New comment board policy: I'm going to hit 'delete' more often

Hi, folks.

Like everyone who has a blog, I want this one to gain a wide audience and to be part of the civic discussion. Up to now, I think that I've shown extreme tolerance at publishing reader comments as long as those comments did not include the kind of naughty language inappropriate for The Times.

But I'm completely weary of having to slog through Lord of the Rings-length comments, often left by the same group of readers and transit advocates. If you want to write a dissertation, that's great -- do it at UCLA or USC, both of which have programs in transportation studies. I'm also tired of the name calling and the accusations being made -- such-and-such (including myself) is ignorant, owned by the MTA, etc. In short, I'm not your professor or your mother. I'm a simple Road Sage.

So, as benevolent dictator of the Bottleneck Blog, here are two REALLY EASY ways to ensure your future comments are published:

1. Be brief and make your point. Think of it this way: if you are brief and make your point, normal people may actually want to read it.

2. If you want to dispute another reader's point, that's fine -- limit yourself to addressing the point and not the other person's character or right to existence. A really sharp commenter may find they don't even have to mention the other person's name! That will show 'em!

2b. If you really want a verbal knife fight with someone over, for example, sharrows or farebox recovery policy, then trade email addresses and take it to some Internet backwater I don't have to visit.

I very much want this blog to represent a wide range of views, even those that may not be popular. I'm not trying to censor anyone, nor am I trying to stifle criticism of yours truly. All I want is a better product for people to read and enjoy and, right now, there's plenty of room for improvement.

-- Steve Hymon

Comments

[J in Pasadena]

Let me just say it is difficult to be a voice of reason against a well funded and organized adversary. I would much prefer to see a single well documented and informed post than 10 others from the pro-business-as-usual MTA crew. Group think is a definite threat. And it would be prudent to consider that a mainstay audience of blog posters could be the same transit insiders benefiting from inertia. Whatever happens, please don't let any person or group game the blog.

That being said, many comments in the "car contest" post were infantile and senseless. Readers always have the option of skipping any comment after the first line when it taxes their views too much. I may not like every comment, but I'm of the opinion that seeing the bad just makes the good look so much better.

[FY]

Kudos, Steve. I look forward to visiting more frequently as such!

[Steve Hymon]

I responded to James earlier by email, but thought I would share my response with everyone.

To be brief: while I think a discussion board a fine idea, it would likely have to be monitored by someone at The Times to ensure that the kind of content we want published (by that I mean content suitable to all audiences) is actually published. As is, I'm strapped for time and I don't want to sacrifice time that I need to report stories.

To repeat, my intention is not to stifle readers or any particular reader. I think having shorter, more pointed comments that avoid personal attacks will encourage more reader participation w/o losing good information. I still may choose to publish longer comments when I think it's warranted.

One other note: if you have a problem with coverage, let me know. I take your concerns seriously.

Steve Hymon
Los Angeles Times

[Damien Goodmon]

In observation of the new policy let me just say:

Ditto to what Oscar said.

[James N.]

Steve, how about setting up an online discussion board where readers can have extended discussions and/or mud-slinging? Doesn't have to be you, perhaps a loyal reader would be able and willing to do it.

[Oscar]

I don't know...I mean I have mixed feelings about the long posts. Although I agree about the nastiness...I think there are times when there are blatant attacks on other users that can be instantly recognized and other times when there are thinly veiled comments that can seem racist, elitist, or any other ist, ism...and surely those are tougher to spot...it's a gray area for sure but one I think needs to be looked at as well.

On the long post issues - I can surely see that there many not be time, space etc...but transit issues sometimes require a long discussion. How could one understand issues about at-grade level crossings without bringing up data from 10 years back and talking about traffic patterns in an area and changes in population, demographics etc. I don't know what constitutes a long post, but I know at times I have submitted long comments that will refer back to several issues that other users may have posted. I don't have the time to go and submit responses to each one in a different post, so then I post a long comment.

There's my two cents on the matte. Ultimately, this is one of my favorite blogs here at the times and I will continue to visit and post understand what changed have to be made...if only some of the nastiness would be removed from some of the other blogs on the Times' website.

[Sleepy]

honestly though, the layout of this blog is not really conducive to extremely long comments, or for that matter, discussions between the commenters.

I do like to read long comments in forums and things, but looking at long comments in here makes my head hurt. In any case, a shorter message is a clearer message. Sure, it'll take a bit of thinking to get that complicated message simplified, but thinking is a good thing in every discussion/argument.

[frazgo]

I understand the urge to moderate. I just find it hard to do it and not somehow limit freedom of speech. Then again, if they really want to run off at the keyboad they should just get their own keyboard.

[Spokker]

While it is ultimately up to you and the LA Times what goes on here, it is unfortunate to see yet another web site take on such draconian measures to police comments sections.

Now we can't type messages that are "too long"? Oh, please.

Part of the appeal of this weird world of transit advocacy are the crazy cast of characters who butt heads every now and then. Hopefully they will continue to speak their minds on the other transit boards.

[Daniel OC]

technically, comments wouldn't be deleted.... they wouldn't be approved the first time around!

[Jill Smolinski]

Amen to that...my eye started twitching when I read a comment about how your friend who won the car was a menace to society just because she'd been in an auto accident (and you never even mentioned whether it was her fault or not).

[Juan]

10-4.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

I apologize, Steve, for my unfortunate contributions to this decision.

I don't know if anyone else will apologize, but I acknowledge when I have erred.