sort of responses and comments that you get. Given that you lurve turning over rocks and poking sticks at whatever emerges – and recognizing that your regular readers are attracted to your value system – perhaps adapt your handling of comments to their needs, not yours? And Im not an academic – can’t accept that accolade – but I do run social media workshops. By the way, look to 1938Media if you want to be Australia’s snarkiest blogger – but remember, that is the tone that your readers will mirror back. After all, you wouldn’t hear a Lawsy or Jonesy complaining “gosh, I just wish my callers would be nicer and more loving”, now, would you? 😛

I’ve noticed a definite change in tone of commentary within Mumbrella since the time of inception. The initial audience was small but respectful. Commentary was predominantly constructive. Over the last month or so it has become a lot more destructive, partly fueled by attack bait articles (and too many egos). The nature of growth perhaps…but I have to agree with Laurel that it’s also fueled to a certain extent by the type of content published.

I’d personally take a stronger stance on anonymous commentators. If you don’t have the courage to put your name to a comment, it doesn’t deserve to be published.

I can’t see the merit in having anonymous contributors – I wouldn’t bother having a conversation on the street or on the phone if they concealed their identity. But all for opinionated posts (even when I don’t agree with them eg. Farnsy’s gorilla), it keeps it interesting!

BoingBoing have a great policy with trolls (rather than anonymous commenters) – they disemvowel the comment, so it still appears on the site but it takes an effort to read it.

It’s a fairly good compromise as you’re not censoring messages, but any troll-like comments are generally ignored by the rest of your readers….

I saw an anon comment that bothered you on the much discussed Cadbury Gorilla remix by S&S. I personally think anonymous commenting is a recipe for disaster. Prob is, even if you turn it off, people can just use a fictitious name. I think it just comes down to rigorous moderation and the community ignoring comments that don’t add any value to the conversation.

Of course anonymous comments should be allowed.

Allows for the quieter opinions to flow through, not just the ‘rent-a-quote’, large agency crowd spruiking their own work.

I think the solution lays in firm but fair moderating. A few groundrules, commonsense, and perhaps a few neutral administrators should do the trick.

Hey Tim,

You make some good points, and it’s amazing that no one yet has been anonymous in this comment string, me included i guess.

I agree with some of what you said but you have raised an interesting question in your post which is ‘what do you actually have to lose when it comes to putting your name to your views?’ – well, potentially, quite a lot really.

As this comment string, like nearly everything else online, will be indexed, filed and sorted by a huge number of web crawlers and search engines, these comments have the potential to stay with someone for their entire life.

Just expressing an opinion, not even saying anything particularly abhorrent, is enough to have some people up in arms. Note: see the mumbrella story today about the Naked boss expressing his thoughts on Papworth on his twitter feed. http://tinyurl.com/cqkx3y

If you’re going for a new job anytime – just make sure you’ve not said something online/in a comments thread etc that the recruiter or HR manager may not like like (whoever they’ll be) when they google you before interviewing you.

Anonymous comments do have the benefit of sometimes sparking a more ‘honest’ discussion. And missing out on that can be at the detriment of the discussion and the website.

Posting as an anon lets people say what they really think, and it’s not always abhorrent or abusive many times they are constructive.

Trying to force people to put their reputation on the block each time they say anything makes people more cautious.

If someone recorded every word we all spoke we’d be incredibly careful to say anything, lest it come back to us in the future at an inconvenient time.

The suggestion of using a ‘handle’ is a valid one, but it doesn’t make anyone more accountable for their comments. A consistenly bitchy antagonist using the same handle will be ignored just as quickly by the community as an ‘anon’ anyway.

Sure, delete, edit, monitor etc the trolls but people are smart enough to figure out what really contributes to the thread and what doesn’t.

Anyways just my two cents, back to the grind.

Cheers,

Rowan Wilde

Who is ‘Boyo’ and ‘Fraser’? Surely using a nickname is the same as being anonymous?

Many of the attributed comments on Mumbrella (that are critical of an issue) come from blog operators who have little to lose and who probably use this forum to direct traffic to their own blogs, not people working in the real ad industry.

The most truthful comments on the Campaign Brief Blog have been anonymous, because it’s a small industry and saying the truth can sometimes be fatal to one’s career.

Protection of anonymity is part and parcel of a working democracy that allows dissenters to express critical and minority views. For publishers in blogspace however it builds traffic and amuses assorted axe-grinders. Sadly, there remains something about anonymity that brings out the worst in us. My suggestion Tim, is perhaps identify and filter/edit/delete at your discretion the un-named repeat offenders – the serial malcontents and mischief-makers who might well contribute the bulk of unattributed comments. Good luck mate.

Yes.

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

;]

What about “Ad funded comments”?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.