Test of blog comments expands -- and readers weigh in

In March, The Times began testing a new system for commenting on its blogs, requiring the use of Facebook to sign in. As of Friday, the test, which began with Technology and The Fabulous Forum, has been expanded to nearly all of its blogs.

As Managing Editor/Online Jimmy Orr said in his announcement, the move to Facebook commenting would enable real-time posting of comments, instead of having to wait for manual moderation; and better authentication of users, which, it was hoped, would cut down on mean-spirited and profane posts.

Readers were invited to weigh in on the change --  which they’ve done. More than 70 have left comments on Orr’s blog post (the Readers’ Representative Journal has not moved to Facebook comments). Other readers have written emails.

Many of those unhappy about Facebook commenting have privacy concerns. Others say they simply don’t want to participate in social media.

"I love reading and commenting, however I have no intention of joining Facebook to do so," emailed Gail Albert of Los Angeles. "Other response/comment arenas have spam and vulgarity filters, maybe you should start there. Every society has idiots posting their insipid rants. The way I see it, it's always good to know who's out there and what people think, albeit, a different opinion."

Bob Matthews commented Friday on Orr's post: "The hideous policies of Facebook make thoughtful people avoid it. Thoughtful people whom you want reading and commenting. You are three months in to the trial, and the Facebook-comment pages have just as many inane comments as the others. You are not killing trolls, just alienating readers."

Reader Engagement Editor Martin Beck acknowledged that "not all readers have, or wish to have, Facebook accounts. And many readers prefer the anonymity of self-selected nicknames on our comment boards."

"Anonymity isn't necessarily a bad thing," Beck said, "but if you’ve spent much time reading comments online, you'll understand that sometimes commenters take advantage of it to post rude, profane or otherwise inappropriate comments they likely wouldn’t using their real identity. So far, we believe that the pros of Facebook's commenting system outweigh the cons."

Other readers said they use Facebook, but they want to keep it separate from their other online activities.

Damen Brazen of Los Angeles emailed, "This Facebook comment system stifles what people really think, since people often want to keep hot-button topics out of conversation with their friends."

Andrea Berman of Pasadena agreed. "While I do use Facebook, I don't want the rest of my world seeing what I post on a blog," she emailed. "Facebook is Facebook, blogs are blogs. Keep them separate."

Both readers and Times editors said they’d noticed a decline in the number of comments -- at least initially -- after the switch.

Joseph Areeda of Los Angeles emailed: "I still read a lot the comments, and many of the usual commenters are missing when Facebook is required. I enjoy the debate in the readers' comments and feel it greatly enhances the content of the articles and essays."

Online Arts and Entertainment Editor Lisa Fung said comments on blogs such as Pop & Hiss and Show Tracker had dropped off at first, "but that was expected because this was a new thing."

But Fung said the tone of comments had changed noticeably. "People seem to be less likely to go on rants or engage in personal attacks, because they no longer can hide under a cloak of anonymity,” she said. "That's led to a change in the overall conversation we're having with our readers and they're having with each other."

Editorial writer Jon Healey said comments on Opinion L.A. "seem to be less vituperative and more substantive, with notably less name-calling and more pertinent remarks. That's welcome, but not surprising -- requiring people to use their real names tends to weed out trolls while also encouraging people to put more thought into what they’re writing."

He said he also wasn't surprised by the drop in the number of comments. "But it's still lamentable," he said. "I may be atypical, but I'd rather have more comments and a lower signal-to-noise ratio than the opposite. I don't want people to feel as if we're listening only to Facebook users, even if roughly half the U.S. population is a member."

Some readers agreed with Beck that something needed to be done to stop the anonymous attacks.

"I think this is a great idea," wrote TR in a comment. "I agree with the others who feel that the people who are against Facebook commenting are the people who are trashing the site right now -- the ones who turn the comment thread on EVERY SINGLE STORY into a forum on immigration, healthcare and Obama, even if the story has absolutely nothing to do with any of those things. ... If you don't want to say something under your real name, perhaps you shouldn't be saying it in the first place."

And Ken Murray wrote in a comment, "Bravo! Many points for trying to create a uniform, better system. I, like many here, am leery of the Facebook connection, but that may simply reflect my age! Progress!! I look forward to trying the new system."

--Deirdre Edgar

RELATED:

Online comments: 'Our goal of civility is falling short'

Image: Screenshot of Facebook comments on Pop & Hiss

Comments

[Brady Westwater]

Most days, when I try to log in - it says that email address is already in use and it's impossible to leave a comment. The ONLY time I can comment is when it shows my pre-saved info. But that is almost never the case any more.

[Matt]

While not having anonymity may decrease inane comments about Obama causing e. coli or what have you, could you please tell me how Facebook comments saying "you're cute" in response to another user's avatar or commenting how their dog looks like another user's avatar is pertinent to a story about the California budget? Comments now may be more civil but I really, really don't care that "here in Omaha it's hotter today according to my backyard thermometer" or "hey, my grandmother was born there!"

[Mark]

I will not get a Facebook account. My privacy has much greater value than my input, posted on the LA Times website.

[James R]

Good for you, Matt.! Go stick your flag in another planet. This one is taken and you are not in charge of it.

[Gray, Germany]

I don't have a facebook account, because of the countless privacy issues of that network. And I refuse to get one just to make the LA Times happy. This totally onesided policy will probably lead to a serious reduction of opinions in comments. There are lots of good reasons why people may don't want to post under their real names here - they may be public employees, work in companies that don't really tolerate opposing points of view, already had negative experiences with cyberstalkers, don't want to have annoying discussions with friends or relatives, etc etc. But aparently the Times only cares to have less work with moderating comments (as if the moderation had so much to do at all). It's pathetic, and the lame postings that show up in those facebook threads are pathetic, too. Boring new world.

[Ron King]

In other words, it's easier for us, so that's what we're doing.

[woof-woof]

The craziest of the comments clearly demonstrate that a substantial number of LA Times readers are certifiably nuts. It's foolish to reveal your true identity to these people.

Maybe 2-5% of comments are worth reading. Limiting comments to Facebook users decreases the total number of comments making the likelihood of finding a worthwhile comment following any given article close to zero.

[Hans333]

The Times may want to re-think this policy in light of 1) the number of people who either hate or don't use FB and 2) Google+. Just saw a demo by your tech writer and he seems to agree, with a few tweaks, it will blow FB out of the water.

[Dave]

why doesnt the times simply get rid of the moderation and let people use their freedom of expression and post their uncensored thoughts and comments why get some unsecured lame a$* social media website involved?????

[SilenceIsGolden]

Personally, I could do extremely well with a return to focus on news -- and skip online discussions altogether. I have real-life discussions, with people I talk to.

How many of the people commenting on any kind of online board of a news website are really interested in a dialogue with others? Most of what I see are people ranting, standing on soap boxes and pointing their fingers at themselves, "Look, what an important and meaningful contribution I made!"

How much do people really engage this way in any kind of healthy, constructive exchange of ideas? Does anybody really spend the time to read 50+ (or just 20+) comments? Or do they just want to get rid of whatever thought they have on the topic (or, as is the case so often, on a completely different topic; they just want the platform and exposure).

And if there are people who have the time to read all the previous comments in a long line of those monster threads -- maybe they would profit from somebody giving them back their live by taking away that kind of pastime. Get out, take a walk, open your mind, use the web to learn something new.

If anybody thinks that using Facebook would be a tool to get rid of anonymous posters, think twice: do you really think there is a real-life "Darth Vader" or "Dorothy in Kansas"? (I didn't make those up.) There's also nothing preventing anybody with a Facebook account to sign up for a second one that they use for anything they don't want their 'friends' to know.

[John Dingler, artist]

I would comment in the Facebook style of uniformity and jackbootsism, you know, with the small text it demands with no way to increase it, if I could log in with Yahoo. Then also I would not mind looking at the Facebook logo.

Offer us the option to log in with Yahoo along with other social networking sites such what the Huffington Post allows.

[Mike Dudnikov]

I think this new system of commenting stinks. Is that plain enough? I already had to login through yahoo or google, wasn't that authentication enough? Facebook is not a system I use due to its myriad privacy issues. Why not allow multiple sign-in options. And if I have to wait a little longer to see my comments posted, that's my tough luck. Also the concern about moderators approving comments can be easily solved at your end. Just allow all comments to post at once, by eliminating the moderator function. That has been true for most comments all along any way.

I am a long time reader and poster, who will miss commenting and surely you will suffer more, deprived of my searing insight, great store of knowledge and Levant-like wit.

[kurt]

I will be to the point. If you continue to use Facebook you have lost a reader. Period. I cannot believe the Times cannot find a way to authenticate identities without requiring its readers to join Facebook.

This is beyond stupid.

[mature mind]

It's more than a month later, but I agree fully with Kurt, posting on July 21.

[forex alerts]

I really like your post hope to read more from you.

Regard,

Carlnick

[NT]

>The blogs on www.latimes.com have switched to a Facebook commenting system which requires users to have a Facebook account to post comments.
>
>The blogs are the only part of our site that are switching to a Facebook comment system.

Dear LA Times representative,

Thank you for sending me an informative response.

However, registering for a LA Times account requires registering for a Faceboook account.

I have no interest, desire, or wish to establish an account with a 3rd party - particularly the notorious, privacy-invading, porous security, immature audience associated with Facebook. It is not adult appropriate. The adults I know opened accounts to "friend" their children and supervise their online activities.

Please inform your LA Times supervisors that they misjudge their readership. It is puzzling why a newspaper would redirect its readers away to any 3rd party website for commenting or any other purpose.

Moderate comments to eliminate racist, bigoted, off-topic, spam ads, and mean-spirited postings. Utilize vulgarity filters. Offer 'flag as inappropriate' buttons. Furthermore, you don't have to allow posts on all articles or topics. That will reduce the overhead.

Facebook is no more authentic than any other online identity. Only an idiot or a fool would catalog their entire life, philosophy, political, religious, or social interests on a personally identifiable, insecure internet webpage which can be scrutinized by the universe.

[Joe Daquino]

How can I prevent the LA Times from accessing my Facebook account information? I don't even want to see my Facebook profile picture in a comment window. Really, if you think that this is going to help people engage in civil discourse you're fools. The racists and kooks will still be out there. We just won't be as aware of them. And by the way, this is all marketing driven and has nothing to do with raising the level of discourse.

[wakeup33]

Politicians and the media (including you, LA Times) are crippled by political correctness. Forced not to offend anyone, blandness, irrelevance and outright lying result. Not saying Nidal Hasan yelled "Allahu akbar" when he murdered 13 people at Fort Hood was a serious, deliberate lie of omission. Many people knew Hasan was a dangerous jihadi before the shooting, yet politicians and the press hid this. Only specialized blogs printed the truth. And as so often happens, those blogs -- performing the essential task of telling an unpopular truth -- were called racist bigots.

The world today is threatened by religious extremists. It's essential that religion be criticized, despite who this offends. Anonymity for blog comments is necessary because religious extremists are the most dangerous people in the world.