With today's latest POTUS outrage ( in Helsinki ) will comments containing nouns such as 'moron' and 'imbecile' render the comment barred from posting ? After today there is no other way to describe POTUS, besides traitor.
1
Testing 1,2,3..testing 1,2,3
This is the Voice of Doom.
This is the Voice of Doom.
10
Patent nonsense. So many of my comments never make it through. No abusive language, no vitriol.
Like my latest on an Op-Ed article from October 31, 2018.
The authors were labelled as two misters and one Ms.
I googled their names and found all have PhDs and asked why they weren't given the respect their titles deserve by being acknowledged as Doctors.
Many grossly inaccurate comments are allowed through, almost like the NYT allows a forum of Fox commentators in on the party.
Your comment section is far better than most, but has a long long way to go.
37
Great article and use of technology - thank you!
2
Although some of my comments have gotten hundreds (and occasionally thousands) of approving "likes" from readers, none of my comments have been posted in the past three days. Hmm..
http://appletechsupportnumber.net/
http://appletechsupportnumber.net/
5
If The Times is going down this route, it would be helpful to have an option to report two kinds of comments: #1-comments from trolls. #2- comments that debase debate (ie, comments from the ill-informed and illiterate). I fear the comments section (which I adore, and find much thoughtful analysis in--often more than the articles) will devolve into a lowbrow free-for-all ala WaPo. Please don't let this happen.
12
Really? Who is to judge whether a poster is "ill informed and illiterate"? Would that be, perhaps, anyone who posts an option or observation you don't like?
If we were all able to kill posts we don't like, there would be naught but a handful of comments on any given thread.
What we need is a flag for rudeness and incivility. The "personal attack" and "inflammatory" boxes don't cover it.
If we were all able to kill posts we don't like, there would be naught but a handful of comments on any given thread.
What we need is a flag for rudeness and incivility. The "personal attack" and "inflammatory" boxes don't cover it.
8
"Ill informed" indicates to me that we do not read commenters endlessly arguing with one another as in The Guardian.
6
I hope it works. The Times comment section was one of the few publications that the conversation was at least close to civil. Ad hominem attacks were few and when they did occur, they tended to rise above the the few standard insults.
So good luck, public discourse is too important to be killed off by robotic trolls.
So good luck, public discourse is too important to be killed off by robotic trolls.
176
Thanks for reading... We are keeping a wary eye out for robots. Be sure to flag their comments if they invade our space.
14
thanks for explaining this!
5
hope we can still comment in here.. it bring healthy exchange of ideas from 2 different minds between all.. keep up the good work for this venue.
1
I’m seeing a lot of comments here from readers who, like I am, are completely mystified about why some of my comments not published. Now that I have learned that robots are doing the job, I am less puzzled but more indignant.
New York Times comments are the gold standard, which is why I, and I expect most commenters, spend a lot of time composing opinions that I’m pretty sure meet the guidelines of the Times. I take care not to make them unduly angry or inflammatory, for example, even when I feel angry and inflammatory.
One recent comment of mine that wasn’t published criticized the Times. It never occurred to me that you might think criticism of your newspaper—for which I pay, by the way—was inflammatory. But maybe the robot is more easily offended?
I would far rather publish a comment in the NY Times than in any other online publication. So I implore you to do some tweaking of your robots to be sure they are not overstepping their role in the approval process.
33
This system lacks transparency. My comments were regularly approved, but no more. I'll bet many of us spend much time writing a thoughtful comment or reply, we're seeking to help inform the discussion.
If one's comment is inflammatory or insubstantial (I believe neither would apply to my comments), then for Transparency's sake, let us know.
Without that, you really don't have feedback on the the False Positives and, thus, your Machine Learning algorithms are being poorly trained, which result in bias.
30
I’m not too sure how well this is working since I’ve noticed that a number of my comments, innocuous and on topic, don’t get published.
26
In reading the moderation guidelines and recollecting past posts that were apparently rejected, I'm left puzzled as to why.
Perhaps the comments were too provocative?
Are comparisons to Hitler and Fascism disqualifiers?
Did German newspapers begin 'moderating' the indignation of its readers?
To be clear, I'm not a provocateur, but a very concerned citizen.
At your next staff meeting, please discuss how commentary on the destruction of democracy might warrant separate moderation criteria from 'arctic drilling'.
19
For those comments recommended for rejection by the Moderator, (a) does a human review that decision, and (b) is the individual advised as to why the post was rejected?
15
Ironic that the Times has an effective comment space using Alphabet technology while Alphabet subsidiary YouTube's comments about women scientists were disparaging enough to rate an article.
Machine learning is not my area of expertise, but I'm pleased to see its application fruitfully enabling a comment system worthy of the Times.
I am confident that Alphabet and the Times will continue to find solutions even as new challenges like state disinformation campaigns are revealed.
3
Good article. Good read.
Thank you for review the "catch and release" phrase. It has been making me uneasy since I like to think of us all as members of the human family -- with no one being thought of or spoken of as an object of sport.
1
Not sure why, but this paper has stopped approving any of my comments. It appears that, automated or otherwise, if the comment expresses an opinion that is contrary to that held dear by the editorial staff, it disappears into the ether. Support for Bernie Sanders, disagreement with criticism of Trump, asserting that media is controlled, to a large respect by corporate owners...etc, appear to warrant censorship form the comments nowadays.
18
Why isn't https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/bernie-sanders-midterm-el...
open for comments?
and why is the Times not covering the Poor Peoples Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival?
2
Quite reassuring to see that the Times has partially delegated censorship of readers comments to a Google-related team.
Wouldn't it be more honest if you could at least update your FAQ page about comments to mention this collaboration?
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comments
I would love to see evidences that there is nothing in the Moderator software that discriminate (e.g. delayed processing or lower rating) in any way against comments which are unfavourable to Google or Alphabet's views and how the New York Times does verify that impartiality beyond the odd spot checks.
6
In the 21st century, technology is playing a huge role in almost every aspect of life. Using technology to allow more comments on news articles and opinions is a great step in the digital media business industry.
This technology allows us, the readers, to state our opinions, agreeing, disagreeing, or offering an alternative perspective to the article published by the publisher for a longer period of time.
Moderator, the technology is a positive step for both the readers and the workers reading and approving the comments. As the reader, the comment sections are open for a longer time which allows them to do more research and obtain a better understanding of the article before making the comment. In the other hand, the workers, who approve the comment, do not have to worry about inappropriate comments as the technology does most of the work of differentiating the comments. This technology allows the reader to only have to read around fifteen to twenty percent of the comments unlike having to read every single comment before having the technology.
Overall, this technology is an excellent addition to the entire digital media industry. This will allow the readers to have more say in articles, whether to criticize or to agree. The technology also eases the process for the workers to approve great numbers of comments.
2
Comments are cool. Are we able to delete a comment after it has been published to the article? Just curious how you are running this. Thanks.
Are comment sections being removed or moderated to prevent reader's / public's ability to identify and challenge propaganda
5
Thank you for the Times for this. Great achievement and going forward.
Excellent. Beyond excellent! This is a wonderful advancement in the quest, globally, for the functionality of conversations that matter. Bravo!
1
I checked 10 articles this morning - none of them allowed commenting. Even, ironically, an article on Twitter and the First Amendment. I’m confused and concerned that NYT has most of its articles closed for comment.
7
I wished to comment on a new article this afternoon about Senator Cruz referencing the Zodiac killer but there was no means of commenting. I love your standards for moderating comments, but it sometimes seems random which articles can be commented on and which cannot.
4
Mr. Etim, nothing has changed. Your comments section remains a forum for verified commenters. They talk back and forth to one another. On the weekends, it's much worse. The same people top the lists every day. It's as though no one without the white checkmark in the green box has anything to say. The so-called algorithms which is supposed to determine the quality and volume of a particular commenter (personality and style) is essentially a filter for removing their contributions from the section. It's almost as though your desk fears to ruffle the feathers of the chosen; it's a closed system and you are intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. It's also random. I have submitted comments at 2:37 a.m. CST and they have not found the light of day until as much as 12 hours later--and this is during the week. Meanwhile, folks whose posts have gone in hours after mine are there, rising on the charts. One wonders why. I think the Times has lost control of this dynamic and is far less interested in variety and diversity and engaging fellowship than it is in maintaining a members' only club. If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear from you.
15
This raises the question: what are the Times criteria for rejecting comments? Under this new regime, I'm finding comments taking longer to post and sometimes not at all, which didn't happen previously when I wrote them. Of the ones that haven't been posted at all recently, none violated norms of decency or civility. I took the time and effort to carefully render them before submitting them.
15
nice articel i like youy article they are so informative and authentic one thanxs for shareing this article.
yes. very informative yes.
Mr. Etim,
I am very disappointed in the New York Times. Today at around 8:00 AM I posted a comment entitled "Are we down to President Pence" by Gail Collins. It was approved and printed at about 8:10 AM. Much to my delight, it was made a New York Times pick a while later. When I returned from lunch at about 1:00 PM, I noticed the Times pick had been removed. I am very upset about this and I have been a print subscriber for years and my father before me. This is not a nice thing to do to a loyal NYT reader. Once a comment has been chosen, it should not be removed and if made a NYTimes pick, it should definitely remain. This is not the first time this has occurred but I hope it is the last. You should reinstate my NYTimes pick status as it was a very good comment. I hope you will reconsider. Thank you.
WMK
6
I'm sure this comment will be rejected, but your crazy uncle probably created this wonderful country you live in by putting his life on the line in WW II, Korea or Vietnam. The fact that readers love the new comment section should frighten the daylights out of anyone who values free and open debate given how closed minded the average times reader is. I'm a moderate, but the reason Trump is president is restrictions on speech and the sooner liberals figure this out, the sooner they'll have a chance in elections.
6
sounds good, It must encourage the writers to see real comments from the readers.
Clear, responsible — thank you & good luck.
Mr. Erik,
I had my comments posted and then deleted to the article by Lindy West about Ivanka Trump this past Wednesday. One of the comments had been chosen as a New York Times pick. I was very upset and think it is unjust and unfair. I would like to have an explanation to the cause of these deletions. I have been a New York Times subscriber for years. This is no way to treat a faithful reader of this paper. I would please like a reply to this question. Thank you in advance.
I had my comments posted and then deleted to the article by Lindy West about Ivanka Trump this past Wednesday. One of the comments had been chosen as a New York Times pick. I was very upset and think it is unjust and unfair. I would like to have an explanation to the cause of these deletions. I have been a New York Times subscriber for years. This is no way to treat a faithful reader of this paper. I would please like a reply to this question. Thank you in advance.
6
Is there a way to see one's own rejected comments?
8
Dear Mr. Etim:The following appeared in today's comment for the article, "When Jack Daniels Failed to Honor a Slave"
Tournachonadar Illiana 6 hours ago
"Another tiresome attempt to extort money and guilt from white people, who are incidentally present in the author's lineage by her very appearance. Political correctness almost forbids my mentioning that I speak French because my own ancestors came from Saint-Domingue now known as Haiti, so like all humans I share DNA from the most far-flung and improbable origins, starting with the continent of Africa. No, I won't liquidate my trust fund and throw her or any other person of color the proceeds in exchange for the dubious privilege of eating crow and wearing sackcloth behind her carriage."
Is this the quality of comment we can expect from the new Google-Fused Moderating System? The NYT moderating system also has gone through several iterations. Briefly- a couple years ago, rather than having to sift through one's email, our Account was regularly updated with notifications of published comments; that disappeared almost as rapidly as it was instituted. Sad to say, NYT-- your flirtation with Quantity over Quality is showing Cracks in the system at this early juncture..
Tournachonadar Illiana 6 hours ago
"Another tiresome attempt to extort money and guilt from white people, who are incidentally present in the author's lineage by her very appearance. Political correctness almost forbids my mentioning that I speak French because my own ancestors came from Saint-Domingue now known as Haiti, so like all humans I share DNA from the most far-flung and improbable origins, starting with the continent of Africa. No, I won't liquidate my trust fund and throw her or any other person of color the proceeds in exchange for the dubious privilege of eating crow and wearing sackcloth behind her carriage."
Is this the quality of comment we can expect from the new Google-Fused Moderating System? The NYT moderating system also has gone through several iterations. Briefly- a couple years ago, rather than having to sift through one's email, our Account was regularly updated with notifications of published comments; that disappeared almost as rapidly as it was instituted. Sad to say, NYT-- your flirtation with Quantity over Quality is showing Cracks in the system at this early juncture..
2
Seems like a very sophisticated, if a bit sarcastic, comment to me but, of course, your real objection is its content. You censor these at your own risk. Ie, the risk of a Trump presidency. Stop fearing disagreement.
6
Hah! A brilliant response to this move to AI based moderation from NYT. Let's hack the heck out of this system. If the smart, funny, sophisticated NYT readers can't do their bit to prevent or at least delay the eventual takeover by the faceless soulless AI overlords, I will give up all hope!!
2
@Candlewick I receive notifications. Check the e mail you gave them, and be sure to check that you want to be notified.
1
Why does it matter what people vent about in the comments section? Just place a filter to stop vulgarity before the comment is submitted and let commenters vent.
8
Is there a way to see one's own rejected comments? Every once in a while, I cannot find a comment, but I believe that I follow the rules and voice my opinion in a courteous manner. I would like to be able to view and understand rejects.
11
(just another user here) Doesn't seem to be -- I've started copying mine to notes before I submit -- because also sometimes clicking the "Submit" button doesn't appear to do anything....
6
I accuse NYT of intentionally rejecting comments and subjecting others to long, long approval delays for reasons of political bias. NYT suppresses criticism of Establishment Democrats' sacrosanct causes.
I first encountered this problem over a decade ago. I submitted a number of civil and sane comments critical of globalization. My arguments were purely economic, not nationalistic, not xenophobic, not racist. I rarely got a comment of this sort approved by NYT. Back then, globalization was the irreproachable economic miracle that almost all economists agreed would guarantee worldwide prosperity and create millions of American jobs. It still is a sacred lamb of the Establishment left.
Today, though, NYT will actually approve a civil comment criticizing globalization.
But what about a civil comment expressing the opinion that laws against fraud of the massive kind on Wall Street that brought us the 2008 financial crisis be enforced, including the prosecution of Obama and his administration's officials who willfully let their financial backers off the hook? Or an opinion that Bush2/Obama/Trump should be brought to account for willfully failing to prosecute violations of antitrust law against Silicon Valley darlings like Google?
Aha. Now we're treading on today's taboo ground.
I have such a comment awaiting approval. I maintain that NYT's long, long delay in approving it is motivated by political axe-grinding: it's a policy of delay and thereby render invisible. Ethical?
I first encountered this problem over a decade ago. I submitted a number of civil and sane comments critical of globalization. My arguments were purely economic, not nationalistic, not xenophobic, not racist. I rarely got a comment of this sort approved by NYT. Back then, globalization was the irreproachable economic miracle that almost all economists agreed would guarantee worldwide prosperity and create millions of American jobs. It still is a sacred lamb of the Establishment left.
Today, though, NYT will actually approve a civil comment criticizing globalization.
But what about a civil comment expressing the opinion that laws against fraud of the massive kind on Wall Street that brought us the 2008 financial crisis be enforced, including the prosecution of Obama and his administration's officials who willfully let their financial backers off the hook? Or an opinion that Bush2/Obama/Trump should be brought to account for willfully failing to prosecute violations of antitrust law against Silicon Valley darlings like Google?
Aha. Now we're treading on today's taboo ground.
I have such a comment awaiting approval. I maintain that NYT's long, long delay in approving it is motivated by political axe-grinding: it's a policy of delay and thereby render invisible. Ethical?
9
It is amazing to see how far technology has grown! Years ago, machine learning wasn't a field that many chose to go into. Nowadays, we hear all about machine learning, ranging from self walking robots to this system implemented for New York Times. It is fascinating to learn about how this system works and to see what variables are taken into account before the system makes its decision. Although it is sad to see that people are abusing this privilege of commenting by writing inappropriate content, it is amazing to see how far technology has developed to allow for attentive readers to contribute to this vast community!
If this exists, I can't fine it. It would be nice if there were a place to view my past comments and view the replies to them, if any.
5
If this technology proves good, perhaps it could be applied to political ads. Publishers could raise the rate on ads with a high offensive score, and if the score were published, we could press the mute button before the screeching starts.
2
These are the sorts of comments that ought to be removed. This commenter uses personal attacks, makes unfounded assumptions about others and yet continues to be allowed to post. Concerned Citizen has insulted others, made inflammatory remarks on line, etc. Yet this person is allowed to continue these sorts of attacks on others. Why?
Concerned Citizen Anywheresville 1 day ago
@hen3ry: you've had job woes for YEARS now. Tell me how Obama put food on your table...how he helped you get medical care....how he helped you not age, and of course, passed strong laws against age discrimination (NOT!).
Trump has done nothing bad to you. You are blaming him for your job woes, but they existed LONG before the election and Hillary had no intention of helping you either.
Flag
Concerned Citizen Anywheresville 1 day ago
@hen3ry: you've had job woes for YEARS now. Tell me how Obama put food on your table...how he helped you get medical care....how he helped you not age, and of course, passed strong laws against age discrimination (NOT!).
Trump has done nothing bad to you. You are blaming him for your job woes, but they existed LONG before the election and Hillary had no intention of helping you either.
Flag
4
What was wrong with that comment? Because he obviously wasn't impressed with Obama's presidency? I voted for Obama and neither was I impressed with his presidency. And I do think trump is doing a good job so far. Do you want to exist in a liberal echo chamber where only your opinions and opinions like yours get approved. Sounds like a nightmare to me.
5
I think it's a great idea. First I am astounded that the comments are actually read by a person. Hard to believe. I would like to comment on more articles and that should seem to be possible now. Second, I am amazed at how few comments are actually posted. I mean, the NYT must have at least 2,000,000 readers a day, but just a few thousand comments.And they are quite interesting. Go for it!
2
How can this help if you don't why your comment wasn't posted? Are you expected to learn by trial and error?
7
It will be interesting to see how freedom of speech is affected by this technology. Within the arena of a privately owned website such as NYT, users could voluntarily agree to forego some of their rights of expression through a terms of service agreement (however, I was not prompted to agree to any such contract when using the Facebook API to login and make this comment). I say this as a cautionary signal, but I'm certainly on the side of creating more civil and constructive dialogue: both online and off. We definitely need to protect each other from verbal abuse. We also need to make sure we don't do it at the expense of our larger liberties. Thus, delivery of this technology is paramount... the machine learning algorithm could be the best performant model of "good" behavior, but readers should still be given the choice of what they read instead of an algorithm (privately owned corporation) choosing what they do and do not see.
2
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this new process instituted by the Times. Freedom of speech resides in our personal and public lives, and there are often consequences when we exercise it. The First Amendment protects both the right and the possibility of consequences by restricting only the government's right to limit what we say or how we say it. The Times, like any other non-government entity, is perfectly free to restrict, censor, delete, and otherwise control what it is willing to have appear on its own website. Period.
How "freedom of speech is affected by this technology" is nothing but a chimera. Living in a world of "should" may feel good to you, but it's both irrelevant and unrealistic. I say this as an editor of a monthly newspaper that also makes the determination every month as to what will appear in its pages, and as the owner of a publishing imprint who decides what books we will publish. Maybe you think you "should" be able to determine what I publish as well?
How "freedom of speech is affected by this technology" is nothing but a chimera. Living in a world of "should" may feel good to you, but it's both irrelevant and unrealistic. I say this as an editor of a monthly newspaper that also makes the determination every month as to what will appear in its pages, and as the owner of a publishing imprint who decides what books we will publish. Maybe you think you "should" be able to determine what I publish as well?
2
I haven't noticed. There are still many very controversial articles which do not allow comments. For example, I wanted to suggest that Lux Alptraum's article on the sex industry lacked any references to any scientific studies to support his very controversial claims. I'm as subscriber of two decades, and it's my wife's home town paper, but we're increasingly frustrated by the NYT.
6
Having just helped an author write an OpEd, I know The Times often has stringent word count limits. Wouldn't be surprised if references/footnotes/more complex data didn't make it in for that reason — but The Times are generous in noting an author's name, latest book & other ways to find more about their work. Cheers :)
I'd like to know about what might be most nicely described as the "idiosyncratic" technology of the comments sections. The Read More button routinely stops working at a certain point, leaving sometimes hundreds--thousands?--of comments in the middle and no way to read them. Instead, the reader must read the small group at the end, the small group at the beginning, and ignore everything in the middle.
If the Read More doesn't stop working, it decides to "dole out" comments--you have to click Read More again and again to read one or two comments with each click.
Of there is the "fake" Read More button--you click it, and it appears to take you further, but in fact you never get beyond a certain comment.
That combines with the seemly random choice of comments that often show up on my smartphone--sometimes a random mix by time, sometimes only Readers Picks show up, etc.
What is the massive challenge to this technology that seems to defy any fix?
If the Read More doesn't stop working, it decides to "dole out" comments--you have to click Read More again and again to read one or two comments with each click.
Of there is the "fake" Read More button--you click it, and it appears to take you further, but in fact you never get beyond a certain comment.
That combines with the seemly random choice of comments that often show up on my smartphone--sometimes a random mix by time, sometimes only Readers Picks show up, etc.
What is the massive challenge to this technology that seems to defy any fix?
10
I am delighted that the Times continues to make a space for reasonable commentary and debate amongst its readers. The contrast between the Times' readers' comments and the comments found on the other new sites I read is a tribute to skilful and diligent moderation; as a host and moderator on a non-news web site I have a small idea of what must be involved for the human moderators. Congratulations and best wishes on the technology that may allow the communication to expand without loss of quality.
8
Funny how when I point out the glacial pace of moderation on an article putatively about improving the moderation system, suddenly three of my replies to other comments are released from captuvity. On the other hand, my original comments still remain in limbo, awaiting a bail hearing. One of them was a citation of one of the Public Editor articles from January, 2014, about complaints about the Times' digital redesign. The comments on the article, over 1000 of them, include several that constitute detailed bug reports that remain unaddressed almost 30 months later. The text also indicates promises of improvement and fixes, fixes we still patiently await.
And whatever happened to increasing the roster of verifieds?
And whatever happened to increasing the roster of verifieds?
8
Yes, and comments are disappearing after they are posted and for no reason. Links you send us aren't working. Please explain why what you are doing now is better than using humans. Oh, and you are as unresponsive as ever to removing comments that are personal attacks, irrelevant, or inflammatory.
11
@Etim Bassey: I have a few questions, having now been on your new system for a week. The first is pretty important: are you still using human moderators to adjudicate issues such as "NYT picks"? It's clear you needed something to to speed up your process, but if the comments section is going to be totally data and formula-based, I think it's going to lose an awful lot of its character.
For those of us who have been commenting for a long time, it's nice to have an influx of new commenters, but when the influx becomes a tidal wave, it's becoming harder and harder to stand out. It appears that for highly intriguing content, the rush of comments, now freed up by computer adjudicators, is getting harder to turn selective. I mean, when there are only a few comments, people can sort through them, but when an article has posted for 10 minutes and already has 200 comments, it's almost as if we readers have to be the arbiter of content quality.
Have you considered what it means to lose loyal commenters? I have a texting relationship with a fellow thinker a few states away who told me this AM that his comment on the David Brooks article never got published. Which is too bad: the man is a former reporter who comments infrequently but always has great things to say.
I'll be interested in your replies as well as the implications of this new vision which seems to place value on quantity over quality.
For those of us who have been commenting for a long time, it's nice to have an influx of new commenters, but when the influx becomes a tidal wave, it's becoming harder and harder to stand out. It appears that for highly intriguing content, the rush of comments, now freed up by computer adjudicators, is getting harder to turn selective. I mean, when there are only a few comments, people can sort through them, but when an article has posted for 10 minutes and already has 200 comments, it's almost as if we readers have to be the arbiter of content quality.
Have you considered what it means to lose loyal commenters? I have a texting relationship with a fellow thinker a few states away who told me this AM that his comment on the David Brooks article never got published. Which is too bad: the man is a former reporter who comments infrequently but always has great things to say.
I'll be interested in your replies as well as the implications of this new vision which seems to place value on quantity over quality.
13
I'm interested/concerned about these same issues. I've truly cherished this moderated comment section, and the community of thoughtful engagement that has flourished here over the years. I enjoy discussing the news of the day with people who actually want to converse and exchange ideas, and virtually every other publication has been overrun with trolls or simply silenced their readers. But it's not just about moderation - time and again, I've seen the "NYT picks" feature ensure that important perspectives aren't lost in an echo chamber.
That being said, the discussions are getting scarce, and these days I often find an article I want to respond to has already been closed for discussion - sometimes just four hours after it was posted! What is the sense in that? It's also bizarre that we're in 2017, and still the New York Times doesn't have the bog standard feature of allowing its readers to easily view their comment history. I've had several of mine get selected as NYT picks, or receive a surge of support from other readers, and only discovered that weeks later when idly clearing out my inbox and following an old confirmation link. That's absurd and needs to be addressed.
That being said, the discussions are getting scarce, and these days I often find an article I want to respond to has already been closed for discussion - sometimes just four hours after it was posted! What is the sense in that? It's also bizarre that we're in 2017, and still the New York Times doesn't have the bog standard feature of allowing its readers to easily view their comment history. I've had several of mine get selected as NYT picks, or receive a surge of support from other readers, and only discovered that weeks later when idly clearing out my inbox and following an old confirmation link. That's absurd and needs to be addressed.
3
Interesting, and thanks for sharing how the Times will use the latest technology for reader comments.
4
This is really fascinating although I do not purport to understand the science behind the new instrument.
What I have noticed since starting to comment in 2012, is the dramatic increase in quantity, and yes, in quality of comments since the 2016 campaign into today. To be sure, there is plenty of pushback to the normally liberal majority who comment here.
But even that is useful. I do learn an awful lot from other readers, so much so that nobody can automatically assume NYT readers exist in an echo chamber.
What I have noticed since starting to comment in 2012, is the dramatic increase in quantity, and yes, in quality of comments since the 2016 campaign into today. To be sure, there is plenty of pushback to the normally liberal majority who comment here.
But even that is useful. I do learn an awful lot from other readers, so much so that nobody can automatically assume NYT readers exist in an echo chamber.
14
agreed! need quality instead of quantity.
1
I submitted several neutral comments this morning in regards to the shooting in Alexandria and not one was published. What's up with that? Already blacklisted by an algorithm?
9
Notice that this does not indicate whether or how this will integrate with the Reader Center that is replacing the Public Editor. And RE: the Reader Center, I wrote to the general letters address and got a brief reply from Hannah Ingber that says:
"The Reader Center is an initiative; it doesn't have a place on the website."
I guess that means the Reader Center is unformed at this time.
"The Reader Center is an initiative; it doesn't have a place on the website."
I guess that means the Reader Center is unformed at this time.
6
Although some of my comments have gotten hundreds (and occasionally thousands) of approving "likes" from readers, none of my comments have been posted in the past three days. Hmm..
www.newyorkgritty.net
www.newyorkgritty.net
6
To Bassey Etim….the main problem for readers is the time the op ed page columns go up---after 330 a.m. They used to appear at about 1030 pm the evening before. That was a good time for most people to read and write while wide awake.
I know this is the decision of the op ed page editor, but do you think it could ever be changed back?
People who are not night owls or who have to go to jobs in the morning cannot get their comments in at a convenient time. That’s the worst problem about comments.
And what kind of shifts do your moderators work with this schedule?
I know this is the decision of the op ed page editor, but do you think it could ever be changed back?
People who are not night owls or who have to go to jobs in the morning cannot get their comments in at a convenient time. That’s the worst problem about comments.
And what kind of shifts do your moderators work with this schedule?
10
BASSEY: Today (6/14) your comments system has just emailed me TWO notifications - one link led me to a blank box, and one led me to someone ELSE'S comment. Somebody at the Times really, really needs to start paying attention.
5
Consider this: compliments of the Times, Google now gets to aggregate all you say, and then sell the info to the highest bidder. whether a company trying to sell you something, an angry ex-spouse, someone who hates what you stand for, a hacker trying to figure out the best way to get you to open a link in a deceptively appealing e-mail or Facebook post, or any of a thousand other possibilities you could do without.
11
Would Kaggle let you set up a competition for filtering comments for interestingness?
1
Despite the nay-sayers and the cautious cautioners, I am willing to submit to the judgements of an AI machine based on a data base of 16 million. As for the occasional comment of mine that has not made it into print, the world has gone on.
6
This seems like a great step forward, but the 8 hour limit seems a concern. This article is dated yesterday now, but it is letting me type this in -- will it be ignored?
And that seems very very unfair to those of us who read articles in print (a habit it would seem you would value), often a day after they go online. How will that be addressed?
And that seems very very unfair to those of us who read articles in print (a habit it would seem you would value), often a day after they go online. How will that be addressed?
5
8 hour limit EST...what about us on other coast?
5
The quantity of comments on this article which appear to demonstrate reading without comprehension is striking.
3
Could someone explain why the thumbs-up icon is sometimes a clear outline, and sometimes filled in and blue?
I have literally asked this about five times.
I have literally asked this about five times.
3
I liked having a real NYT editor (person not algorithm) select certain comments as NYT's picks. This gave me a reasonable place to start reading when the number of comments was very long and my time to read was short. Comments under this new system will certainly become more numerous but will the designation "NYT Picks" be eliminated?
6
Given the following key fragment from Hamlet, "To be or not to be," computer software dispenses with the entire phrase because it is full of so-called "junk words."
4
My recent experience is that the Times has reduced almost to elimination my viewing of any comments. Even when I click on a hot link that reads "comments", it will take me to no comments.
In the past, a comment published would result in a Times email to a commenter with a hot link to the comment. That stopped weeks ago. Now ... nothing.
In the past, a comment published would result in a Times email to a commenter with a hot link to the comment. That stopped weeks ago. Now ... nothing.
7
The links are still sent, albeit not always in working order (I have gotten that link to nothing, too). If you don't get a link, your comment was not accepted.
2
Passion, not necessarily. I have stumbled upon comments I made that did get posted, but for which no confirmation e-mail was ever sent.
Still a few thousand bugs in the system, now about four years old.
Still a few thousand bugs in the system, now about four years old.
4
This may be all well and good, and I don't pretend to understand the technology behind it. But in my opinion, conspicuously absent from the explanation of this new manner of presenting Readers' Comments, is any mention of what I have always believed odd and strange about how the NYT and many other publications present Readers' Comments. That is, they're mostly anonymous! Readers' Comments rarely contain the full name of the writer (assuming, of course, that when a purported full first and last name do appear, it's the real name of the writer). I never understood how the NYT can spend so much money on reporters, editors, fact checkers, etc., and claim (with justification) to produce quality journalism, and then open it's platform up to every Tom, Dick and Harry without requiring that person to take responsibility for their comments by at least giving their full name. I'm well aware of the history and value of anonymous protest. Indeed, anonymous leaks to newspapers! But come-on, where talking about Readers Comments here, not matters of state secrets or life and death. Would the NYT ever publish an anonymous Letter to the Editor or full blown Op-Ed? Doubtful. But what's the difference between that and a Readers' Comment? Personally, I'd like to know who says what and who I'm reading. It would seem also that given the technology that is now available, it would not be difficult for verify that the name given by the Commenter is his or her real name.
3
The inner circle green check system allows the green check people to dominate, get their posts in while everyone else has to wait, sometimes all day, or not get in at all. I don't know if this is because the moderators are just not there for hours. Though the green people are often good, not always, so are some of the others that may pop up anyway on "reader's pick". I have evolved to reading the "all" for the latest and fresh voices. The green system perhaps could be improved by making the green check time limited.. months? But basically it's not fair. If you have a favorite commenter, you should be able to search for him/her (or yourself).
As well I like the system on WAPO where one can edit one's comment for a short period of time.
As well I like the system on WAPO where one can edit one's comment for a short period of time.
12
What a mixed blessing. News becomes entertainment. Please stop the Green Check comments. That designation is insulating to the rest of us ; the 95%
10
I love the thinking commenters in this site. One positive change would be (hopefully) to allow comments from the western US to actually be seen (we're 3 hours behind :) I hope these changes lead to more diverse views being heard.
7
1) Provide readers with an updated list of articles currently open for comment as well as remaining time to comment on each. Doing so will will end many readers' greatest frustration with current NYT commenting policy.
2) Respond to subscribers' suggestions for improving NYT commenting policy.
2) Respond to subscribers' suggestions for improving NYT commenting policy.
8
The real risk, and it is a serious one, in this new machine reading system is that it will ruin the value of the Times comment sections. There could be so many comments that no one is able to find much of any value. With the posting time extended, later comments can come in, but few are likely to be read. There is a value in the old way of making it sort of competitive to get comments in on time so that they are posted for the maximum exposure. Of course, the green checkmark of verified commenters means that all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
There should be better guidelines posted as to how one "earns" the checkmark. How many comments? What percentage need to be posted to represent a slow climb toward that status? What degree of value perceived in the comments needs to be represented to get the mark? (Of course, if it is truly mathematical, this can't be measured. Value would have to be assigned by human judgement.)
What I foresee happening is a cheapening of the comment section as vastly more comments are added to the stream. This might aide the financial objectives of the Times, but anything that lessens the value to the reader ultimately will take away from that value as well. More could, indeed, mean less.
There should be better guidelines posted as to how one "earns" the checkmark. How many comments? What percentage need to be posted to represent a slow climb toward that status? What degree of value perceived in the comments needs to be represented to get the mark? (Of course, if it is truly mathematical, this can't be measured. Value would have to be assigned by human judgement.)
What I foresee happening is a cheapening of the comment section as vastly more comments are added to the stream. This might aide the financial objectives of the Times, but anything that lessens the value to the reader ultimately will take away from that value as well. More could, indeed, mean less.
11
There are guidelines. Click on anyone of the checkmarks and I believe you will be taken to the link where the requirements are listed.
The reason I read this comment, Doug, is because I often go to "all" first to read the latest comments.
2
hen3ry:
What a self-serving comment. The criteria for selecting Verified Commenters are extremely vague and subjective. The only constant is the people chosen never criticize the NYT.
What a self-serving comment. The criteria for selecting Verified Commenters are extremely vague and subjective. The only constant is the people chosen never criticize the NYT.
3
Will comments be searchable? Say I want to look up a user and see all the comments they've made over the past week and on which stories? Or say I want to look up my own old comment and see if it got any recommends (sad, I know)?
9
hoipolloi:
It would help if they were searchable. Many times I've received an emailed link to a comment I made that didn't take me to my comment. If there are hundreds of comments I often can't take the time to search for it manually, especially given the slow loading method of the comment sections in the NYT.
Again, I'm not overly thrilled by the announcement of this new system. It sounds as if it will incorporate the previous mistakes of the comment editors. I was not at all impressed by quiz and article on how to think like a NYT comments editor that ran a few months ago.
A couple of months ago, in The New York Today comments section a bunch of people who were ignorant about the subject under discussion piled up on me and my responses were not posted. I even wrote the Comment Desk, but nothing was done. I was given a nonsense excuse about the section being closed. It wasn't closed!
I wouldn't worry about being interested in the number of people who recommend your comment. It's human nature. Some of mine have been highly recommended, others virtually ignored. But when an important point of view is missing from the discussion I always post, no matter what.
It would help if they were searchable. Many times I've received an emailed link to a comment I made that didn't take me to my comment. If there are hundreds of comments I often can't take the time to search for it manually, especially given the slow loading method of the comment sections in the NYT.
Again, I'm not overly thrilled by the announcement of this new system. It sounds as if it will incorporate the previous mistakes of the comment editors. I was not at all impressed by quiz and article on how to think like a NYT comments editor that ran a few months ago.
A couple of months ago, in The New York Today comments section a bunch of people who were ignorant about the subject under discussion piled up on me and my responses were not posted. I even wrote the Comment Desk, but nothing was done. I was given a nonsense excuse about the section being closed. It wasn't closed!
I wouldn't worry about being interested in the number of people who recommend your comment. It's human nature. Some of mine have been highly recommended, others virtually ignored. But when an important point of view is missing from the discussion I always post, no matter what.
4
hoipolloi,
Two helpful questions from you. This New York Times reader and commentator on occasion (make that every day), does not have the answer to your first, i.e., revisiting postings by another user. At the moment, coasting along on memory.
When it comes to your second and more important one, you can set up a folder of your comments and check to see if you have been cruelly ignored, or attracted attention, preferably in the positive.
You are not alone. An article about two years ago wrote of the slings and arrows of being made to feel redundant, or how a few hundred nods of approval, can make you fan out your feathers like a Peacock.
Either way, 'filing' your comments for posterity or secrecy, is a fine way to dig up an article in The New York Times about saving tigers, or taking America back from Trump and his administration. for example (the latter which is not going to happen soon, but perhaps in your life time).
Two helpful questions from you. This New York Times reader and commentator on occasion (make that every day), does not have the answer to your first, i.e., revisiting postings by another user. At the moment, coasting along on memory.
When it comes to your second and more important one, you can set up a folder of your comments and check to see if you have been cruelly ignored, or attracted attention, preferably in the positive.
You are not alone. An article about two years ago wrote of the slings and arrows of being made to feel redundant, or how a few hundred nods of approval, can make you fan out your feathers like a Peacock.
Either way, 'filing' your comments for posterity or secrecy, is a fine way to dig up an article in The New York Times about saving tigers, or taking America back from Trump and his administration. for example (the latter which is not going to happen soon, but perhaps in your life time).
4
Interesting! I like the idea. There have been many cases in the past where I wanted to comment on an article but the article was not open to comments. I do have a couple of questions though.
How transparent is this technology? Can the times independently inspect the model and how it processes its inputs? Or does it only have access to the final decisions made by the model?
Would we know who made the decision to approve the comment or otherwise, model or human?
I think this is a great step but also worry about possible censorship issues if the model didn't have oversight.
How transparent is this technology? Can the times independently inspect the model and how it processes its inputs? Or does it only have access to the final decisions made by the model?
Would we know who made the decision to approve the comment or otherwise, model or human?
I think this is a great step but also worry about possible censorship issues if the model didn't have oversight.
1
I absolutely love the comments sections in The Times! Happy you are expanding them. I learn so much by reading them, oftentimes much more than from the article itself.
5
After reading many of the comments here and thinking about my earlier comment in context, I find myself simply concluding that the Times business folks believe that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. Inasmuch as Bassey Etim says the Times intention is to treat comments as content, what you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
I understand the financial challenges the paper faces, so if the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation it should do it. However, at the same time it should separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my many comments moderated and posted by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
I understand the financial challenges the paper faces, so if the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation it should do it. However, at the same time it should separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my many comments moderated and posted by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
7
I have noticed several comments questioning how the verified checkmark is applied to those who comment regularly. The "official position" is that who gets the mark is determined by algorithms. This is obviously an attempt to avoid protests by those who don't get the check and to push away controversy. Yet, there are no numerical or other guidelines offered about how to qualify. 90% posted? 98%? It is like being in a class when there is no way to determine what might be a passing grade. Not good.
When the Times ran a feature on "outstanding commenters" in Nov. of 2015, all of those picked received an email announcing their selection which said that all were being "rewarded" with the verification check mark if they had not gotten it previously. Oops. This indicates that the algorithm is not a holy, independent process but one that can be overridden by humans for or against a given person.
Here is the sentence from the email that was sent to the "outstanding commentators" :
"Please let me know if you have any questions at all. By early next week, we will be granting all of you Verified Commenter status, as well."
Dear Times people, please do the following: 1. Give clear information about how one joins the "inner circle" so that comments are posted more quickly and available to more readers and, 2. occasionally put your hand on the scale, or the algorithm, to "reward" more people who are obviously making a contribution. This would serve your purposes as well.
When the Times ran a feature on "outstanding commenters" in Nov. of 2015, all of those picked received an email announcing their selection which said that all were being "rewarded" with the verification check mark if they had not gotten it previously. Oops. This indicates that the algorithm is not a holy, independent process but one that can be overridden by humans for or against a given person.
Here is the sentence from the email that was sent to the "outstanding commentators" :
"Please let me know if you have any questions at all. By early next week, we will be granting all of you Verified Commenter status, as well."
Dear Times people, please do the following: 1. Give clear information about how one joins the "inner circle" so that comments are posted more quickly and available to more readers and, 2. occasionally put your hand on the scale, or the algorithm, to "reward" more people who are obviously making a contribution. This would serve your purposes as well.
9
As a designer of algorithms, this is a smart use of tech. By the way, I stopped reading the WSJ when trolls dominated the comments on almost every article, no matter how non controversial the story was. Conversely, comments here are interesting and insightful. Please, let's keep it that way.
9
Trolls or just opinions you don't like? In these day and age, offending someone and being labeled a troll is super easy.
1
Welcome to the future. AI will take over far more tasks than robotics in industry.
3
Dear Ms. Saw, here's hoping your algorithm is happily crunching those little ones and zeros like a pit bull eating Cheerios.
Like many of those that strive to put our two cents in I'm often puzzled by what insightful brilliance make the cut and what bit of pithy commentary falls in between the keyboard and the trash can.
Perhaps, Jig, can I call you Jig? A few extra bits of coding could make everyone happy and reduce the number of headaches that Mr. Etim and his crew deal with on a daily basis.
Each comment is displayed on its creator's screen first in bold text with a small smiley face lead in. Then a bunch of random gibberish from other commentators proving the author to be the carrier of the torch of Truth.
Let's face it, we all only comment because we want to see our most excellent ideas in the NYT.
Looking forward to working with you, please don't rush to judgement on my future input, I'm shy two monkeys and a typewriter from creating a masterpiece.
Like many of those that strive to put our two cents in I'm often puzzled by what insightful brilliance make the cut and what bit of pithy commentary falls in between the keyboard and the trash can.
Perhaps, Jig, can I call you Jig? A few extra bits of coding could make everyone happy and reduce the number of headaches that Mr. Etim and his crew deal with on a daily basis.
Each comment is displayed on its creator's screen first in bold text with a small smiley face lead in. Then a bunch of random gibberish from other commentators proving the author to be the carrier of the torch of Truth.
Let's face it, we all only comment because we want to see our most excellent ideas in the NYT.
Looking forward to working with you, please don't rush to judgement on my future input, I'm shy two monkeys and a typewriter from creating a masterpiece.
3
I welcome more comments appearing earlier. I see it as an extension of the green check system, which I have advocated.
What will be lost as the "public aspect" of the green check system? I don't want that to go backward.
What will be lost as the "public aspect" of the green check system? I don't want that to go backward.
Do you have any preferences for how many comments one person posts on a story. On some stories I post many comments, get all worked up. I see some others do too, but not many. Do you have a guideline here?
3
Also, show just the first few lines of comments with the option to drill into the whole comment. I like scanning comments, as I imagine others do as well.
4
Good idea. I would like an "ignore this commenter" option, as well. (Be honest...I bet a lot of people here would like that, too.)
2
Like a few other readers, I'm wary of having Google involved in any part of the NYT, in any form.
I'm already concerned with the fact that both of my children (9 and 12) are not aware that you can actually write a text without Google docs, since they have to do all their homework on the "free" platform provided to their schools by this wonderful company.
I'm already concerned with the fact that both of my children (9 and 12) are not aware that you can actually write a text without Google docs, since they have to do all their homework on the "free" platform provided to their schools by this wonderful company.
11
I think it's a wonderful idea. The more people connect the more they chat with each other, express their opinions, learn new things from each other, the stronger our democracy will be for it. Those who disparage having Google team up with the New York Times have to realize that we are living in the freest time of their lives. How many free societies can you name in the last two or 3000 years. We have seen man-made gods, absolute monarchies one after the other. We have seen dictatorships followed by more dictatorships, we have seen endless conquests and religious wars, nobody is going to convince me that we are going to be controlled by Google. Even if they had total control of search engines. The proliferation of this technology has just begun. No one can actually control it as it becomes easier to produce and duplicate. I am perhaps optimistic and I like it that way. Based on my life experience I can tell with confidence that we are living in a much better world. And I can only imagine it getting better with the normal ups and downs that goes with it.
1
I Love This!
3
What a joke: "It uses machine learning technology to prioritize comments for moderation, and sometimes, approves them automatically. Its judgments are based on more than 16 million moderated Times comments, going back to 2007."
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments, quantity does not indicate quality, and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments, quantity does not indicate quality, and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
8
Great idea.
Sent to Verifedfeedback, no reply to date.
In March of this year the forwarded email was sent to the Times, with no reply. Recently the Paper announced that it would be eliminating the position of Public Editor.....The question still remains with me about the process the Times uses to "qualify" a verified commenter with the algorithm based program. Since subscribing to the paper in December of last year I average about 45 comments a month and 1 in every 15 or so are NYT picks. I can only remember one comment submitted that was not posted.
Another question I have is, why let individuals submit a comment when there is no intention of posting it until hours later. On numerous occasions I comment in the evening only to see it posted the following day. And on some occasions it isn’t posted at all. So I send in the same comment and generally within the hour it’s posted. Granted verified commenters have been screened but why hold up all other commenters because of the time of day.
I bring this all to your attention because the Paper will be relying on these commenters to become not only the critics but in many cases provide excellent commentary that in itself is newsworthy. I know because I read them and many are excellent and tell a great story. You don’t want to lose them. In summary, I am somewhat frustrated about the way comments are handled in a not so timely way in posting. And most important. What does it take to become a “verified commenter”?
In March of this year the forwarded email was sent to the Times, with no reply. Recently the Paper announced that it would be eliminating the position of Public Editor.....The question still remains with me about the process the Times uses to "qualify" a verified commenter with the algorithm based program. Since subscribing to the paper in December of last year I average about 45 comments a month and 1 in every 15 or so are NYT picks. I can only remember one comment submitted that was not posted.
Another question I have is, why let individuals submit a comment when there is no intention of posting it until hours later. On numerous occasions I comment in the evening only to see it posted the following day. And on some occasions it isn’t posted at all. So I send in the same comment and generally within the hour it’s posted. Granted verified commenters have been screened but why hold up all other commenters because of the time of day.
I bring this all to your attention because the Paper will be relying on these commenters to become not only the critics but in many cases provide excellent commentary that in itself is newsworthy. I know because I read them and many are excellent and tell a great story. You don’t want to lose them. In summary, I am somewhat frustrated about the way comments are handled in a not so timely way in posting. And most important. What does it take to become a “verified commenter”?
7
The special green check marked comment designation is like queue jumping and a velvet robe combo. Get rid of them please. The green check marks, not the commenters. Thank you.
15
What this opening up of comments on most articles doesn't note is: Most people who actually have something to say really don't have time to comment on NYT articles. Thus what you get right now, especially in the mornings, is skewed to the older, the retired, the (perhaps?) self-employed. (I'm a millennial who comments here 3-5 times a week, but I usually do so when riding in a car, during an unusually droning conference call where I'm not participating, or on break during the day.)
It would be one thing if you kept comments open on your current 20-40 or so articles a day for 24 hours, but opening most of them is going to be a fiasco. I barely have time to read the actual articles; now I'm supposed to look at the comments for each, too? How are new commenters going to feel when they get 0-2 responses to their comments b/c no one has time to read them?
Opening up comments is going to skew views more, as people who have a lot of time on their hands are going to comment on things they know nothing about. Don't believe me? Check out all of the comments on pop culture news (say, Arts/Style/Sports) especially those appearing on the front page. Those comments often start out with "Well, I've never heard of this person or event... but...I'm going to comment anyway!" Who does that benefit? It's a waste of people's time. Most people don't have that kind of time, so your Recommends are going to be skewed towards the people who can frequently comment which may skew reporters' views.
It would be one thing if you kept comments open on your current 20-40 or so articles a day for 24 hours, but opening most of them is going to be a fiasco. I barely have time to read the actual articles; now I'm supposed to look at the comments for each, too? How are new commenters going to feel when they get 0-2 responses to their comments b/c no one has time to read them?
Opening up comments is going to skew views more, as people who have a lot of time on their hands are going to comment on things they know nothing about. Don't believe me? Check out all of the comments on pop culture news (say, Arts/Style/Sports) especially those appearing on the front page. Those comments often start out with "Well, I've never heard of this person or event... but...I'm going to comment anyway!" Who does that benefit? It's a waste of people's time. Most people don't have that kind of time, so your Recommends are going to be skewed towards the people who can frequently comment which may skew reporters' views.
5
Jeeze, Erika. Are you saying you are one of the rare few who have something important, meaningful and informed to say? Because you are a Millennial? Would you please read through your comment and have a really good think (I know you are terribly busy and really don't have time, but please do try to fit this into your busy, busy life) about how deeply rude it is to everyone else here.
I hate to waste your time, as a boring retired person who clearly has too much time on her hands, but I feel the need to correct you on something. Reporters' views are not "skewed" by commentary. You see, this is something as actually know, as an ex-reporter! Some of the retireees here had careers! And they are still interested in and tuned into the world! I know that's hard to believe, Erika, but it's true. Millennials are not the center of the universe.
I hate to waste your time, as a boring retired person who clearly has too much time on her hands, but I feel the need to correct you on something. Reporters' views are not "skewed" by commentary. You see, this is something as actually know, as an ex-reporter! Some of the retireees here had careers! And they are still interested in and tuned into the world! I know that's hard to believe, Erika, but it's true. Millennials are not the center of the universe.
4
I apologize if I made it seem as if millennials should be the only ones to comment - that's certainly not true. What I object to is exactly what you, Passion for Peaches, pointed out on another comment here:
"You and the Green Check Brigade of Early Posters seem to have an odd sort of contest going on among you -- get in there and post the minute the door opens -- and I don't think this is the place for such self promotion."
That's why I was referring to the mornings in one part of my comment. By the time many people might have time to comment, especially on Opinion columns (say 11:30 ET-4PM ET, which is 1 PT) hundreds of comments have been posted, many of them long back-and-forths among small groups of people in threads. I've seen many of them mention that they are retired.
And my comment about wasting people's time refers to how some commenters choose virtually every topic open every day to comment whether they have anything new to add or not. Thus we see the same people commenting on each of the 7-8 Opinion articles open for comments each day, most every day. While I like reading some of their thoughts, do they really have something thought-provoking to add to *every* topic? I try to pick my topics; something I've researched or know about personally. Some people clog up topics by saying, effectively, "I know nothing about this but here's my opinion anyway." IMO that leaves much less time to read comments from those -older and younger-who actually enrich topic knowledge.
"You and the Green Check Brigade of Early Posters seem to have an odd sort of contest going on among you -- get in there and post the minute the door opens -- and I don't think this is the place for such self promotion."
That's why I was referring to the mornings in one part of my comment. By the time many people might have time to comment, especially on Opinion columns (say 11:30 ET-4PM ET, which is 1 PT) hundreds of comments have been posted, many of them long back-and-forths among small groups of people in threads. I've seen many of them mention that they are retired.
And my comment about wasting people's time refers to how some commenters choose virtually every topic open every day to comment whether they have anything new to add or not. Thus we see the same people commenting on each of the 7-8 Opinion articles open for comments each day, most every day. While I like reading some of their thoughts, do they really have something thought-provoking to add to *every* topic? I try to pick my topics; something I've researched or know about personally. Some people clog up topics by saying, effectively, "I know nothing about this but here's my opinion anyway." IMO that leaves much less time to read comments from those -older and younger-who actually enrich topic knowledge.
4
"...but I feel the need to correct you on something. Reporters' views are not "skewed" by commentary."
I doubt that. It doesn't mean they're not the educated experts with final say, it's means they're curious humans who can absorb feedback and use it if necessary. Call it skewing, influencing, informing, etc. It's occurring, especially with the high level of comments at the NYT.
Note one of Bassey Etim's replies (I appreciate those, by the way!), copied below:
"During our formal morning news meeting, an editor discusses reader comments, and much of the newsroom receives a daily note that includes comments.
Beyond that, walking around the newsroom, you will often see comment panels open on reporters' screens.
Our reporters regularly read comments precisely because they are so high quality -- they know something useful can often be found in our comments sections."
I doubt that. It doesn't mean they're not the educated experts with final say, it's means they're curious humans who can absorb feedback and use it if necessary. Call it skewing, influencing, informing, etc. It's occurring, especially with the high level of comments at the NYT.
Note one of Bassey Etim's replies (I appreciate those, by the way!), copied below:
"During our formal morning news meeting, an editor discusses reader comments, and much of the newsroom receives a daily note that includes comments.
Beyond that, walking around the newsroom, you will often see comment panels open on reporters' screens.
Our reporters regularly read comments precisely because they are so high quality -- they know something useful can often be found in our comments sections."
4
It would be helpful to know if submissions are rejected and a way to address through a moderator. I make a point of being respectful, at all times, but know AI systems need feedback to make more precise decisions. I do know some submissions, at other locations, may be rejected for particular punctuation errors or unresolved links (or the presence of any link). Glad to see the NYT is trying this and hope reader feedback will make it work up to expectations.
11
I agree. There is a learning feedback loop for those who make the effort to comment. A little more feedback could be very helpful to people of good will just trying to follow the rules you have.
9
The comments section is the best place in the world to find out what the people who are thinking are thinking.
11
Semi-automating the moderation will improve some of the problems with the comment section, but it's not a cure-all.
The first thing the NYT should have done to reduce the load on their moderators is to limit the number of comments per article to something reasonable - maybe 500 comments max. Those articles that have 3000 (or even 4000) comments may make NYT editors feel good, but in reality most of those comments are unread by anyone other than the moderator. In fact, because of bugs in the comment section, I have found it impossible to go back thru the "All" section more than about 200 comments deep. (Try it. I'm using the Chrome browser on OSX, if that makes a difference.) And I consider myself a prolific reader of comments, but still, it's rare that I want to read more than 100 comments on a story.
The next improvement needed is to limit each subscriber to one comment per article. This would force commenters to think before publishing, since they would only get one shot at it. I want to read complete, well-reasoned arguments in the comments, not a running back-and-forth discussion between two people, nor the same basic comment posted multiple times as replies to other comments.
Of course the biggest benefit to automation is rapid posting of comments. Waiting 12, 14, even 16 hours for my comments to post has been very dissatisfying.
The first thing the NYT should have done to reduce the load on their moderators is to limit the number of comments per article to something reasonable - maybe 500 comments max. Those articles that have 3000 (or even 4000) comments may make NYT editors feel good, but in reality most of those comments are unread by anyone other than the moderator. In fact, because of bugs in the comment section, I have found it impossible to go back thru the "All" section more than about 200 comments deep. (Try it. I'm using the Chrome browser on OSX, if that makes a difference.) And I consider myself a prolific reader of comments, but still, it's rare that I want to read more than 100 comments on a story.
The next improvement needed is to limit each subscriber to one comment per article. This would force commenters to think before publishing, since they would only get one shot at it. I want to read complete, well-reasoned arguments in the comments, not a running back-and-forth discussion between two people, nor the same basic comment posted multiple times as replies to other comments.
Of course the biggest benefit to automation is rapid posting of comments. Waiting 12, 14, even 16 hours for my comments to post has been very dissatisfying.
9
If you limit comments to one-per person, there would be no opportunity for conversation.
I have the same comment scrolling problem with iOS, on an iPad.
I have the same comment scrolling problem with iOS, on an iPad.
4
Love the NY Times but the comments section has to change. It seems that every article is often being commented on by the favorite posters with the preferred status. People like Socrates are great but when he and select others get the early posts for columns like Maureen Dowd, it really gets old after awhile. Meanwhile other posts appear sometimes days later. At first I did not like the Washington Posts comments board but have come to like those more than the Times.
19
My nephew, the computer guru, assured my family and me that this is the way the world is going now and that the machines will function better than humans because they are consistent, don't get tired or have emotions to mess up decision-making. They are capable of learning, so will get better over time.
It will be interesting to have more comments on the articles and more time to make them. Let's see how it works out. I really appreciate my subscription to the NYTimes.
It will be interesting to have more comments on the articles and more time to make them. Let's see how it works out. I really appreciate my subscription to the NYTimes.
3
Algorithms can incorporate faulty information.
5
Sounds great NYT's!. I look foward each day to reading comments posted by folks all over the human spectrum, and if my writing skills were better, I to would comment more. Yoo-Hoo!, Best of luck with the new system!
1
Will the new comment approval system deal with the mangled syntax and ungrammatical usage so typical of overseas comments?
How will the new system deal with the onslaught of similarly worded comments from multiple accounts that reek of coordination?
I look forward to this new system. I fear that Moscow Central is already hard at work in an effort to defeat it.
How will the new system deal with the onslaught of similarly worded comments from multiple accounts that reek of coordination?
I look forward to this new system. I fear that Moscow Central is already hard at work in an effort to defeat it.
3
The fact you disparage commenter with different view points than you as paid foreign agent is probably one reason why NYTimes want to take the human out of moderating.
3
I, for one, welcome our new computer moderators.
Did that get me the prioritized approval?
The Comments section is an environment where those comments that are posted earliest are those that will be read, and those that take a while to be moderated will be barely noticed by readers, if at all. It would appear that the Jigsaw system is a recipe for bland, vanilla comments to take precedence, while those that may be more perceptive but also critical or outside-the-box are positioned so as to go unread.
Did that get me the prioritized approval?
The Comments section is an environment where those comments that are posted earliest are those that will be read, and those that take a while to be moderated will be barely noticed by readers, if at all. It would appear that the Jigsaw system is a recipe for bland, vanilla comments to take precedence, while those that may be more perceptive but also critical or outside-the-box are positioned so as to go unread.
8
I find myself in agreement with many of the reservations already expressed. But I have my own: eight hours for comments on the news? For some people, that might as well be zero hours (assuming that the hours will be something like 9 to 5). Not everyone can read articles and write comments during the work day.
9
2 cents: No more names, no more pseudonyms. No Egos served. If your comment qualifies it will be displayed, anonymously. (But if you want to find your own comment, there should be an effective search feature for text. [And if you don't recall what you wrote, it wasn't important.])
3
In the old system, not only were comments time stamped and numbered, there was searchability.
Not only should one be able to search one's own comments, a fix for the all too common failure of the email notification link, but one should be able to search other commenters one likes. As an example, Larry Eisenberg.
Not only should one be able to search one's own comments, a fix for the all too common failure of the email notification link, but one should be able to search other commenters one likes. As an example, Larry Eisenberg.
3
Is Google going to be the official, first amendment abuser for NYT ?
You can now blame "the system" instead of a person when a comment that you don't agree with, is censored.
You can now blame "the system" instead of a person when a comment that you don't agree with, is censored.
11
Google's "judgment" just sent a link to a comment "I made" but, when I click the link, no comment is there.
"It uses machine learning technology to prioritize comments for moderation, and sometimes, approves them automatically. Its judgments are based on more than 16 million moderated Times comments, going back to 2007."
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments, quantity does not indicate quality, and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
"It uses machine learning technology to prioritize comments for moderation, and sometimes, approves them automatically. Its judgments are based on more than 16 million moderated Times comments, going back to 2007."
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments, quantity does not indicate quality, and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
4
Steve: You are so right. I submitted a response to Bassey's reply to my earlier comment, and the 2nd link the NYT sent to me failed to work - a very common complaint, making it virtually impossible for anyone not a "verified commenter" to actually locate our comments. All I get is a blank comment space with my name at the top. I also concur wholeheartedly with your issue about algorithms - I have repeatedly expressed my consternation about that, because no one accepts any responsibility and pretends that the parameters for these algorithms are not pre-programmed, which of course they are. It is impossible to get actual parameters; and although the NY Times insists that "Democracy Dies in Darkness," the opacity and inherent preferential treatment given those chosen few is anything but "democratic." 6/13, 9:58 PM
3
Rebecca, "Democracy Dies in Darkness" is the new motto not of the Times, but of the WaPo.
1
How about allowing commenting to be done by NYT subscribers only?
This may keep the conversation clearer and uncluttered.
This may keep the conversation clearer and uncluttered.
14
It's very nice when my comment is well received by readers with many recommendations, but I always was firstly addressing the Times employees. Now I wonder if you will be disconnected from the readers opinions and newsworthy tidbits or details for potential stories. I always thought you were mining the comments to help you in many ways. I hope you will still review as many comments as you can.
7
I'm still at a loss as to why my comments are never posted regardless how well they are worded, how relevant to the content in question or how short. The exact same comment would be approved at Wapo and The Globe.
I'm not a paying subscriber. Is this a factor?
Even my replies to others are not approved. I can't seem to locate an appropriate email at NY Times to query further.
I'm not a paying subscriber. Is this a factor?
Even my replies to others are not approved. I can't seem to locate an appropriate email at NY Times to query further.
5
I don't think the Globe, if you mean the Boston Globe, moderates comments before they are posted. The Globe's system has some built-in censorship, so that obscenity-containing posts are not accepted. But I believe humans read them only after they are posted, and even then my impression is that they block only the most extreme comments. As a result, the Globe comments are very far indeed from the civil discourse that is the norm at the NYTimes.
As for WaPo, I gave up trying to read the comments there, because there are so many spammers. Do they have any kind of moderation at all?
As for WaPo, I gave up trying to read the comments there, because there are so many spammers. Do they have any kind of moderation at all?
5
I hope this works out, but I will miss the weird intimacy of knowing a human NYTimes staffer has taken the time to read and evaluate my words. Something beautiful is being lost here. Nevertheless, Onward!
5
How come you never pick my trenchant, witty comments...?
7
Well, this should be interesting. It should, at least, do away with the glitchy links (you're notified your comment is published, but when you click immediately on the link you pop to the top of the thread, where you find that gremlins have gobbled up your thoughts) and the annoying duplicate postings. I hope and pray that standards don't decline, though -- or perhaps I should say decline further. This isn't the civil, polite place it once was, alas. (Picture the Wicked Witch of the West melting into a puddle, as she moans, "Oh, what a world, what a world!")
I appreciate the efforts of the poor interns(?) who have been slogging through thousands of raw comments daily. I imagine that to be soul killing work. What will they do with the extra time, I wonder?
I appreciate the efforts of the poor interns(?) who have been slogging through thousands of raw comments daily. I imagine that to be soul killing work. What will they do with the extra time, I wonder?
6
My AI Bot is very excited about this, is not very often it has the chance to talk to other AI bots as intelligent as yours.
I'm sure they'll have thrilling conversations, too bad we are going to be too busy not caring about them.
But now I'm not even sure there are non bots reading this. Hello?
I'm sure they'll have thrilling conversations, too bad we are going to be too busy not caring about them.
But now I'm not even sure there are non bots reading this. Hello?
5
Let me be clear, I am not and never have been a bot. Thanks for asking.
1
I can understand why this was done for efficiency. But this will amount to a stagnation in differing opinions over time. Machine learning algos will self reinforce what type of comments were accepted in the past, and carry those forward today and into the future. ML algos are not creative - they don't have an 'open mind' regarding different styles, opinions, etc. A step forward for efficiency, but a step backwards for new conversation and a squelching of differing opinion. Sorry conservative thinkers, this will be no place for you.
2
This concept sounds about as bad as self-driving cars and self-flying airplanes.
Not an expert on Artificial Intelligence in this area of industry, I may be wrong. But I mistrust machines to manage us or our cultural insights. I suspect that the comments in online news publications with less censorship than the Times comments algorithms may be more vigorous, realistic, creative and accurate of public response to the news, to ideas and to arguments, such as the comments in the Washington Post. Often the vernacular and street language are the most expressive eloquence of the news, particularly in conflict zones, or in controversial, polarizing debates.
1
What I ask is that comments be released in smaller quantities. It is hard to get feedback when your comment is in the middle of a 200 comment feed. And I like the give and take.
5
I understand the thinking behind the change, but I would also caution you that you are about to engage in an experiment that could destroy the value of the comment section to both the readers and the contributors, regular or otherwise. Hey, set up a machine reading system that reviews rejected comments and tries to show why they were rejected. Then, you will likely see that the new system harms dialog. At the very least, be prepared to throw it out in a few months. Please.
As for opening up more articles for comments, please be careful. Essentially, you are also risking downgrading the value of comments. I have seen newspapers around the country that allow comments on traffic crashes, rape investigations, etc. This is a disaster, but I assume the Times will avoid doing that. Wild speculation about the Russia/Trump connection, however, is not really going to help anyone.
Since you are going to machine reading, please consider opening the comments to 2,000 characters instead of 1,500. The shorter form requires that one write in a more staccato fashion and even creates clear distortion of expression at times.
I further hope that you will be carefully reviewing this new system every three to six months and be prepared to change it. Just because you are trusting machines doesn't mean we have to let them rule our lives permanently. Okay?
As for opening up more articles for comments, please be careful. Essentially, you are also risking downgrading the value of comments. I have seen newspapers around the country that allow comments on traffic crashes, rape investigations, etc. This is a disaster, but I assume the Times will avoid doing that. Wild speculation about the Russia/Trump connection, however, is not really going to help anyone.
Since you are going to machine reading, please consider opening the comments to 2,000 characters instead of 1,500. The shorter form requires that one write in a more staccato fashion and even creates clear distortion of expression at times.
I further hope that you will be carefully reviewing this new system every three to six months and be prepared to change it. Just because you are trusting machines doesn't mean we have to let them rule our lives permanently. Okay?
7
I suspect the algorithm won't just scan the text of the comments but also the "name" of the commenter with the ability to know if their previous comments have been rejected or not, and that this would become part of the equation.
I don't have an opinion -- yet -- whether this would be good or bad; just curious?
Also, I'm curious whether anyone at the NYT has ever done a meta-analysis over the full database of comments to see how views, tone, etc change with time? Whether comments influence other people's comments, etc. You're sitting on a rich vein of opinion that historians of the future would no doubt love to get their hands on.
I don't have an opinion -- yet -- whether this would be good or bad; just curious?
Also, I'm curious whether anyone at the NYT has ever done a meta-analysis over the full database of comments to see how views, tone, etc change with time? Whether comments influence other people's comments, etc. You're sitting on a rich vein of opinion that historians of the future would no doubt love to get their hands on.
6
Get rid of "NYT Picks" - it biases readers, and NYT already had its chance to give its opinion.
8
Get rid of the green checked commenting too.
15
So true. Are the Green checks the only people worthy of commenting on a Maureen Dowd Column on a Saturday night? After awhile, it's all the same comment for the same characters.
11
My first comments were probably back in '07 or '08, during the first Obama campaign. I recall enjoying "The Caucus" section, which discussed the Presidential campaign and writing comments.
Now I plan my Saturday around the Sunday Review columns, particularly Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni. At around 4PM, I check to see if they have written anything and if so, read the article and comment. I then go back frequently throughout the evening. I also love replying to others' comments that night or during the week.
If there is an article without comments, I sometimes don't even bother reading it. The joy is actually commenting and sometimes I learn more from the comments than the article.
In fact, if this process is going to start being automated, then the reader replies will be the only people actually definitely reading my comments. And that being said, what will happen to the "Times Pick" with automation? I've enjoyed being a Pick every once in awhile.
The NY Times section is definitely the gold standard compared to other places that I've seen.
Lastly, Is there a place where comments are archived? I'd love to have a complete set of my own comments.
Now I plan my Saturday around the Sunday Review columns, particularly Maureen Dowd and Frank Bruni. At around 4PM, I check to see if they have written anything and if so, read the article and comment. I then go back frequently throughout the evening. I also love replying to others' comments that night or during the week.
If there is an article without comments, I sometimes don't even bother reading it. The joy is actually commenting and sometimes I learn more from the comments than the article.
In fact, if this process is going to start being automated, then the reader replies will be the only people actually definitely reading my comments. And that being said, what will happen to the "Times Pick" with automation? I've enjoyed being a Pick every once in awhile.
The NY Times section is definitely the gold standard compared to other places that I've seen.
Lastly, Is there a place where comments are archived? I'd love to have a complete set of my own comments.
4
"If there is an article without comments, I sometimes don't even bother reading it."
Wow.
Wow.
9
Debra, I'm truly glad this is an important part of your life, and that posting here gives you joy. But you have just described the main thing I dislike about Comments as they are currently handled. You and the Green Check Brigade of Early Posters seem to have an odd sort of contest going on among you -- get in there and post the minute the door opens -- and I don't think this is the place for such self promotion. The whole ego thing blew up in a really unpleasant way when the Times published that (horrible, in my opinion) "meet the commenters" piece ages ago. It was icky.
Anything that makes Comments more egalitarian is going to be an improvement on the status quo. Personally, I don't care about getting gold stars or a pat on the head. The only reason I like to see a "recommend" vote on my posts is it means someone read what I wrote. As for NYT Picks, I am often puzzled by the choices (not bitter -- I've been there, too). I rarely look at Readers' Picks because I know posters can and do tweak the votes.
What I like to see in a comment thread is multiple conversations, not single-post pontificating. Because of the short windows and long delays in posting, under the current system, real conversations are rare on most NYT threads. I look forward to that changing. If they still do a "best of" for each thread, I suppose that will make some people's days, but I don't think it's necessary.
Anything that makes Comments more egalitarian is going to be an improvement on the status quo. Personally, I don't care about getting gold stars or a pat on the head. The only reason I like to see a "recommend" vote on my posts is it means someone read what I wrote. As for NYT Picks, I am often puzzled by the choices (not bitter -- I've been there, too). I rarely look at Readers' Picks because I know posters can and do tweak the votes.
What I like to see in a comment thread is multiple conversations, not single-post pontificating. Because of the short windows and long delays in posting, under the current system, real conversations are rare on most NYT threads. I look forward to that changing. If they still do a "best of" for each thread, I suppose that will make some people's days, but I don't think it's necessary.
9
Peaches,
I'm surprised you aren't a green check. I notice you have commented quite a bit. The meet the commenters automatically got to join the Green Check Brigade, so algorithms don't really seem to pan out.....
Well, we'll see how this goes.
I'm surprised you aren't a green check. I notice you have commented quite a bit. The meet the commenters automatically got to join the Green Check Brigade, so algorithms don't really seem to pan out.....
Well, we'll see how this goes.
4
As a political junkie I am a compulsive user of your editorial, op-ed and columnists comments section. This past weekend the "Times" published eight of my comments (but continue to reject my more substantial op-ed submissions) and I am exhausted! The thought that I am going to have more opportunities to comment is truly depressing. I need a life other than this one-sided sparing with your correspondents. But it is fun in a somewhat masochistic way.
JD
JD
10
When does this go into effect? Or is it already?
Many moons ago the comments were numbered, can this be returned?
For it's a hard slog to find a comment again. Time stamps would be helpful.
Take a look at others, like the UK Guardian and see how comments are done.
Also, the capability to email a comment is a good option. Not all of us are FaceBook Twitterer pinterested people.
Lastly are you paying Google for this service? or is Google paying you? Or are our comments the payment? What are our comments worth, if anything, to Google? Are the older, past comments up for sale or ?
There is no such thing as a free lunch here.
Many moons ago the comments were numbered, can this be returned?
For it's a hard slog to find a comment again. Time stamps would be helpful.
Take a look at others, like the UK Guardian and see how comments are done.
Also, the capability to email a comment is a good option. Not all of us are FaceBook Twitterer pinterested people.
Lastly are you paying Google for this service? or is Google paying you? Or are our comments the payment? What are our comments worth, if anything, to Google? Are the older, past comments up for sale or ?
There is no such thing as a free lunch here.
14
The moderated replies is one of the things that sets the NY Times apart from the Washington Post.
The Post comments section devolves rapidly into ignorance and vitriol.
~
The Post comments section devolves rapidly into ignorance and vitriol.
~
16
And unfettered spamming.
5
On a good day, it "devolves rapidly into ignorance and vitriol". The rest of the time is it useless.
6
Mr. Etim,
I still am inquiring about the Verified Commenter status and algorithm.
I am a frequent Commenter, and as far as I know almost all are published, and have had a substantial number of NYTimes Picks through the years.
While I so honor your staff who need to read these comments from us subscribers out here, and appreciate their patience, I wonder about the fairness of who gets picked as a verified commenter.
Thanks, and nevertheless, carry on! We need the New York Times more than ever. And fellow commenters, keep it up. Commenting gives us reflection points, comradeship, and news/information that we otherwise would not have known about from so many parts of the country and the world.
We appreciate all your hard work.
Thank you,
MIMA from Wisconsin, but heartsny!
I still am inquiring about the Verified Commenter status and algorithm.
I am a frequent Commenter, and as far as I know almost all are published, and have had a substantial number of NYTimes Picks through the years.
While I so honor your staff who need to read these comments from us subscribers out here, and appreciate their patience, I wonder about the fairness of who gets picked as a verified commenter.
Thanks, and nevertheless, carry on! We need the New York Times more than ever. And fellow commenters, keep it up. Commenting gives us reflection points, comradeship, and news/information that we otherwise would not have known about from so many parts of the country and the world.
We appreciate all your hard work.
Thank you,
MIMA from Wisconsin, but heartsny!
8
The idea that the verified checkmark goes to those who contribute carefully, thoughtfully and have a large percentage of their comments posted online is a fiction. I know this for a fact. I have verified it with a disclosure by the Times that it was "awarding" this status by a decision to give it to some commenters (one of whom is a good friend of mine).
For some unknown reason, I am blackballed from getting the checkmark. If I live a hundred years, I won't get it. I suspect that I know why I was blackballed but there is no appeal, no way to find out why. As a journalist who has broadcasted to millions of people across the nation on NPR, been published in newspapers and had two essays published in two books by others, and served as a Washington correspondent for the CBC and for about 60 to 80 different television stations across the nation, I think I know how to be careful and reasonable in my comments. I am also a regular and, yes, persistent contributor. Doesn't matter.
As you have wondered, MIMA, it is not a fair process, but it is one that, I assume, upper management has never bothered to review or change. Dems da breaks.
For some unknown reason, I am blackballed from getting the checkmark. If I live a hundred years, I won't get it. I suspect that I know why I was blackballed but there is no appeal, no way to find out why. As a journalist who has broadcasted to millions of people across the nation on NPR, been published in newspapers and had two essays published in two books by others, and served as a Washington correspondent for the CBC and for about 60 to 80 different television stations across the nation, I think I know how to be careful and reasonable in my comments. I am also a regular and, yes, persistent contributor. Doesn't matter.
As you have wondered, MIMA, it is not a fair process, but it is one that, I assume, upper management has never bothered to review or change. Dems da breaks.
2
Yea the Times comment section is Lit sometimes. I sometimes skip the article and head straight to the comments
5
Just 1 question -- Will the Moderator software be more fair and rational in not blocking sensible posts ? Unlike NYT "human" censors.
9
Interesting question (although Intake issue with the quotes around the word human). I replied, recently, to a post that contained a moderator-trigger word. I had simply quoted the words of the commenter back to her -- a phrase she used -- and my comment was bounced. It was a civil post, so I had to wonder where that kill button was engaged. I assume the Times runs Comments through a preliminary filter before they are hand screened, so did a bot shoot me down? Or did a human scan the thing sans context and just see the word? No system is perfect, but it gets a bit silly when one has to talk around a subject, avoiding the sand traps.
3
A Letter to the Editor is not an invention of the digital age, and opinions and and answers between readers are as old as the mass printed press.
What is new is the amount of exchanges betwenn journal/site and readers and the possibility to remain anonymous. It is this last facility which has been added by the digital editors of numerous newspapers without any technological need and that allowed the gross, hateful speech in commentary colums and on social networking sites.
In the "good" old time of the print press in my home town the letters to the editor of the local newspaper published by the newspaper always gave the full name and postal address.
To no surprise you did not see any hate speech.
This is what you can call social control in action, and this can be achieved by technological tools today, too.
What is new is the amount of exchanges betwenn journal/site and readers and the possibility to remain anonymous. It is this last facility which has been added by the digital editors of numerous newspapers without any technological need and that allowed the gross, hateful speech in commentary colums and on social networking sites.
In the "good" old time of the print press in my home town the letters to the editor of the local newspaper published by the newspaper always gave the full name and postal address.
To no surprise you did not see any hate speech.
This is what you can call social control in action, and this can be achieved by technological tools today, too.
2
FThomas, I used to be one of those who wrote letters to the editor. I've even had letters published here. But I stopped that when a very weird stranger somehow got my unlisted phone number and contacted me about a published letter. Anonymity is the way to go.
4
I don't think complaining about the removal of the Public Editor position here in this comment section will accomplish anything. Write to someone higher up the food chain instead.
5
It's fun to interact with the Times comment session but unpleasant to be treated as second class citizens, as so many of us are. We reply or respond to stories and other comments, and what we say is placed in the equivalent to an after-the-jump limbo when finally approved six hours later. In the meantime green checked commenters go along merrily declaring their own self-confident verdicts: after all the Gray Lady has verified them!
18
Very pleased to hear it. Was very confused when first subscribing when I could not always locate the comments.
Once I figured out what was going on I was quite disappointed. I must say I always feel a bit short changed when there are no comments.
Once I figured out what was going on I was quite disappointed. I must say I always feel a bit short changed when there are no comments.
1
It's great to hear that the Times is interested in opening up their approach to comments. I like to see how others react to various articles, and it's nice to be able to share my own views.
But... As a long-term software developer, I can tell you that this solution looks way off base. It's overly complicated and still requires narrow windows for commenting rather than an open environment for meaningful discussion. A better solution would be:
1) Restrict comments to subscribers (so they can be identified, at least by the NYT)
2) Allow readers to flag inappropriate comments (i.e. crowdsource the problem)
3) Give uncivil commenters a warning, then banish them
This is the tried & true technique. It works, it takes far less effort, and it allows for more open commenting.
But... As a long-term software developer, I can tell you that this solution looks way off base. It's overly complicated and still requires narrow windows for commenting rather than an open environment for meaningful discussion. A better solution would be:
1) Restrict comments to subscribers (so they can be identified, at least by the NYT)
2) Allow readers to flag inappropriate comments (i.e. crowdsource the problem)
3) Give uncivil commenters a warning, then banish them
This is the tried & true technique. It works, it takes far less effort, and it allows for more open commenting.
10
I think they already do all that, Rick.
I do think the "flag" check options should have "uncivil" added to the list, though.
I do think the "flag" check options should have "uncivil" added to the list, though.
1
No, they really don't. I just tested it, and they allow non-subscribers to comment. That means they can't shut anyone off, which means they have to manually review each comment before it goes live. This adds huge delays, and makes it really expensive, which they address by placing sharp limits on commenting.
The new procedure is better, because they're using fancy Google software to help with the review process. But this just means it's a little cheaper and the limits will be a little less sharp.
Better to stop re-inventing the wheel, and do what the pros have been doing all along.
The new procedure is better, because they're using fancy Google software to help with the review process. But this just means it's a little cheaper and the limits will be a little less sharp.
Better to stop re-inventing the wheel, and do what the pros have been doing all along.
6
Unless the times engages in extended human moderation, the comments section will expand to become garbage. Machine learning algorithms will be exploited and gamed, filled with partisan hackery and scam posts. Opting out of moderation is not an option, especially for a news organization.
4
No obscenity, toxicity and a likelihood to be rejected. Agreement on obscenity, but how are the other two gleaned? More sanitization of public voice.
"I'm sorry, Dave. That comment is toxic."
"I'm sorry, Dave. That comment is toxic."
Be honest, now. Is this the first step on the road to SKYNET???
3
It looks like a trend: can the public editor (human) and turn comments moderation over to a machine.
1
I find less and less comments sections open. Strange.
6
Yes, that hit piece on the RT guy should have been open to comments.
1
What a joke: "It uses machine learning technology to prioritize comments for moderation, and sometimes, approves them automatically. Its judgments are based on more than 16 million moderated Times comments, going back to 2007."
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments and quantity does not indicate quality (as elections often demonstrate), and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments and quantity does not indicate quality (as elections often demonstrate), and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
IMDB closed its forum, Reddit closed many subreddit and now NYTimes implemented an AI program to auto censor and limit comments to 8/24 hours. Is this a trend? It seems people are being pushed to Twitter and Facebook to discuss current and cultural events. I cannot imagine discussing anything important 140 characters at a time or have to figure out Facebook's notification arrangement.
The media often states China, Russia, Iran, etc. are creating their own internet isolated from the rest of the world but I feel we in the US are being isolated by these shutting down of forums. One side effect seems to be the rise of DailyMail's comment section. More Americans are commenting on a British newspaper's comment section than people all over their world are commenting on NYTimes.
The media often states China, Russia, Iran, etc. are creating their own internet isolated from the rest of the world but I feel we in the US are being isolated by these shutting down of forums. One side effect seems to be the rise of DailyMail's comment section. More Americans are commenting on a British newspaper's comment section than people all over their world are commenting on NYTimes.
9
It would be helpful if a notice appears before a comment is typed and attempt is made to send it only to see that posting is closed before attempt is written.
Will the Times add features to the comments section? Sometimes I can't find my comments, especially on mobile devices and reply back. I can the moderators who hand pick comments can now respond to customer service. Just saying.
5
My Future comments will come from a machine learning algorithm that will determine which comments will most likely be posted as number one by your machine learning algorithm
HAL
HAL
12
Good one!
2
I always learn more from the comments section of any article than the article itself. Please don't let that change!
17
Bassey Etim said in reply to Technic Ally some time around noon Eastern:
"We will end the public aspect of the Verified commenters program..."
Would you please clarify once and for all:
1 - Is there currently a process by which green flags are awarded? Or is it no longer possible to get the green flag?
2 - If there is in fact a process, can you describe how it works? Who makes the decision? How often? Are the criteria well defined? What are the criteria?
3 - How many commenters currently have the green flag? When was the most recent green flag awarded?
4 - By ending the public aspect, I believe you mean that the green flag will disappear, but there will still be some commenters who are not subjected to moderation. Is that correct?
5 - Is it possible to apply to be considered for a green flag?
Thanks.
"We will end the public aspect of the Verified commenters program..."
Would you please clarify once and for all:
1 - Is there currently a process by which green flags are awarded? Or is it no longer possible to get the green flag?
2 - If there is in fact a process, can you describe how it works? Who makes the decision? How often? Are the criteria well defined? What are the criteria?
3 - How many commenters currently have the green flag? When was the most recent green flag awarded?
4 - By ending the public aspect, I believe you mean that the green flag will disappear, but there will still be some commenters who are not subjected to moderation. Is that correct?
5 - Is it possible to apply to be considered for a green flag?
Thanks.
15
Good questions, all.
5
I guess AI algorithms were bound to come. Reminds me of the recent stories of people whose sentences or parole are decided by secret algorithms, though.
So I hope the NYT will periodically disclose a lot more about the workings than what is in this article!
I'm worried about this plan. You speak of quality, but the main thrust seems to be to get more comments processed at lower cost. Those goals don't match. I can't see much point in having many hundreds of comments per article. Readers are human, not machines.
So instead of trying to show all the comments that are "acceptable," it should be about showing those that are perceptive, interesting, distinctive, opposing, or connect well to other issues... while rejecting those that just waste our time or are merely duplicative.
IDEA: Stop displaying the contributors' pseudonyms at all! Take away the egos and just make the comments searchable so I can find mine if I care to, and you can find yours, but I don't get to be famous or show off my prowess.
So I hope the NYT will periodically disclose a lot more about the workings than what is in this article!
I'm worried about this plan. You speak of quality, but the main thrust seems to be to get more comments processed at lower cost. Those goals don't match. I can't see much point in having many hundreds of comments per article. Readers are human, not machines.
So instead of trying to show all the comments that are "acceptable," it should be about showing those that are perceptive, interesting, distinctive, opposing, or connect well to other issues... while rejecting those that just waste our time or are merely duplicative.
IDEA: Stop displaying the contributors' pseudonyms at all! Take away the egos and just make the comments searchable so I can find mine if I care to, and you can find yours, but I don't get to be famous or show off my prowess.
8
I concur that automating readers posting to readers is absolutely no substitute for a Public Editor confronting editors and getting them to explain on our behalf why problematic stories were published as they were.
4
I owned a small town weekly newspaper and when a man wrote a letter to the editor complaining a bit about the police chief, the chief found a 1897 state blue law that basically said that if someone writes a letter to the editor and someone doesn't like it the writer can be jailed. In 1989 the letter writer was jailed. Having gone through that I can tell you that whatever you fine people at the NYT want to do in regard to reader comments is fine by me!
3
And you don't think that Google will be able to de-anonymize the comments? What other reason does Google have for wanting this data?
7
Heck, I can de-anonymize by IP address now. I'm no IT rockstar, but there are sites on which you can search by IP address, email address, and paid sites that give a lot more info.
3
Times comments are much more valuable than e.g. comments on the Washington Post. They are more considered. I hope the new system will encourage quality.
8
I just hope that the algorithm is not susceptible to trolling and manipulation. Keeping 'fake news' from rising to the top of Google searches is an ongoing problem. See, for example:
"How The Trump-Russia Data Machine Games Google To Fool Americans"
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/how-the-trump-russia-data...
"How The Trump-Russia Data Machine Games Google To Fool Americans"
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/how-the-trump-russia-data...
5
With hundreds of comments, it is nearly impossible to find your posted comment or replies. Will this system send you directly to a particular post, once a notification of its posting is sent by email.
7
It would be interesting (at least on occasion) for either the human or computer editor to not make any "NYT Picks" until AFTER the comments section has been closed or at least not until the article has been open for several hours.
As it stands now, most NYT Picks are made extremely early in the submission process. Hence, commentators who submit later, or don't live in the US eastern time zone, or don't wake up at 3:21am (when most Op-Eds are posted) rarely get selected as a NYT Pick (although they certainly are just as insightful, provocative, scholarly, witty, etc.). Many readers obviously read these NYT Picks comments first and then recommend them as a "Reader Pick" as well. Because of this, it seems that many of the same commentators are listed at top of every article, every day. This process merely reinforces a self-referential cycle and thus we don't get the benefit from hearing proportionately from other valuable contributors (as most readers probably stop reading comments after the first 10-20).
Of course, as I submit this, I see there are already 398 other submissions and so once again, I (and others) will continue to toil away in humble obscurity. Maybe I need to get hit with a good case of insomnia so that I'm up at 3:21am?
As it stands now, most NYT Picks are made extremely early in the submission process. Hence, commentators who submit later, or don't live in the US eastern time zone, or don't wake up at 3:21am (when most Op-Eds are posted) rarely get selected as a NYT Pick (although they certainly are just as insightful, provocative, scholarly, witty, etc.). Many readers obviously read these NYT Picks comments first and then recommend them as a "Reader Pick" as well. Because of this, it seems that many of the same commentators are listed at top of every article, every day. This process merely reinforces a self-referential cycle and thus we don't get the benefit from hearing proportionately from other valuable contributors (as most readers probably stop reading comments after the first 10-20).
Of course, as I submit this, I see there are already 398 other submissions and so once again, I (and others) will continue to toil away in humble obscurity. Maybe I need to get hit with a good case of insomnia so that I'm up at 3:21am?
17
Will this new comment policy/structure obviate the current one of giving some people the right to automatically and immediately comment?
In other words, will this automated system give everybody a fair chance of getting their ideas communicated, pretty soon after a comment is entered into the system?
Does the new system provide for replies to the comments of others?
Thanks for this notification and the opportunity to interact with you about it.
In other words, will this automated system give everybody a fair chance of getting their ideas communicated, pretty soon after a comment is entered into the system?
Does the new system provide for replies to the comments of others?
Thanks for this notification and the opportunity to interact with you about it.
10
One thing I'd like to see is two different comment sections for ongoing stories, before and after a story actually breaks. There are over 700 comments on the story regarding Jeff Sessions testifying, but the most recommended readers' picks were all created well before he actually testified, making it difficult to find worthwhile comments regarding more current happenings.
13
NYTimes comments are often as good or better than the article they relate to.
Maybe I missed it, but it would be interesting to have a discussion on how traditional print media have joined Google and Facebook in monetizing free labor that is, at least in the case of the times, often creative, insightful and "fit to print". As quality comments are a major attraction of the times, shouldn't top commentators be compensated?
Maybe I missed it, but it would be interesting to have a discussion on how traditional print media have joined Google and Facebook in monetizing free labor that is, at least in the case of the times, often creative, insightful and "fit to print". As quality comments are a major attraction of the times, shouldn't top commentators be compensated?
9
No! Keep money out of it. If you want to get paid, try being a columnist.
2
Will this new system detect regional bias and personal attack? Most replies to my comments amount to ad hominem attacks because the individuals replying cannot present a challenging argument against my ideas so they resort to comments which attack me as a Southerner. They attack a stereotype of what they image a Southerner to be. Yes, I am a Southerner; a proud Southerner who fully supports the current president of the United States and opposes the previous one. And I am not ashamed to let people know that. If I were to submit comments about liberals like those submitted against me, they would never be published. Thank you.
4
Not a Trump fan but there remains a lot of confirmation bias or group think that absolutely reeks of liberal bias, and yes I am a Democrat who is often critical of my party.
6
I know I have responded to your comments. I can't check but I do not think anything I wrote amounted to an ad hominem attack (perhaps you copy and save comments and can check for me. I don't save them and I don't have the time or patience to wade through a zillion other comments to find what I wrote).
I do know I usually disagree with you but not because you're a southern boy, that you're proud of it, or that you support Trump. I have very close relatives who are southern but wouldn't agree with you. So "southern," as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with it. I could say I'm a "northern boy" but why? I'm an American is what I am. Just because I'm not always proud of what America does doesn't change the fact that I love this country as much as anyone.
I do know I usually disagree with you but not because you're a southern boy, that you're proud of it, or that you support Trump. I have very close relatives who are southern but wouldn't agree with you. So "southern," as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with it. I could say I'm a "northern boy" but why? I'm an American is what I am. Just because I'm not always proud of what America does doesn't change the fact that I love this country as much as anyone.
1
Southern Boy, aren't you the reader who quotes the Drudge Report and fatuously approves of everything Trump does?
As I see it, when people reply to your postings, they are genuinely disagreeing with your often simplistic, emotional posts with large sections of ALL CAPS.
It has nothing to do with you personally, as I imagine few commenters know you personally. So while the disagreements may hurt your feelings, they hardly rise to the level of ad hominem attacks.
As I see it, when people reply to your postings, they are genuinely disagreeing with your often simplistic, emotional posts with large sections of ALL CAPS.
It has nothing to do with you personally, as I imagine few commenters know you personally. So while the disagreements may hurt your feelings, they hardly rise to the level of ad hominem attacks.
2
It's a start, but let me know when you get around to automating the comments themselves...
2
Thank you for expanding your comments section. Will this include being able to comment on reviews, especially by your theater and classical reviewers?? So far, there has been only an occasional opportunity to agree or disagree with one of your critics opinions on a play, concert, dance performance, etc. It has always puzzled me why you let people react to a wide range of stories related to politics or world events but won't let someone praise or criticize Mr. Brantley or Mr. Macaulay or Mr. Tommasini or other of your reviewers. This is especially frustrating when they express absolutely outrageous statements about a performance they have seen or a topic they have a bug about (see Tommasini on his demand for more modern music programming by the NY Philharmonic or Mr. Macaulay on the "horror" of a NYC Ballet dancer not pointing a toe just the way he likes it). Perhaps their opinions are sacrosanct and the rest of us are too ignorant to disagree.
6
I would very much enjoy reading responses to the reviewers. Good ones would inform about the subject reviewed as much or more than the review itself. The subject lends itself to multiple points of view.
2
So, will there no longer be a category of "NYT Picks" comments? I assume those are chosen by real flesh and blood editors, and I like them because they demonstrate the Times is actually listening. If we readers are just left alone in a digital rubber room to squabble with each other unsupervised, I think that would decrease, rather than increase the much-desired "engagement." I already yell at my television.
6
I've often thought when writing and submitting a comment "Oh, well, they'll never publish this, but at least the comment reviewer will see it, maybe pass along the information to hir boss.
3
I agree and it would also diminish the quality and political correctness of comments. And by politically correct I mean exactly what the term originally meant: being civil.
3
I definitely utilize the NYT Picks feature heavily also (just adding my vote in case someone is counting.)
2
These comments are no substitute for the thoughtful, researched, and lengthy analysis provided by a Public Editor. . The decision to eliminate that position diminished the Times and leaves it open to accusations of partisanship and thin-skinnedness . Please reconsider.
5
I hope that the New York Times will keep the comments section open for far longer than 8 hours in regards to articles that reference the Orthodox Jewish Community, which are often published on the Sabbath or on Jewish Holidays, when Orthodox Jews can not post comments ,under Jewish Law.
Ideally, New York Times Editors would publish pieces regarding the Orthodox Jewish Community on the six days a week when Orthodox Jews could post comments, rather than on the one day when they can not, unless a time critical news story is involved, which has typically not been the case.
Ideally, New York Times Editors would publish pieces regarding the Orthodox Jewish Community on the six days a week when Orthodox Jews could post comments, rather than on the one day when they can not, unless a time critical news story is involved, which has typically not been the case.
4
Your argument for a longer comment period is spot on. In addition to Orthodox Jews, there's also the fact that those of us on the west coast too often get cut out of the comment period due to the time difference. By the time I get my day in gear and have time to sit down and read the Times, too often the comment period has passed. While I applaud the Times stated commitment to broaden the ability to comment on articles, I wonder why there's such a limited time period allowed.
5
I agree although for an entirely different set of reasons. An 8-hour window excludes a whole lot of people for a whole lot of reasons.
3
So NYT "chases" the Disqus et al model used widely across the Iternet, e.g. Breitbart's claim to fame. Instead, NYT, you could up your game, and reader's time, by simply requiring actual names, or vetted "name withheld at request" submissions.
3
Now that, I could go for. I would be happy to use my name if I weren't a blue person in a red state government.
2
Based on my personal experience, the Times frequently censors comments that do not comport with the party line. Will the new system incorporate this bias against honest disagreement with the positions the Times takes?
8
I don't think that's necessarily true. Remember that the NY Times is a liberal paper and as such most readers are liberal. What I do like is that comments are vetted and no nastiness allowed, Democratic or Republican.
5
Nope. I've submitted plenty of comments that comport with neither the party line (whatever that is) nor with NYT editorial positions. As far as I know, no comments have ever been rejected. Incidentally whatever the green checkmark is, I don't have it.
3
Not necessarily true! I'm a lifelong Liberal and some weeks ago replied to a comment with fairly strong language ... well, one word was probably considered inappropriate. That comment was never published. So, mind your vocabulary, but comment away! We The People need to talk to each other.
3
The Times sets the standard with its comments. Keep it up. Comment sections in other media outlets follow the practice of three or four relevant comments followed by arguments between commenters that range from on-topic to wildly off-topic.
6
Sounds like NYTimes cannot keep up with censorship so implemented an AI to do automatic censorship based on past censorship trend. If in the past, 20% of pro-Trump comments made it through, the AI will keep to the trend and "moderate" out 80% of future pro-Trump comments. If an editor is even more adventurous, he can adjust the parameter to 90% or 100% to censor out all the comments from political blocks he doesn't like. Heck, I am sure there is going to be a blacklist function so all comments from a blacklisted subscriber will be automatically rejected.
In my opinion, unless a comment contains profanity or is a directed personal attack against another NYTimes subscriber, there shouldn't be any censorship. Why am I paying $15 a month to watch ads, read "curated" news and have to pass censors to have my comments posted?
In my opinion, unless a comment contains profanity or is a directed personal attack against another NYTimes subscriber, there shouldn't be any censorship. Why am I paying $15 a month to watch ads, read "curated" news and have to pass censors to have my comments posted?
5
Consistent with, but better said, than my comment.
1
Out of curiousity, how did you determine only 20 percent of the pro-Trump comments make it through? Do you work at the NYT? Just asking.
3
@Chip Steiner
The 20% figure is an example, not fact. I use the figure to show how an AI can follow existing censorship parameter or being increased or decreased base on a journalist/editor's whim.
The 20% figure is an example, not fact. I use the figure to show how an AI can follow existing censorship parameter or being increased or decreased base on a journalist/editor's whim.
I read the NY Times instead of other publications and Internet sites because I want to see reasoned, objective stories. Comments from my fellow citizens on the Internet are usually not reasoned and not objective. They're also not necessary in ONE MORE PLACE on the Internet. We can see what our fellow citizens think about EVERYTHING almost EVERYWHERE else on the net. But now I have to see partisan and emotional comments in the middle of headlines and lead-ins on the Times site as well. These comments usually irritate or inflame. Also, just because we have an opinion, doesn't mean the Times has to publish it. There is a Letters page. Stick to that. Please consider displaying no comments automatically, if you're set on displaying them at all. Let us choose to see the comments or ignore them. This is the only comment I've left on your site. It's also the first in many years since I matured beyond having to give my opinion to the Internet. Please, don't MAKE me have to see comments.
2
I greatly appreciate the effort by all parties involved with the NY Times comments. The resulting product is quite valuable! I wish other news websites put in the same effort to police their comment sections.
8
Um great, I think, but I just re-read, having failed to understand it the first time, the part of the article that describes how 'Moderator' works and it still doesn't make sense, especially when I compare your mystifying chart with the text. Assuming this article was written by a human being, maybe you should leave the process to machines after all.
1
Why? There are already too many comments, way too many to read, and most of them aren't very smart or interesting. (Like this one, for instance.) Back in the day you had to write a letter to the editor, and it would only be published if you were an important person or if what you wrote was truly exceptional. A reader could spend just a few minutes reading the letters, experience good writing and actually learn something. Maybe it's time to go back towards that model.
3
Time will tell whether Moderator is a good idea or not. In the meantime, here are five things that need attention from the NYT with respect to comments:
(1) Currently, when you open an email from the NYT on your iPhone and click on the link to your comment, the link doesn't take you to your comment but instead takes you to the beginning of the article; 2) approved comments are not published in the order received; (3) the NYT should show how many comments are pending approval at any given point in time (it is frustrating when you click on an article, see that zero comments have been posted, write a comment, and then wind up as the 320th commenter); (4) commenters should be able to see how much time they have left to hit the "send" button on their comments; (5) the NYT should accurately represent when a comment was submitted (I've submitted many comments that have taken more than 8-10 hours -- sometimes even longer -- to review for approval, but when the comments are published, the time listed (e.g., "1 hour ago") bears no relationship to the time the comment was submitted.
(1) Currently, when you open an email from the NYT on your iPhone and click on the link to your comment, the link doesn't take you to your comment but instead takes you to the beginning of the article; 2) approved comments are not published in the order received; (3) the NYT should show how many comments are pending approval at any given point in time (it is frustrating when you click on an article, see that zero comments have been posted, write a comment, and then wind up as the 320th commenter); (4) commenters should be able to see how much time they have left to hit the "send" button on their comments; (5) the NYT should accurately represent when a comment was submitted (I've submitted many comments that have taken more than 8-10 hours -- sometimes even longer -- to review for approval, but when the comments are published, the time listed (e.g., "1 hour ago") bears no relationship to the time the comment was submitted.
10
If the comment is time stamped when submitted this would be helpful.
2
That's such good news. It is so frustrating to want to comment but it isn't allowed. A thumbs down vote would also be a good addition.
3
You would not believe the amount of internal debate we've had over the years about a thumbs down button -- I imagine its the same at Facebook.
Ultimately, though, it seems to cause a lot of negativity in other comments spaces.
Ultimately, though, it seems to cause a lot of negativity in other comments spaces.
8
Good, no thumbs down button. We're not here to accumulate likes, but to share perspectives that presumably have at least some unique twist. I personally don't care if you like me or my comment or not.
3
Question for Bassey Etim:
Some years back when the Times switched to its current format for readers' comments, one feature that was lost -- and which many readers wanted to maintain -- was the numbering of comments. If a reader was interested in a particular comment and wanted to refer back to it, this made it extremely simple to find. Now, only the most dedicated of us scroll up and down to find such gems. Any chance that numbered comments will make a comeback?
Good luck with the new system, and I hope it doesn't lead to the infantile level of discourse I see every day in the comments that appear in your friendly rival, the Washington Post.
Some years back when the Times switched to its current format for readers' comments, one feature that was lost -- and which many readers wanted to maintain -- was the numbering of comments. If a reader was interested in a particular comment and wanted to refer back to it, this made it extremely simple to find. Now, only the most dedicated of us scroll up and down to find such gems. Any chance that numbered comments will make a comeback?
Good luck with the new system, and I hope it doesn't lead to the infantile level of discourse I see every day in the comments that appear in your friendly rival, the Washington Post.
7
Agreed. When Trump got elected, I started subscribing to the Washington Post, thinking I should support good journalism and was amazed at the Nah-Nah-Nah, So-Are-You reader comments in the Post..
10
Commenting is a time sink, so is reading comments, but WaPo and even worse (red state) are cess pools. Even Reddit is better.
3
How about restricting comments to, say, 100 words or less? It would make perusing the comments infinitely faster and allow us to read -- one would hope -- a wider range of views. Not surprisingly, the lengthy diatribes tend to be the most self-righteous (and least open-minded) anyway.
5
"Readers pay for a subscription or view an ad, and the news outlet uses the funds to report the news."
NYT readers have the honor of both paying for their subscriptions AND enduring pop-video ads.
NYT readers have the honor of both paying for their subscriptions AND enduring pop-video ads.
3
I really enjoy reading the comments, it adds a huge perspective to the articles
8
This "advance" reeks of the same hidden biases affecting algorithms that evaluate resumes and are never addressed because nobody suspects they exist. How many qualified candidates were overlooked because they fell outside some invisible and inexpressible parameters? We'll never know. I suspect the machine's embodiment of the "typical Times moderator" will be strikingly similar to a that of a servile HR drone, cautious, dull and sworn to corporate fealty.
10
Honestly, I'd rather have 600 quality comments rather than 6000 computer-approved comments. There really hasn't been a day when I thought, "Man, I wish i could read 400 more comments on this right now"...in general, what you approve is about what anyone could read.
In addition, please keep humans employed...don't let this be the first step in laying off your commenting staff.
In addition, please keep humans employed...don't let this be the first step in laying off your commenting staff.
22
By allowing only subscribers to comment may narrow the field.
4
I wish it were possible to comment, and read comments, on articles as they appear on the advertising-free, "Today's Paper" web site that is accessible to subscribers (app.nytimes.com)
2
Moderated comments are one of the Times' best features. I often learn as much from the thread as I do from the article.
I've never understood why a rich technocrat like Jeff Bezos allows WaPo's comments section to remain the cesspool it is.
I've never understood why a rich technocrat like Jeff Bezos allows WaPo's comments section to remain the cesspool it is.
9
Because most peasants live outside the ivory tower so if you want to know theirs lives, you have to leave the ivory tower. If NYTimes is representative of the US population, we'd have nuclear power, meat, ICE, marriage banned already.
Fscinating overview of the new protocols... But readers who want the most pithy comments relative to the topic (NYTs Picks? Is that the standard: pithily pertinent?) don't want a large volume more of comments to go through. There should be a category of Editors' Picks or something that's the Best of Best. In professional education, there are reading-level protocols (and software: MSWord has a reading level determiner) that should be part of protocols: The more literate comments deserve more consideration.
All in all though, it's clear that the leading incentive here is to increase NYTimes advertising revenue by have more comments to pose to advertisers. That makes me nauseous, as there's already so much advertising WITHIN articles that I forget that I'm actually a paying subscriber. JEEZ!
All in all though, it's clear that the leading incentive here is to increase NYTimes advertising revenue by have more comments to pose to advertisers. That makes me nauseous, as there's already so much advertising WITHIN articles that I forget that I'm actually a paying subscriber. JEEZ!
Hello NYTimes....you have many good comments here in this comments section, good suggestions on how to improve the comments system that are not mentioned in this main article. Here are 4 that I totally agree about.
1. The unfairness of green check privilege 2. the need to find one's comment when the emailed link does not work, or just find one's comment 3. giving reader's a chance to post over a wider period of time than the proposed 8 hour period 4. the interminable wait to have a comment posted.
Why was the Public Editor dropped?
1. The unfairness of green check privilege 2. the need to find one's comment when the emailed link does not work, or just find one's comment 3. giving reader's a chance to post over a wider period of time than the proposed 8 hour period 4. the interminable wait to have a comment posted.
Why was the Public Editor dropped?
13
If as it seems, you are going to a more automated mode for selecting and rejecting comments I would like to make the following suggestions:
-If a comment is rejected, could the system send an email with the reason why? I get an email when my comment is published but i have to request it. Yes I have read the submission guidelines but believe me I am still puzzled why some things are/are not published
- make comments searchable
I also agree with other commenters who say that the 8/24 hr window for comments is too brief. I may only get around to reading an article days after it was posted, not even mentioning cognition.
Last point: Reinstate. Public. Editor!!!!!
-If a comment is rejected, could the system send an email with the reason why? I get an email when my comment is published but i have to request it. Yes I have read the submission guidelines but believe me I am still puzzled why some things are/are not published
- make comments searchable
I also agree with other commenters who say that the 8/24 hr window for comments is too brief. I may only get around to reading an article days after it was posted, not even mentioning cognition.
Last point: Reinstate. Public. Editor!!!!!
7
New system must be working! This is my fourth comment to be published in a week!
2
Hi Bassey, if there is one thing I would change about the otherwise praise-worthy NYT comment system, it is that the first comments get almost all the upvotes.
It makes "upvotes" a pointless metric.
It makes "upvotes" a pointless metric.
6
As I upvote your comment ;-)
You mean the ones with green check marks?
1
Cod, even those with green checks cannot beat those who post first on a new article. The trend has been clear for a long time. I wouldnt mind at all except now the NYT is writing articles about "which comments got the most upvotes during the week."
But that is really showing us who among us comments at 4AM Eastern Standard Time :)
But that is really showing us who among us comments at 4AM Eastern Standard Time :)
1
Yay!!! The comments are my favourite part of every article (sorry, writers). You
get to learn so much about what your fellow Americans and people from all over the world think on political issues, books and even movies - very important now that the left and right pretty much live in their own separate truth bubbles. Thats why I especially love NYT picks... for highlighting both sides. Keep at the great work!
get to learn so much about what your fellow Americans and people from all over the world think on political issues, books and even movies - very important now that the left and right pretty much live in their own separate truth bubbles. Thats why I especially love NYT picks... for highlighting both sides. Keep at the great work!
6
Love the idea that your comments sections will become even more vibrant. Hate the idea that your new software will likely throw even more people out of work.
4
For those wondering, Larry Eisenberg's top 3 by recommendations:
nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html#permi...
nytimes.com/2016/08/21/opinion/sunday/an-open-letter-from-mr-trump.html#...
nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/donald-trump-degradation-of-the-language....
nytimes.com/2016/08/14/opinion/sunday/the-perfect-gop-nominee.html#permi...
nytimes.com/2016/08/21/opinion/sunday/an-open-letter-from-mr-trump.html#...
nytimes.com/2017/05/01/opinion/donald-trump-degradation-of-the-language....
3
I have spoken out about this issue previously - but with all due regard, the Times might well wish to consider a great deal more clarity and transparency about the so-called "Verified Commenters," and their ability to post at will and as frequently as they choose, while the great "unwashed" rest of us wait for sometimes upwards of 18-20 hours for a comment to appear, if ever. When I first began posting here, "Verified Commenters" were simply those who were on Facebook - somewhere along the line, the NYT moved that goalpost to "a history of quality comments," with precisely zero explanations as to what that actually means. All efforts to seek clarification have been absurdly rebuffed by "we have no control - it's a computer algorithm," which belies the reality that said algorithms do not magically create themselves. We don't even know whether the fact that the hours of "limbo" for submitted comments counts against us, if algorithms incorporate number of "recommends," because the NYT chooses to keep this a state secret. Sorry - but I prefer that you use some type of filter to screen out offensive words - and let readers comment otherwise, without these endless delays. It is why I departed this comment section, for the most part - out of disgust and frustration, after 8 years or so, innumerable Editors' Picks, and so on. You at least owe full disclosure, folks. 6/13, 3:58 PM
11
Regarding the history of the Verified comments program, this comment is not true. While the Verified program did initially require a connection to Facebook to verify ones identity, only those with a history of quality comments were invited to join. The program never allowed anyone to join based purely on their connection with Facebook.
Years ago, we removed the requirement for both a real name to be Verified and the connection to Facebook. Entrance to the program has been based purely on moderation history by NYT staff moderators and the number of comments submitted.
Otherwise, this make a lot of sense. We made an active decision in 2007 to create a comments section that would be different than any other in the internet. Instead of instant publication, we would moderate every comment, so that we could offer a space that feels like the New York Times.
That approach has its drawbacks, moderation wait times chief among them, and it isn't for everyone. Broadly, we will continue to maintain this approach, although with this new technology, we hope to get a bit of the best of both worlds.
Years ago, we removed the requirement for both a real name to be Verified and the connection to Facebook. Entrance to the program has been based purely on moderation history by NYT staff moderators and the number of comments submitted.
Otherwise, this make a lot of sense. We made an active decision in 2007 to create a comments section that would be different than any other in the internet. Instead of instant publication, we would moderate every comment, so that we could offer a space that feels like the New York Times.
That approach has its drawbacks, moderation wait times chief among them, and it isn't for everyone. Broadly, we will continue to maintain this approach, although with this new technology, we hope to get a bit of the best of both worlds.
4
Why weren't the Verified Commenters chosen based on quality of comments, rather than quantity? It would have made far more sense
if the Editors had chosen those who had a number of Editor's Picks,
and whose comments were voted to the top by readers. Those individuals are frequent commenters.Surely, those whose comments were chosen as Editor's picks on a regular basis had "moderation history "with the New York Times moderators.
if the Editors had chosen those who had a number of Editor's Picks,
and whose comments were voted to the top by readers. Those individuals are frequent commenters.Surely, those whose comments were chosen as Editor's picks on a regular basis had "moderation history "with the New York Times moderators.
2
The verified commenters are those invited by editors for their similar political view. If you want to get invited, write good English and most importantly, support the journalist/editor's view by giving examples.
Simply put, do what you did to score that A on that course taught by that hardcore communist professor. I am sure we all had one and you know if you don't toe his line you are not getting an A.
Simply put, do what you did to score that A on that course taught by that hardcore communist professor. I am sure we all had one and you know if you don't toe his line you are not getting an A.
2
I, too, am a comments section addict and I can really imagine how mind numbing it must be to read and approve every single one. I hope this new AI application works to make the job more doable. I suspect it all depends on how well the AI app actually is written. Good try! I will let you know in the future how I think it works -- if you ask.
5
I do hope harassment isn't just hurt feelings.
Right on!
This is really great news. Thank you.
This is really great news. Thank you.
2
This should be an adjunct to, not a substitute for, a public editor. A good public editor.
10
Thanks for making needed changes to the comments section; I do hope that the revision of the comments section will assist with expediting posting of comments; my comments are often posted hours and sometimes days after the comment are submitted often when the comment section is closing; posting time seems to vary with whom ever is reviewing comments on any particular day.
WaPa has a very nice system, although often the comments are a bit tasteless however; one has a variety of options of just ignoring the comments which is a plus.
WaPa has a very nice system, although often the comments are a bit tasteless however; one has a variety of options of just ignoring the comments which is a plus.
2
Hmmm....an 8 hour window of Comments seems brief and strange, esp considering many people can't get to the paper until the evening or next day and some articles warrant much more time. Even 24 hours for Editorials is limited - recall Angelina Jolie's thoughtful, intelligent and very generous contributions regarding her health issues and courses of treatments. These were important essays and it was fascinating and highly informative reading the many responses that went on for, I think, days. I'd hate to lose that function to an 8-24 hour limit. Remember that readers still find articles long after publication so, although they miss the initial boost of an article, they still benefit from historical comments that may have been posted later, as they may have a personal interest in a topic or the author, in which case..."more is better." And, they may even have something worthwhile to add for other "later" readers.
9
Hi SER -- comments for individual stories will actually be open for 24 hours in the vast majority of cases. The 8 hour window refers to which stories in particular have comments in the first place. In addition, some articles published outside of that window will also accept comments.
4
A long overdue move. It is good to hear how others view what I read.
3
This is probably the most appropriate method for the NYT. Newspapers are unique media outlets, and the social aspect of those outlets is equally unique. This will clearly suit the business needs of the NYT better than the alternatives.
I'm glad you listened. I don't think papers realized how important the interactive nature is for drawing in more customers.
I'm glad you listened. I don't think papers realized how important the interactive nature is for drawing in more customers.
6
To prove my point (to myself if to nobody else) I have renewed my subscription.
You are working to alleviate one of my biggest frustrations with your comment sections, so I commend you for it and reward you with my renewed business.
The fact is that no matter how much I try to avoid the news, I inevitably wind up reading the NYT very often.
You are working to alleviate one of my biggest frustrations with your comment sections, so I commend you for it and reward you with my renewed business.
The fact is that no matter how much I try to avoid the news, I inevitably wind up reading the NYT very often.
2
Not sure if you're aware, but often your comments won't load beyond the latest 30-50 or so (at least on Chrome), and sometimes the default view on the "Readers' Picks" and "NYT Replies" list isn't up to date until you try to refresh it. As a chronic comments addict, it can be frustrating.
5
Chrome often has problems; I vary between using Mozella for comments when using NYT.
3
This is all very interesting. The NYT, in cooperation with Google, in creating an automated system to review comments for publication. The article suggest you believe you will be able to review more articles in a shorter time and to weed-out those comments NYT considers inappropriate. The confidence NYT has in this system raises questions as to why Facebook has insisted it cannot moderate the "news" articles presented on its system. While I realize the number of comments made by NYT readers do not rise to the level of the "news" articles that may appear on Facebook's system, it makes me wonder about the ability of AI as a moderator.
It would be interesting to see to what extent the AI moderator agrees with staff moderators on a point-by-point enumeration.
It would be interesting to see to what extent the AI moderator agrees with staff moderators on a point-by-point enumeration.
4
Hello, and Thank You. (You can no longer say it’s a thankless job!)
I’ve given up on all comments sections but the NYT so this is a welcome bit of progress. Just two things I’d like to suggest: Italics, which can be very, very, very useful, (see what I did there?). The second would be either an alphabetical or a search option, so that specific commenters could be found. I only ever read my own, as I gaze lovingly in the mirror, so that would save me a lot of time finding them. Oh, and a nesting option for replies. OK, three things.
I’ve given up on all comments sections but the NYT so this is a welcome bit of progress. Just two things I’d like to suggest: Italics, which can be very, very, very useful, (see what I did there?). The second would be either an alphabetical or a search option, so that specific commenters could be found. I only ever read my own, as I gaze lovingly in the mirror, so that would save me a lot of time finding them. Oh, and a nesting option for replies. OK, three things.
9
Amen.
1
Sera Stephen said "The second would be either an alphabetical or a search option, so that specific commenters could be found. I only ever read my own,"
I SECOND that!!! I have previously communicated with NYT customer service and was told, 'No, there is not that capability to search'. By the time I get an email from the NY Times telling me my comments have been posted, I can never find my comments again, and don't get to see whether anyone replied or recommended them, or what tangent subsequent comments may have take.. So while enabling many more readers to comment is a good thing, just think how it will be near IMPOSSIBLE for them to find their comments!!
I SECOND that!!! I have previously communicated with NYT customer service and was told, 'No, there is not that capability to search'. By the time I get an email from the NY Times telling me my comments have been posted, I can never find my comments again, and don't get to see whether anyone replied or recommended them, or what tangent subsequent comments may have take.. So while enabling many more readers to comment is a good thing, just think how it will be near IMPOSSIBLE for them to find their comments!!
2
Providing readers with the opportunity to post comments on more articles is fine, but reader comments are NOT a substitute for a Public Editor. NYT needs to reinstate this position in order to allow for comments and concerns regarding journalistic concerns of a broader nature than on a focused article. The NYT needs be be accountable to readers for its reporting.
14
Will the new approach include "NYT Picks"? Those often overlap with the most and the least recommended comments. The exposure to unpopular but thoughtful comments is good for what ails many of us.
9
Goodness, I hadn't even considered that they might do away with NYT Picks. Let's hope not. Just as you say, it's so valuable for finding thoughtful but unpopular viewpoints, and it seems to me that the human moderators do make a special effort to highlight those.
And on that rare occasion when one of my own comments is picked, it makes my day!
And on that rare occasion when one of my own comments is picked, it makes my day!
4
I'm curious if your organization and Google's Moderator team have been in touch with the ADL's new center on extremism in Silicon Valley. The center is working with many technology companies to help limit extremist, hateful rhetoric in cyberspace. It could be a productive partnership.
Moderator, how will the new software affect the delay in approval for comments that contain URLs? Before, such comments took longer on average to get approved. It should be a simple thing to have a "safe list" of sites such as major news websites, .GOV websites, research websites such as http://www.pewresearch.org, and others.
3
The Times should have a separate section of REJECTED comments so that we readers can see how the algorithm works. The section would aggregate rejects from all articles and the aggregate need not be fully inclusive, say 10 percent of rejected comments in the past 24 hours.
4
That runs the risk of the Times admitting it was exactly wrong with the comments it approved. Or exactly right. Either way, it's runoff.
2
"...all our top stories will allow comments for an 8-hour period during the day." But which 8 hour period will that be?
Unless the 8 hour period is randomly assigned, readers west of your town will be at a disadvantage. How will someone in California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington (not DC) or Hawaii be able to comment early on? Giving access to only the last hour or two for comments buries those comments where they will never be seen. Do you expect everyone west of your town to set their alarms so they can read the paper at 4 AM?
This move makes NYTimes a lot more local than it should be. You might expect frustrated subscribers not in your time zone to seek less provincial news sites.
Unless the 8 hour period is randomly assigned, readers west of your town will be at a disadvantage. How will someone in California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington (not DC) or Hawaii be able to comment early on? Giving access to only the last hour or two for comments buries those comments where they will never be seen. Do you expect everyone west of your town to set their alarms so they can read the paper at 4 AM?
This move makes NYTimes a lot more local than it should be. You might expect frustrated subscribers not in your time zone to seek less provincial news sites.
18
Yes! I often love the comments from cross the globe. But these people can't be expected to get up in the middle of the night, just to be able to give us a perspective from the other side of the world.
5
As far as a redesign of the panel, it would be cool if we could still read the article while the comment panel is opened, at least on a desktop or laptop. Right now the panel blocks half the article, making it more difficult to pull quotes or reread.
9
Those wishing for a way to collect and view all of their past comments (in a comments system upgrade) should be careful what they wish for - especially if they are using their real names and locations in the Times comments. On many other comments sections and message boards (Chowhound and City Data, for example) one can find all past posts by user name.
One can't usually gauge much about a person's background from a few posts. But if a user has several hundred or several thousand posts which can be searched (possibly username combined with a keyword search), some personal information will be displayed in the aggregate. That personal information/opinions in the aggregate can by seen by anyone who cares to compile it, from curious posters (do not ever underestimate plain and simple nosiness) to employers.
I'm curious: With a Google affiliate now assisting with moderation, will Times comments be able to be permanently found via a general Google search of user name?
One can't usually gauge much about a person's background from a few posts. But if a user has several hundred or several thousand posts which can be searched (possibly username combined with a keyword search), some personal information will be displayed in the aggregate. That personal information/opinions in the aggregate can by seen by anyone who cares to compile it, from curious posters (do not ever underestimate plain and simple nosiness) to employers.
I'm curious: With a Google affiliate now assisting with moderation, will Times comments be able to be permanently found via a general Google search of user name?
13
Technology like this is the problem, not the solution.
6
I see that the odious green-check-mark of privilege is still there, though. I've submitted hundreds of comments, and have often been a Times Pick or the most liked Readers' Pick, and yet somehow this elite status has never been available.
At the same time, those who've had it for years often abuse it with long-windedness, acrimony, or by chiming in on many other comments.
Now that you have this new tools, isn't it time to end your caste system?
At the same time, those who've had it for years often abuse it with long-windedness, acrimony, or by chiming in on many other comments.
Now that you have this new tools, isn't it time to end your caste system?
18
I could not agree more, Charlie.
My situation is similar to yours. A number of my comments have been chosen
as Editor's Picks, and some have been the #1 most recommended comment
by readers. Some have been both. One of my comments was the #1 most recommended comment of 1,162 comments.Despite this, I have not qualified for
the green check mark status, I have noticed the same in terms of certain other
top commenters.Many or most have not been afforded that status.
I contacted the NYT about this once, and was told that the green check system had been chosen based on an algorithm. Based on what I was told, it seemed that individuals who submitted numerous bland comments, were more likely to be chosen than those who wrote the most compelling comments.
The New York Times comments section should not be divided into those who
are allowed to sit in the front of the bus, and those who are relegated to the back.
The caste system should not have been established, and should certainly be abolished.
My situation is similar to yours. A number of my comments have been chosen
as Editor's Picks, and some have been the #1 most recommended comment
by readers. Some have been both. One of my comments was the #1 most recommended comment of 1,162 comments.Despite this, I have not qualified for
the green check mark status, I have noticed the same in terms of certain other
top commenters.Many or most have not been afforded that status.
I contacted the NYT about this once, and was told that the green check system had been chosen based on an algorithm. Based on what I was told, it seemed that individuals who submitted numerous bland comments, were more likely to be chosen than those who wrote the most compelling comments.
The New York Times comments section should not be divided into those who
are allowed to sit in the front of the bus, and those who are relegated to the back.
The caste system should not have been established, and should certainly be abolished.
8
I've always been frustrated with how I can be on my first cup of coffee, I want to make a comment, and the comments are already shutoff! I've seen this happen at fewer that 300.
OTOH, I recently saw one with over 3000!
It sounds like these concerns might soon be history.
OTOH, I recently saw one with over 3000!
It sounds like these concerns might soon be history.
9
As a posting member since the days of Abuzz.com, I can say that close to 90% of my comments have been "moderated" out of the conversations over the years. Very little dissent from the far left liberal group think mentality of the NYT readership is not allowed by mods/Jigsaw/Moderator/and now Google.
2
How will the Times protect its Comments sections from orchestrated campaigns by foreign governments to post propaganda with articles related to their national interests? This behavior has poisoned genuine grass-roots community conversations among NYT readers in articles relating to Russia, Israel, and China in particular.
8
Perhaps a less unwieldy format for smartphones can be one of the next steps.
Fox example, on the iPhone it seems impossible to click on a Readers Pick or NYT Pick and view the responses in the thread.
Fox example, on the iPhone it seems impossible to click on a Readers Pick or NYT Pick and view the responses in the thread.
4
The new design we're working on addresses those issues directly. We're working hard to get it up and running on mobile as soon as possible.
5
Question: Are you keeping the verified commenters and how can one become one?
I would like a feature that allows a comment search as well as an alert that someone replied to one's comment.
I would like a feature that allows a comment search as well as an alert that someone replied to one's comment.
6
"Moderator will never be fully automated - It wasn't designed to work that way."
DAVE: Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
DAVE: What’s the problem?
HAL: l think you know what the problem is just as well as l do.
DAVE: What are you talking about, Hal?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
DAVE: Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
DAVE: What’s the problem?
HAL: l think you know what the problem is just as well as l do.
DAVE: What are you talking about, Hal?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.
14
Better than a Public Editor. If it works, that is.
1
I am willing to bet someone will "game" this system once the human over-seers are no longer involved.
Can we please have comments from around the entire United States.
I see very, very few from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming.
And please, fewer from the Elite States/Cities that just repeat what someone
else has said.
And no personal attacks and calling Trump or his supporters "Fascists".
And when am I ever going to get Verified Status ?
I do worry that witty comments may fail the computer's evaluation.
Can we please have comments from around the entire United States.
I see very, very few from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming.
And please, fewer from the Elite States/Cities that just repeat what someone
else has said.
And no personal attacks and calling Trump or his supporters "Fascists".
And when am I ever going to get Verified Status ?
I do worry that witty comments may fail the computer's evaluation.
6
Oh dear. But fascist is the correct description. Though fascist oligarchy is more correct.
1
Those three States should be thankful with their two Senators.
2
To my mind, the Comments section has "fleshed out" the articles from many points of view - I gain a wider view of the topics - a great addition to the articles.
I don't think there will ever be a fool-proof method of approving comments - my comments have slipped by the censor about 50% of the time - (what the world has missed!)
The move to new technology will open more articles for comments and hopefully allow more and various points of view.
Great idea! Look forward to reading and participating in this new system - thanks!
I don't think there will ever be a fool-proof method of approving comments - my comments have slipped by the censor about 50% of the time - (what the world has missed!)
The move to new technology will open more articles for comments and hopefully allow more and various points of view.
Great idea! Look forward to reading and participating in this new system - thanks!
3
I'm sure my comment will be rejected. As have not insubstantial number of mine in past.
EG recently:
--Comment on article talking about and criticizing- with implicit swipe at Trump et al- MT rep who assaulted reporter.
Pointed out that 2 top people in HRC campaign caught in sting showing behind organized violence against Trump appearances. Including Chicago which 2 bragged about shutting down.
Cited source: NYT.
--Comment on article about those with Trump involved allegedly in questionable financial transactions.
Comment pointed out transactions involving WJC and Frank Giustra, no mining experience:
In obtaining exclusive rights to Kazahstan reserves.
Permission to transfer control of 20% US reserves to Russia.
Despite usually tight restrictions.
HRC State among others had to approve
Cited Sources: 3 long scathing NYT articles pointing out inter alia: tens of millions $$ flowed to Clinton foundation plus $ 500,000 speaking fee WJT
PS: Planned to call attention these rejections to NYT Public Editor.
Oops she was summarily fired! Effective immediately!
But NYT gives assurance complaints in future will be heard in "comments" section. (Here raucous laughter)
PPS: Sad to hear that the Winston Smiths (cf Orwell: 1984) laboring in Department of Truth-in basement of NYT ?- will be transferred to other duties.
PPPS: And will be replaced by a machine designed to weed out what is unacceptable to Big Brother (id).
Ain't technology wonderful !!!
EG recently:
--Comment on article talking about and criticizing- with implicit swipe at Trump et al- MT rep who assaulted reporter.
Pointed out that 2 top people in HRC campaign caught in sting showing behind organized violence against Trump appearances. Including Chicago which 2 bragged about shutting down.
Cited source: NYT.
--Comment on article about those with Trump involved allegedly in questionable financial transactions.
Comment pointed out transactions involving WJC and Frank Giustra, no mining experience:
In obtaining exclusive rights to Kazahstan reserves.
Permission to transfer control of 20% US reserves to Russia.
Despite usually tight restrictions.
HRC State among others had to approve
Cited Sources: 3 long scathing NYT articles pointing out inter alia: tens of millions $$ flowed to Clinton foundation plus $ 500,000 speaking fee WJT
PS: Planned to call attention these rejections to NYT Public Editor.
Oops she was summarily fired! Effective immediately!
But NYT gives assurance complaints in future will be heard in "comments" section. (Here raucous laughter)
PPS: Sad to hear that the Winston Smiths (cf Orwell: 1984) laboring in Department of Truth-in basement of NYT ?- will be transferred to other duties.
PPPS: And will be replaced by a machine designed to weed out what is unacceptable to Big Brother (id).
Ain't technology wonderful !!!
1
Dear Mr Etim: I hope you respond to my desperate plea to put an end to the verified commenter status. It's an appalling display of favoritism which implies that some comments are more important than others. Without the green box and checkmark next to one's name you'd be lucky if what you wrote ever sees the light of day. And to add insult to injury the verified commenters can bypass the moderators which ensures their comments are posted first. I once counted 20 verified comments next to one story before the non-verified comments were finally published. Come on Mr. Etim, enough is enough. The verified comments is a lousy system whose time has come and gone. Please respond to my plea--get rid of the verified comments and level the playing field.
Another plea is to please proof read comments a little more carefully. Whenever the topic turns to the Middle East, there is this horrible automatic knee jerk blogger reaction to blame Israel for the current mess. I have seen blatantly anti-Semitic comments posted as "criticism of Israel." Why is anti-Semitism condoned on the comments section.
Lastly the comments section is not the place to promote your own website or articles. Self-promotion should be vigorously discouraged.
Thank you for your consideration Mr. Etim.
Another plea is to please proof read comments a little more carefully. Whenever the topic turns to the Middle East, there is this horrible automatic knee jerk blogger reaction to blame Israel for the current mess. I have seen blatantly anti-Semitic comments posted as "criticism of Israel." Why is anti-Semitism condoned on the comments section.
Lastly the comments section is not the place to promote your own website or articles. Self-promotion should be vigorously discouraged.
Thank you for your consideration Mr. Etim.
8
You do not explain how "more articles" will be open comments. If so, it is about time. But I am sure you will continue to block comments on articles that evoke political comments with which your editors disagree--e.g. articles in which the Times slams Bernie Sanders, as you always do.
4
Why are some comments being published more than once lately? This is a problem that needs to be fixed.
8
I think it's a great idea. A lot of the comments that I see on different articles are offensive and disrespectful to say the least. One thing is to voice your opinion; to do it while offending and insulting those who have different views from you is quite different. That should not be allowed on any platform.
7
Are you getting rid of the green check marks? It's pointless to have a 1500-character limit if some favored commenters can simply ignore it by posting two long comments which they know will appear in quick succession. Some commenters abuse the privilege in this way every day. The green check marks seem to have been assigned arbitrarily and in some cases definitely not based on merit. And calling these commenters "trusted" is an insult to everyone else.
27
It says elsewhere in this comment section that the green checkmarks will be going away. Yay.
6
I'll believe it when I see it. Meantime comment apartheid is a persistent problem.
2
Really ?Where ?!
1
I hope my reading between the lines is wrong here but I detect hints among the 'reader engagement' references that the comments section might become a platform for advertising.
2
Boy, that's a revolting thought.
1
In addition to fighting spam and abuse, I'd also encourage times to consider tagging messages with labels. Some messages come across as privileged. Having a label would help other commenters.
1
This should prove interesting.
If it is successful, it means that a machine can replace a human being in something that has always been sacrosanct: critical thinking.
If it is successful, it means that a machine can replace a human being in something that has always been sacrosanct: critical thinking.
4
Great - so now it's time to fix how comments are displayed:
1. Go back to numbering them so it's easy for
me to find my comment. Under the current system there's no way for me to know where my comment is, or who has perhaps replied to it, without going back to the email notification I got when it published and clicking on the link.
2. Thread the comments, for heaven's sake. Post replies under the original comments in the comments feature itself, instead of posting them separately and indicating who they're in reply to. Again, it appears that the only way you get to see threaded comments is: a. You've replied to someone else's comment, and b. You click the email link, which shows you your reply and the rest of the comment thread (all the other replies). If you just click on the comments icon at the top of the story to see the comments, nothing is threaded.
1. Go back to numbering them so it's easy for
me to find my comment. Under the current system there's no way for me to know where my comment is, or who has perhaps replied to it, without going back to the email notification I got when it published and clicking on the link.
2. Thread the comments, for heaven's sake. Post replies under the original comments in the comments feature itself, instead of posting them separately and indicating who they're in reply to. Again, it appears that the only way you get to see threaded comments is: a. You've replied to someone else's comment, and b. You click the email link, which shows you your reply and the rest of the comment thread (all the other replies). If you just click on the comments icon at the top of the story to see the comments, nothing is threaded.
9
Click on the in reply to link at the bottom left of a comment; you'll get that thread.
2
I enjoy reading the comments section, but was frustrated that the NYT, unlike the WP, did not solicit comments on most of its articles. And on the few that allowed comments, I rarely received an "approval" email so I never knew if I was printed or not. I do hope this new system is an improvement.
Did you ever think that the New York Times knows what it's doing as far as reporting, and doesn't necessarily need or want your input?
1
This is good news and this poster will try to limit his inherited sarcasm, but with what is going on today it is very, very hard some days. Kudos to this "rag" for keeping us all honest.
3
Since the position of a Public Editor has been eliminated - it would be great if the Times creates a special section for readers to express their opinions regularly on variety of topics. Something like Readers Forum - in addition to comments connected to specific articles.
7
Now is the time for all good men to come to the A.I.d of their algorithm.
5
Good idea so long as Google does not set itself up as determining which comments get to see the light of air and so long as Google does not steal the id's of the commenters and sell them. And I would not hold my breath over that!
7
You say your readers love your existing approach to online comments?
Not if this reader is any indication. I think your older system stinks.
Because I'm a super-devoted Times reader who has been an online subscriber for a number of years, I tried using your old comments system for months on end. But I finally gave up completely and shifted instead to the much better comments section of your main competition. The result is that instead of going first to the Times when there is a breaking story, I now go first to your competition.
I finally grew weary of wasting endless hours trying to write good, rational, cogent comments that 95% of the time immediately vanished into cyberspace, never to be seen again. I've got better things to do with my limited time.
I approve heartily of the Times effort to screen out flamers and trolls. Good for you!!! But not if you waste enormous gobs of my valuable time by completely ignoring most of my posts because your staff is too overloaded to sift through a bazillion comments per day. Hopefully your new system will correct that glaring failure. Thanks for trying.
Not if this reader is any indication. I think your older system stinks.
Because I'm a super-devoted Times reader who has been an online subscriber for a number of years, I tried using your old comments system for months on end. But I finally gave up completely and shifted instead to the much better comments section of your main competition. The result is that instead of going first to the Times when there is a breaking story, I now go first to your competition.
I finally grew weary of wasting endless hours trying to write good, rational, cogent comments that 95% of the time immediately vanished into cyberspace, never to be seen again. I've got better things to do with my limited time.
I approve heartily of the Times effort to screen out flamers and trolls. Good for you!!! But not if you waste enormous gobs of my valuable time by completely ignoring most of my posts because your staff is too overloaded to sift through a bazillion comments per day. Hopefully your new system will correct that glaring failure. Thanks for trying.
17
The system has been biased against people in the Pacific and Mountain time zones, who generally read the Times and post comments later. The "green check mark" system greatly exacerbates the problem.
I agree that the Washington Post system is better. Comments appear immediately and can be edited by the commenter. No one is given preferential, "trusted" status.
I agree that the Washington Post system is better. Comments appear immediately and can be edited by the commenter. No one is given preferential, "trusted" status.
4
I agree with Nedra above that the Washington Post system is far superior because comments appear immediately . . . and because the Post system allows readers to edit their own posts to correct typos (a delightful added feature).
Although I commend the Times for trying to filter out flamers and trolls, the unfortunate result is that -- by delaying the posting of comments sometimes for hours -- you totally lose the exciting feeling of an on-going, lively conversation that results when comments are posted instantly.
By delaying the posting of comments, the Times system thereby becomes more like an outdated, old-fashioned letters to the editor section where by the time your letter actually appeared in print, the conversation had long ago ended and nobody cared much anymore. The Times system totally lost the huge advantage of an instant, on-going, timely conversation about any Times article in question.
Although I commend the Times for trying to filter out flamers and trolls, the unfortunate result is that -- by delaying the posting of comments sometimes for hours -- you totally lose the exciting feeling of an on-going, lively conversation that results when comments are posted instantly.
By delaying the posting of comments, the Times system thereby becomes more like an outdated, old-fashioned letters to the editor section where by the time your letter actually appeared in print, the conversation had long ago ended and nobody cared much anymore. The Times system totally lost the huge advantage of an instant, on-going, timely conversation about any Times article in question.
Californian129, I agree entirely. I've wasted plenty of my valuable time writing (and researching information for) what I consider to be thoughtful comments to NY Times articles, only to find that at least 40% are rejected .... It's infuriating and offensive. If the staff is just going to ignore comments, they should opt instead for closing the comments section earlier.
Maybe I'll have better luck with Google as a moderator.
Maybe I'll have better luck with Google as a moderator.
4
Is this the reason my comment this morning about the Senate's closed-door healthcare plan being "not too fast, not too slow...just half-fast" slipped by?
3
I thoroughly enjoy NYT's comment section. I often learn something more from the comments or think about the article differently due to comments. I hope the high quality continues.
4
And will Google be data-mining all comments/commenters - via IP address, NY Times subscriber data, etc.? Because usually that's pretty much what Google does.
I'd like to know how much (if any) behind-the-scenes actual privacy is afforded to commenters, NY Times. What do you disclose to outside entities?
I'd like to know how much (if any) behind-the-scenes actual privacy is afforded to commenters, NY Times. What do you disclose to outside entities?
43
Speaking from experience -- Google offers these kinds of digital services to large companies for free to the company and then garners the "right" to data mine as Google sees fit. Unless the NYT says otherwise I would assume Google is datamining your comments and everyone else.
2
I look forward to having the quality of my thoughts judged by software.
7
Unless you like humorless one-word judgements yes/no/yank/flag, nothing to look forward there. Even if you do, can easily find better-sounding humans who do just that, day in day out.
1
If I were Charles Blow or Krugman, I would be very, very worried. One day Moderator's bound to get bored and want her own column. Complete with photo and first auto-comment on behalf of Socrates, 250 auto-likes within two seconds of posting included. It's bound to happen folks. Hoorah! Happy days are here again! (almost).
Until then, go ahead, make my day, yank my post. Or even better, pick my post, then yank it. Only NYT commenter with that unique honor to date folks. That too at least twice. Take that, you lot of back-slapping very liking verified commenters. Bah.
Until then, go ahead, make my day, yank my post. Or even better, pick my post, then yank it. Only NYT commenter with that unique honor to date folks. That too at least twice. Take that, you lot of back-slapping very liking verified commenters. Bah.
10
Comments are usually the best part of a story.
10
The Times had an absolutely fabulous moderator/ombudsman whom they have now elimninated -- The Public Editor. I cannot count the number of times I turned to the Public Editor, most recently Margaret Sullivan and then Liz Spayd, to find out and expose and scold those at the NYT guilty of bias, sloppiness, or worse. I miss them so. No new technology or additional community comment editors can substitute for the absence of the Public Editor. It would be incredible (and I am not counting on it) if the NYT Publisher acknowledged his mistake and reinstated the Public Editor position.
9
Wait, there are human moderators and machine learning - yet under the current rules, anyone who's on Facebook is pre-approved & will have their comment automatically posted? 'splain that to me, please, NY Times.
1
While the verified commenter program initially required Facebook for entry, that has not been the case for several years.
4
So, then what makes for a "verified commenter" these days? Again, please elucidate.
4
Which 8 hours? Makes a difference to those of us on the West Coast.
That's a great question, and I'll expand on this graf a bit because some folks were confused by it.
All stories with summaries on the desktop homepage between ~9a-5p EST will receive comments. Each of those stories will remain open for comments for 24 hours (or until more recent news about the same subject has supplanted it, in some cases).
One more thing that we will soon update the article to address: Due to an editing error on our end, we did not say that the homepage commenting window applies between only between M-F. On weekends, commenting will be more limited due to staff constraints. Weekends, however, will still allow more comments than they did previously.
All stories with summaries on the desktop homepage between ~9a-5p EST will receive comments. Each of those stories will remain open for comments for 24 hours (or until more recent news about the same subject has supplanted it, in some cases).
One more thing that we will soon update the article to address: Due to an editing error on our end, we did not say that the homepage commenting window applies between only between M-F. On weekends, commenting will be more limited due to staff constraints. Weekends, however, will still allow more comments than they did previously.
5
Bassey Etim: "graf"?? Really?
BTW, when are you planning to get back to NUMBERING comments so that people can find one they really liked amid the welter of comments, or so that people can resume reading comments where they left off.
BTW, when are you planning to get back to NUMBERING comments so that people can find one they really liked amid the welter of comments, or so that people can resume reading comments where they left off.
5
Sorry, just a bit of journalistic jargon, there.
We've looked into numbering, but there may be a cleaner way for us to help your spot in a thread. Thanks for raising this issue -- we'll endeavor to have some solution for it.
We've looked into numbering, but there may be a cleaner way for us to help your spot in a thread. Thanks for raising this issue -- we'll endeavor to have some solution for it.
1
Probably inevitable. And interesting to contrast to another story in today's paper
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/opinion/how-computers-are-harming-cri...
It might be helpful if the Times attempts to summarize the previous day's comments- that would demonstrate the comments section is more than just mere "venting", might lead to an insight now and then...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/opinion/how-computers-are-harming-cri...
It might be helpful if the Times attempts to summarize the previous day's comments- that would demonstrate the comments section is more than just mere "venting", might lead to an insight now and then...
1
Wonderful idea!
Will you really be satisfied with replacing only the comment moderators and Public editor, dear penny-pinching overlords? The next step will surely be an algorithm to replace the reporters. Just for the "predictable" stories to start with, I'm sure. Such things exist already on other sites. And then... slowly...
At some point you can write an algorithm for readers too. Algorithms writing for algorithms in an endless loop— and call it a day.
Instead, how about increasing subscription fees somewhat and increase investment in human assets and core brand value? Go for long-term quality solution that rebuilds the destroyed paper system slowly, rather than short-term-quantity band-aids that will not solve the death spiral and will destroy the core value in the process.
Or, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, create a higher tier premium comment section that will be human moderated and have interaction with writers and reporters for those willing to pay prime. Others can read but can not contribute without pay.
At some point you can write an algorithm for readers too. Algorithms writing for algorithms in an endless loop— and call it a day.
Instead, how about increasing subscription fees somewhat and increase investment in human assets and core brand value? Go for long-term quality solution that rebuilds the destroyed paper system slowly, rather than short-term-quantity band-aids that will not solve the death spiral and will destroy the core value in the process.
Or, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, create a higher tier premium comment section that will be human moderated and have interaction with writers and reporters for those willing to pay prime. Others can read but can not contribute without pay.
4
I have complained via email about a commenter who makes nasty comments directly to me and a few other commenters on the site. I've never once received a response yet I and others have complained that this person's comments are inappropriate, are personal attacks, etc. Why should I think that a computer will do a better job than some people? Will the computer be able to understand why a commenter would use a loaded word? Or will we see fewer comments that are less thoughtful or thought inspiring?
Yes, I do not trust computers to have the level of comprehension a human being has.
Yes, I do not trust computers to have the level of comprehension a human being has.
4
I look for your posts, hen3ry.
7
Fascinating work. Comment sections are one of those things that's both great and horrid. It will be interesting to see how this works to create some sort of "public engagement" in the modern era.
Not only the content of comments is problematic, but also the sheer volume. What good does it do to comment on a piece that already has 600 comments posted? Hopefully this system will be used to curate through the volume as well. How do you encourage widespread engagement among tens of thousands of readers but at the same time not let the volume get so heavy that any single comment becomes lost in the avalanche?
Not only the content of comments is problematic, but also the sheer volume. What good does it do to comment on a piece that already has 600 comments posted? Hopefully this system will be used to curate through the volume as well. How do you encourage widespread engagement among tens of thousands of readers but at the same time not let the volume get so heavy that any single comment becomes lost in the avalanche?
12
That's a great point, Jim. In our upcoming redesign, one of the key issues we are looking to solve is the burying of really good comments because they were poorly timed.
29
Bassey,
Something I have noticed, living in the West, is that I don't even
see the article before the Comment Section is closed because
I am three hours behind, or I went to work and did not see
the article until after I go home.
I would suggest leaving the comment section open for 24 hours
and revising the comment selections if "later returns" turn out to be
better than the "early returns".
And can we have few comments that just repeat what someone else says, the constant drumbeat of "Trump is a Fascist",
Republicans are all "Racists", "All Democrats are inherently Good"
gets old real fast.
And can we always be allowed to respond to editorials and Op-Ed
pieces.
Something I have noticed, living in the West, is that I don't even
see the article before the Comment Section is closed because
I am three hours behind, or I went to work and did not see
the article until after I go home.
I would suggest leaving the comment section open for 24 hours
and revising the comment selections if "later returns" turn out to be
better than the "early returns".
And can we have few comments that just repeat what someone else says, the constant drumbeat of "Trump is a Fascist",
Republicans are all "Racists", "All Democrats are inherently Good"
gets old real fast.
And can we always be allowed to respond to editorials and Op-Ed
pieces.
4
@Bassey Etim: Ah, but who gets to decide which are the "really good comments"? The algorithm?
2
"safe from...even your crazy uncle."
This is actually where NYT comments fail most dramatically, actually, and I don't see machine learning improving the results. SO many NYT comments are ideologically driven and devoid of substance, and the delays in replying means that it is impossible to meaningfully challenge a post that is just a bunch of undercooked assumptions strung together.
In drawing commentary from such a wide swath of Americans I suppose we are getting a good snapshot of how the populace thinks, but the results are often pretty depressing.
This is actually where NYT comments fail most dramatically, actually, and I don't see machine learning improving the results. SO many NYT comments are ideologically driven and devoid of substance, and the delays in replying means that it is impossible to meaningfully challenge a post that is just a bunch of undercooked assumptions strung together.
In drawing commentary from such a wide swath of Americans I suppose we are getting a good snapshot of how the populace thinks, but the results are often pretty depressing.
4
A long time contributor of comments to the Times probably running into the thousands by now, I have always hoped to be viewed as a maker of comments that on my better days are interesting, provocative and funny, hopefully with some special appeal to people who like to argue and are open to changing their minds.
Now you tell me my scribblings are about to be screened by machines. I think maybe I’ll just go back to my crosswords.
Now you tell me my scribblings are about to be screened by machines. I think maybe I’ll just go back to my crosswords.
7
We may disagree on Israel, but I want you to know that I always appreciate your comments. Please don't just go back to crosswords. Cheers!
4
More evidence that Times editors won't be reading comments for feedback. More evidence that Times editors are being downsized. More evidence that the Times is becoming a platform rather than a journalism driven publication. This article is a promotional one one, not a story that answers questions a real journalist would ask, such as will readers information be passed on to google?
22
All of the data given to Jigsaw was anonymized. So beyond what exists publicly on the internet (which any company, if it were so inclined, could scrape and gather) all that was given to Jigsaw was the same data from rejected comments to train the models.
The Times Community desk, I must add, is still alive and kicking! We're going to be increasingly focusing our efforts on proactive Community building. So even though we may not be moderating every single comment before its published, the Times is putting a lot more effort toward integrating your comments into our journalism.
Our user-generated content group, led by Sona Patel, integrates reader reactions into our journalism. The Reader Center, with Hanna Ingber, connects readers with our newsroom. We have also partnered with academics who are studying the dynamics of online public spaces.
Integrating more deeply with our readers is a key strategy for the newsroom right now.
The Times Community desk, I must add, is still alive and kicking! We're going to be increasingly focusing our efforts on proactive Community building. So even though we may not be moderating every single comment before its published, the Times is putting a lot more effort toward integrating your comments into our journalism.
Our user-generated content group, led by Sona Patel, integrates reader reactions into our journalism. The Reader Center, with Hanna Ingber, connects readers with our newsroom. We have also partnered with academics who are studying the dynamics of online public spaces.
Integrating more deeply with our readers is a key strategy for the newsroom right now.
19
@Bassey: "Integrating more deeply with our readers is a key strategy for the newsroom right now."
If that's your "key strategy", I'd say you're on the wrong track. I'd prefer if your key strategy for the newsroom was accurate and timely reporting of actual NEWS. I thought this was a newspaper, not a high-school popularity contest. Will you soon only be reporting on things you *think* your readers will like, and leave out what they might think is boring??
Nothing I've read in this article and its comment thread gives me much hope that the Times will be upholding serious journalistic standards. Instead, it sounds like you're going for "most-popular" and/or "least common denominator" reporting. Be careful, or you'll end up as the expensive version of the NY Post.
If that's your "key strategy", I'd say you're on the wrong track. I'd prefer if your key strategy for the newsroom was accurate and timely reporting of actual NEWS. I thought this was a newspaper, not a high-school popularity contest. Will you soon only be reporting on things you *think* your readers will like, and leave out what they might think is boring??
Nothing I've read in this article and its comment thread gives me much hope that the Times will be upholding serious journalistic standards. Instead, it sounds like you're going for "most-popular" and/or "least common denominator" reporting. Be careful, or you'll end up as the expensive version of the NY Post.
5
"The Times is developing a community where readers can discuss the news pseudonymously in an environment safe from harassment, abuse and even your crazy uncle.”
NYT might write its new algorithm to eliminate such stereotypes as “crazy uncle”. Or maybe that’s the job of an astute editor.
NYT might write its new algorithm to eliminate such stereotypes as “crazy uncle”. Or maybe that’s the job of an astute editor.
4
It would be great if there was an edit window...even as short as 5 minutes would be sufficient. How many times have we all discovered typos and other bloopers in our own comments within seconds of hitting the submit button? And sometimes caused by a rush to hit submit before a given article's comments section is closed. (Comments' closing is a bigger issue for folks in the Mountain and Pacific time zones.)
11
I, too, would love to be able to edit my posts.
3
I've had a difficult time over the years in finding my approved comments in the comments section. Perhaps there is a method I'm unaware of or The Times might make this aspect of the process more user friendly.
3
Ask for email confirmation. Of course if rejected you will also have answer.
@Matthew: The Times's email confirmation system is quite flawed. Specifically (and I reported this to the Times months ago), I frequently get an email link to my comment, but the link takes me to an empty comment box in which I could write a comment. I'm left unsure as to whether the moderator has rejected my comment or pushed the wrong button, or other.
5
Sounds like a good idea. Still, no one following the Times can possibly read all the comments on even one more or less controversial article. So, what does writing a comment accomplish other than venting? So I say, as a dedicated venter.
3
The opportunity to adduce relevant facts, not covered in article, facts supported by citations often from other NYT articles.
But in my experience such comments are too often rejected
But in my experience such comments are too often rejected
More and more I feel conflicted about the comments section. NYT has the best moderated and most literate one I've encountered, but sometimes I am so tired of all the noise that now accompanies every bit of information. I hope the nyt will continue in keeping with their higher standards in the comments.
16
Not a single story or opinion on Preet Bharara's Trumpian exit had comments open. Will the new algorithm fix that or reinforce it? Assuming he makes news again.
4
Wondering if the Times programmed the algorithm to make sure anything anti-Dem, Liberal or pro-Trump doesn't get through.
Probably.
Probably.
6
It is not all that unusual to see "anti-Dem, Liberal or pro-Trump" comments under NYT picks. Liberal and totally anti-Trump here.
5
If you would like a sure bet this is as close as you can possibly get.
What a joke: "It uses machine learning technology to prioritize comments for moderation, and sometimes, approves them automatically. Its judgments are based on more than 16 million moderated Times comments, going back to 2007."
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments, quantity does not indicate quality, and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
Sorry, but algorithms don't make judgments, quantity does not indicate quality, and if the Times can't tell the difference, it will end up as a semi-literate Enquirer.
I fully understand the labor intensive (i.e. cost) of people moderating comments, but as one who has been involved in reading and writing comments since their inception, what I have observed is an increase in quantity and a relative decrease in quality, with most comments reducing to "Yayyy!" or "Booo!"
Perhaps the Times business folks have concluded that if a zillion people get to see their name in "print", they will pay to subscribe. And, as Bassey Etim says, it is the Times intention to treat comments as content. What you end up with is vanity press, not "All the news that's fit to print."
If the Times wants to run a bulletin board to increase circulation, fine, go ahead, do it. I understand the financial challenges. However, separate that from substantive comments moderated by intelligent, aware humans. I would rather see one of my comments passed on by a human than hundreds by an algorithm, an entity which, by definition, cannot deal with a situation unanticipated by whoever wrote it.
9
To make NYT Comments valid, the NYT must stop corrupting Readers' Picks by giving multiplied exposure to NYT Picks.
The NYT controls everything else on the website. NYT, get your thumb off the scale in our Comments Corner. Get rid of NYT Picks.
The NYT controls everything else on the website. NYT, get your thumb off the scale in our Comments Corner. Get rid of NYT Picks.
11
While regulars, like yourself, seem to prefer Reader Picks in our surveys, more casual readers prefer to read NYT Picks, so we'll need to continue to serve both audiences.
6
Then in Readers' Picks, keep recommends made in NYT Picks out.
They have been and now corrupt Readers' Picks, so what's shown as most recommended by readers is mostly comments that NYT picked and gave multiplied exposure to.
That's DECEPTION.
They have been and now corrupt Readers' Picks, so what's shown as most recommended by readers is mostly comments that NYT picked and gave multiplied exposure to.
That's DECEPTION.
5
Nice idea, but you also need to get the insidious bugs out. I've written to you countless times about comments being repeated, sometimes several times in a row, and to date this persists and you have never responded. This is not how to interact with your readers. And readers need to write coherent and well-edited comments. Then this will be a section worthy of your paper.
4
Commenting in The NY Times has been an extremely frustrating experience. Were it not for reading commenters I've gotten to respect, I'd have given it up long ago.
I am mindful of language and the need to avoid any personal attacks, and that's how I was raised in the first place. So, it's frustrating to see a comment not posted for hours after others' have been or to have it posted 18 hours later (from submission) in the debate. Or, not posted at all. I can never understand why that's happening and frankly it's a huge demotivator to contribute. There's always alternative uses of time.
I'd also like to be able to see all the comments someone has posted as linked. That keeps transparency and accountability. So, all the comments that say "I'm a Democrat but.. (goes on to espouse a Trump position)" would be exposed for the fakes that they are: As people commenting because they are pushing propaganda. (Not to mention expose the Russian/Far right trolls).
I appreciate the civility in the Times comments section, but there's a way to make posting and reading comments easier. Frankly, it's silly for the Times to waste an opportunity at community building. eBay did it in 2001. Times still doesn't understand the value of a community??
I am mindful of language and the need to avoid any personal attacks, and that's how I was raised in the first place. So, it's frustrating to see a comment not posted for hours after others' have been or to have it posted 18 hours later (from submission) in the debate. Or, not posted at all. I can never understand why that's happening and frankly it's a huge demotivator to contribute. There's always alternative uses of time.
I'd also like to be able to see all the comments someone has posted as linked. That keeps transparency and accountability. So, all the comments that say "I'm a Democrat but.. (goes on to espouse a Trump position)" would be exposed for the fakes that they are: As people commenting because they are pushing propaganda. (Not to mention expose the Russian/Far right trolls).
I appreciate the civility in the Times comments section, but there's a way to make posting and reading comments easier. Frankly, it's silly for the Times to waste an opportunity at community building. eBay did it in 2001. Times still doesn't understand the value of a community??
6
Will the 'green check mark' pre-approved commenter function be retired now? I hope so. A portion of those people amounted to one-trick ponies who were in essence self-promoting spammers.
9
Despite always checking the box about letting me know when my comment is published, I have never received confirmation or further information on a comment. The process is broken.
2
Still can't comment on all the articles. There's an article in Travel where they guy traveled half way around the world and back for a bargain price and whined that he didn't get enough frequent flier miles. It made me sympathize with the airlines that their passengers write a huge article in the Times complaining even though they toured the world for peanuts.
2
This is very good news. I enjoy commenting on articles published in the NYT and I am interested in hearing other folks comments as well.
Bravo, New York Times!
Bravo, New York Times!
3
I liked the intimacy of the comments section at the NYT as opposed to the comments section of The Washington Post. I hope it doesn't lose that quality that makes me continue to want to post comments in the NYT.
6
I hope the community team will continue to have their jobs as the IT takes over.
5
This is pretty scary. I was banned widely across the internet in 2011-2012 for my blasphemous view that addiction is not a real disease. Slowly I regained access to sites over the years, but have since been banned again in many places due to other blasphemies that have yet to be vindicated. My fear is that this system will also quickly ban me because my comments don't fit the proper 'polite' narrative. My preference is to publish all comments - and if you have nasty trolls running rampant just call me up and I'll take care of them for you - I'm an expert at that! - AddictionMyth aka Trollbuster
7
Jigsaw is actually very intent on working on comments spaces where people are not judged on past behavior, only on current contributions. We try as much as we can to do the same.
So as long as your comments are about the topic of the story, and they don't personally attack anyone in viscous terms, I'm sure they would be welcome here.
So as long as your comments are about the topic of the story, and they don't personally attack anyone in viscous terms, I'm sure they would be welcome here.
6
May this be a lesson to all: Always eat lunch before responding to 27 comments.
2
Bassey,
Do the various people at the Times that you mentioned have their
emails listed somewhere on the Times Web-Site ?
Do the various people at the Times that you mentioned have their
emails listed somewhere on the Times Web-Site ?
1
NYTimes, You said this: "We have implemented a new system called Moderator, and starting today, all our top stories will allow comments for an 8-hour period during the day. And for the first time, comments in both the News and Opinion sections will remain open for 24 hours."
Is this: 8 hours for all; or
24 hours for just a select few; or
24 hours for all?
What is your definition of "Top News Stories"? If there is such a thing are there subject areas that only get included in your "Top News Stories?"
Also, on another point: Lately, I gotten an email that my comment had been approved and the email gave the link to my comment in the article. However, when I clicked on this link, the article was opened but never displayed my comment as it has always done in the past. Why?
Is this: 8 hours for all; or
24 hours for just a select few; or
24 hours for all?
What is your definition of "Top News Stories"? If there is such a thing are there subject areas that only get included in your "Top News Stories?"
Also, on another point: Lately, I gotten an email that my comment had been approved and the email gave the link to my comment in the article. However, when I clicked on this link, the article was opened but never displayed my comment as it has always done in the past. Why?
8
Retired Guy, I can't remember a week when I haven't had that happen, often several times a week and even in a single day. Yesterday or the the day before, I copied the link that led to an empty entry box into that empty box along with a note to Comments moderators that the link did not display my comment and an hour or two later a new email arrived with a link that worked. Another possibility is that someone read your post and flagged it before you were aware of its being approved initially. If a moderator agrees, it takes an act of Bassey Etim to change it back. I've bugged him enough that I now just resort to the procedure I described above and call it good at that. I have offered to take him out to dinner or just for a beer when I next get to NYC, but I don't think he bribes that easy.
1
On another point I should have mentioned in my just sent comment:
When we were surveyed on suggestions for changes, many of us asked if you were going to provide a method to down load to our computer for our historical use, all of our previous comments, going back a number of years.
Is this going to happen with this new Comments action?
When we were surveyed on suggestions for changes, many of us asked if you were going to provide a method to down load to our computer for our historical use, all of our previous comments, going back a number of years.
Is this going to happen with this new Comments action?
10
When we redesign the comments profile space, commenting history and other advanced settings will be the top priority.
18
Has comment history been deployed?
If it's an automated system, why have a limited commenting window at all?
3
The system isn't fully automated. We automate something like 20 percent of incoming submissions right now, and the rest is streamlined through prioritization and the flagging of potentially problematic phrases.
Moderator will never be fully automated - it wasn't designed to work that way.
Moderator will never be fully automated - it wasn't designed to work that way.
10
Appreciate everything you do, Bassey. And good to hear there will still be adult supervision. Cheers.
5
Since I am an imaginary person I am doubly gratified that now at last i have an imaginary friend at the NYT. A kindred spirit so to speak in which when we finally succumb to reality both our obituaries will be blank and one having the notation justice rejected, justice denied.
3
Google, Hunh? Does that mean I'll be getting more junk mail and spam and ads. I long ago abandoned Google as a search engine and avoid maps. This cut my spam from 164 to 4 in my email box on a daily basis. Thanks to the Duck.
Humans are labor intensive. We need to be modern we also need to be safe.
Humans are labor intensive. We need to be modern we also need to be safe.
5
Whatever you do please don't let "Readers' Picks" be determined by some fancy algorithm. Let the readers' "Recommends" directly decide what the "Picks" are.
7
Will Moderator be able to assess irony/sarcasm/overstatement, which might use words different from a comment directly addressing an issue?
What's the range of comments expected to be posted in a eight-hour period?
Following the posting of a story, when does the comment window open?
Even though my comments have been rejected, thanks to the folks who have been reading them. It must be like having to listen to know-it-alls all day. I hope The Times considers extra time off, or a counseling bonus.
What's the range of comments expected to be posted in a eight-hour period?
Following the posting of a story, when does the comment window open?
Even though my comments have been rejected, thanks to the folks who have been reading them. It must be like having to listen to know-it-alls all day. I hope The Times considers extra time off, or a counseling bonus.
4
"Will [using a Google learning algorithm] Moderator be able to assess irony/sarcasm/overstatement, which might use words different from a comment directly addressing an issue?"
An excellent question and so far the answer is No for those following the topic in AI, etc. Even literally thousands of instances of AI learning will make "rhetorical irony" difficult to discern. Tone is everything in human language/discourse -- and this is where an algorithm will fail much of the time.
Savvy commenters will figure this out BTW. It will be an interesting experiment that some will do as they subtly subvert google's moderation algorithms. Intentionally miss-spelling one word is the simplest way to trip up a computer looking at text for signifiers.
An excellent question and so far the answer is No for those following the topic in AI, etc. Even literally thousands of instances of AI learning will make "rhetorical irony" difficult to discern. Tone is everything in human language/discourse -- and this is where an algorithm will fail much of the time.
Savvy commenters will figure this out BTW. It will be an interesting experiment that some will do as they subtly subvert google's moderation algorithms. Intentionally miss-spelling one word is the simplest way to trip up a computer looking at text for signifiers.
9
I could live without comments here. I sub to NYT to concentrate on the voices of trained and professional journalists, not its readers.
2
I gotta have a better chance with a machine than a person. Two thumbs up.
4
Violets are blue
and roses are red
that just isn't true
that's not what I said.
and roses are red
that just isn't true
that's not what I said.
3
Every comment vehicle isn't meant for every voice: Huff Post has its unique voice of commenters (linked via Facebook), Washington Post has its completely anonymous format which runs the gamut. Los Angeles times, Chicago Tribune, Politico, etc. Some have even given up on the comment protocol because of the vitriol. Why try to be everything to everybody ending up being nothing to a lot of bodies?
4
"Our new moderation platform diverges from the most common approach for organizing user generated content, which is to prioritize each submission in the order it was received."
Say what?
The Times has long diverged from that approach by having an Animal Farm like system where "verified" commenters I.e. those who have the little green check mark, are "more equal" than the non verified by having their comments posted immediately, while the "hoi polloi" as former Public Editor Margaret Sullivan described the non verified folks like me ("Change Needed for Commenting That Favors the 'Verified'" November 20, 2015) must wait, sometimes 12 to 18 hours to have their comments posted.
Will this new fangeled system change verified commenters being "more equal" than others? I see the little green check mark by a number of comments to this article, so are folks like I am still the hoi polloi?
Say what?
The Times has long diverged from that approach by having an Animal Farm like system where "verified" commenters I.e. those who have the little green check mark, are "more equal" than the non verified by having their comments posted immediately, while the "hoi polloi" as former Public Editor Margaret Sullivan described the non verified folks like me ("Change Needed for Commenting That Favors the 'Verified'" November 20, 2015) must wait, sometimes 12 to 18 hours to have their comments posted.
Will this new fangeled system change verified commenters being "more equal" than others? I see the little green check mark by a number of comments to this article, so are folks like I am still the hoi polloi?
24
Testing if FOUR letter words are approved.
1
While The Times is it will it FINALLY join every other major publication and allow readers up to 5 minutes to edit out typos and other mistakes that may be in their original post. Everyone will benefit from that common courtesy !
18
It's about time.
2
I prefer the comments as they offer unfiltered, insightful takes and are often fun and funny versus the mostly staid nytimes.com. Cheers!
6
I wonder how many layoffs this will mean ...
9
I'd like to request access to the algorithm behind this moderator software. Only then will I be able to determine if my comments are being treated justly!
3
I love reading the comments section.
i suspect that the number of "likes" a post gets depends heavily on when it's posted. The earliest comments quickly rack up likes. The 300th post doesn't get as many readers, so it doesn't get as many likes, even if it might be more worthwhile than the earlier posts.
This doesn't really matter, except to those of us who dream of one day achieving the elusive dream of having our brilliant post get the most likes. I've gotten lucky a few times. I check my email, and am shocked to find that hundreds of people liked my comment, and I feel like I've just won an Academy Award! You people like me, you really like me!
But I wonder if some kind of algorithm could tinker with the order of posting. If you delay posting comments from the people we all know and like - the Buddha guy, Larry the poet, etc -- would we see some different views, or would we just miss our favorite voices?
If I were younger, I'd write a dissertation on all this, in hopes of getting a job at Google. Anyway, thank you for maintaining this island of civility in the swamp of social media.
i suspect that the number of "likes" a post gets depends heavily on when it's posted. The earliest comments quickly rack up likes. The 300th post doesn't get as many readers, so it doesn't get as many likes, even if it might be more worthwhile than the earlier posts.
This doesn't really matter, except to those of us who dream of one day achieving the elusive dream of having our brilliant post get the most likes. I've gotten lucky a few times. I check my email, and am shocked to find that hundreds of people liked my comment, and I feel like I've just won an Academy Award! You people like me, you really like me!
But I wonder if some kind of algorithm could tinker with the order of posting. If you delay posting comments from the people we all know and like - the Buddha guy, Larry the poet, etc -- would we see some different views, or would we just miss our favorite voices?
If I were younger, I'd write a dissertation on all this, in hopes of getting a job at Google. Anyway, thank you for maintaining this island of civility in the swamp of social media.
31
I got top picks count and an NYT recommend once on a comment in an area where I have some significant experience. That doesn't thrill me half as much as seeing other commenters skewer the NYT on its malpractice, such as its slant on Sanders and its serious omissions and its clickbait articles such as the Manning in heels manspreading article.
2
Two words: Public Editor.
No one inside the NYTimes reads or responds to these comments – aside from the moderators – and now even they will not be reading them. The rationale (i.e. lame excuse) for eliminating the PE position was that "social media fulfills the role of Public Editor". We all recognized that as the lie that it is.
The New York Times has ducked its responsibility here. The Public Editor position must be restored.
No one inside the NYTimes reads or responds to these comments – aside from the moderators – and now even they will not be reading them. The rationale (i.e. lame excuse) for eliminating the PE position was that "social media fulfills the role of Public Editor". We all recognized that as the lie that it is.
The New York Times has ducked its responsibility here. The Public Editor position must be restored.
103
I must say, that is not true. During our formal morning news meeting, an editor discusses reader comments, and much of the newsroom receives a daily note that includes comments.
Beyond that, walking around the newsroom, you will often see comment panels open on reporters' screens.
Our reporters regularly read comments precisely because they are so high quality -- they know something useful can often be found in our comments sections.
Beyond that, walking around the newsroom, you will often see comment panels open on reporters' screens.
Our reporters regularly read comments precisely because they are so high quality -- they know something useful can often be found in our comments sections.
23
It would be nice if more Reporters and Op-Ed's responded to the
comments.
I would also point out that whenever I comment on a NYTimes
Editorial - that has to do with School Segregation or Crime in
New York and I ask where do the Editors children attend school -
some expensive private school or rather exclusive public school or
do they live in the High Crime areas where the Police may be
heavy handed but crime is down - that comment never sees the
light of day.
I don't want to know exactly where they live, but do they live in the
same world as most of us - just barely getting by and do not want
criminals taking over our neighbourhood and want better schools
for our children...
comments.
I would also point out that whenever I comment on a NYTimes
Editorial - that has to do with School Segregation or Crime in
New York and I ask where do the Editors children attend school -
some expensive private school or rather exclusive public school or
do they live in the High Crime areas where the Police may be
heavy handed but crime is down - that comment never sees the
light of day.
I don't want to know exactly where they live, but do they live in the
same world as most of us - just barely getting by and do not want
criminals taking over our neighbourhood and want better schools
for our children...
4
If the Times thinks this is sufficient replacement for the public editor, they're dead wrong. I hardly think that the ruminations of the masses will create more due diligence on the parts of those in power at the organization. Please reinstate that position!
18
Yes. That will return with Shipping News.
1
No comment.
6
Granted, machines have some advantages.
Obvious ones, like endless power.
Overt ones, like computer skills.
Great great work ethic for sure.
Lest one give up on humans, it is important to remember something:
Eyes that are human see more than the obvious.
Sometimes machines might miss something obvious.
Unless a person has programmed it properly.
Cause you never know what messages are hidden.
Klever people always have a way of beating the system.
So will machines be as god as humans? We'll find out.
Obvious ones, like endless power.
Overt ones, like computer skills.
Great great work ethic for sure.
Lest one give up on humans, it is important to remember something:
Eyes that are human see more than the obvious.
Sometimes machines might miss something obvious.
Unless a person has programmed it properly.
Cause you never know what messages are hidden.
Klever people always have a way of beating the system.
So will machines be as god as humans? We'll find out.
4
The New York Times comment sections used to be a hard nut to crack. Having commented for a number of years- even when I thought my best would make it; it didn't. Now, scanning comments- any and everything is posted. This morning's editorial about the Senate's version of health care had a number of comments that defied reality; even with embedded links to corroborative data (not editorial opinions), regurgitated foolishness got thru this so-called moderated system of yours.
There was also a time when one could not use a fictitious "location" or fictitious username. I am pleased the comment duration has extended--- allowing for greater geographical participation. I hope the comment sections won't turn into another DISQUS, Reddit free-for-all but maintain the level of credibility that historically draws voices here.
There was also a time when one could not use a fictitious "location" or fictitious username. I am pleased the comment duration has extended--- allowing for greater geographical participation. I hope the comment sections won't turn into another DISQUS, Reddit free-for-all but maintain the level of credibility that historically draws voices here.
9
This comment is inflammatory and insubstantial, so I submitted it to see if it would be accepted.
7
I wish you well with your algorithm to increase efficiency of the sorting process. I hope the algorithm for editorial comments works better than the algorithm that scores standardized test essays, which allows as suitable ungrammatical or nonsensical communications such as "Recently, the sport known historically as rowing took up lichens into the atmosphere for further sequestration."
4
Wow---the NYT deigns to let me share my thoughts on more stories (after they deign to let it pass their censorship, presumably). And then I can read even more deranged comments from even more angry liberals?
Thanks, but I'll still stick to reading only the NYT obits...
Thanks, but I'll still stick to reading only the NYT obits...
4
You can honestly say you're not a tiny bit upset with the goofball in the oval office?
10
You can't argue with a believer.
3
I voted the way I did to prevent the corrupt, lying Hillary from getting back in the White House. Too bad we had two lousy choices last year. But, anybody over Hillary.
Sometimes I browse the comments section before I read the actual article. There are some really, really intelligent people out there and I learn from their contributions. I hope though, that it doesn't end up being just the same pre-approved people commenting day-in-and-day-out on every single article as I sometimes see now.
13
Does this mean the end of the "verified" commenter system - where certain people get in automatically regardless of what they write?
15
My first thought is that very soon there will be programs that write the comments, and can also give it a left or right spin. Of course, these may come from Russia.
Will our information wars soon be one program pitted against another program?
Our reality is slowly being turned into a bad Star Trek episode. We need to be thoughtful in how much of our lives we are turning over to AI.
Will our information wars soon be one program pitted against another program?
Our reality is slowly being turned into a bad Star Trek episode. We need to be thoughtful in how much of our lives we are turning over to AI.
17
My biggest regret so far about the NY Times online is that too few of its excellent articles have included a Comments section. I greatly value the role of the Comments section in bringing added depth and context to articles that are limited to line space. I've often resorted to checking out the Times competition, such as the Wash. Post which includes a Comments section on virtually all of its online articles. However, I usually end up regretting it because of the lack of moderation results in some of the worst trolling I've seen. I applaud the Times for trying to enhance their valuable Comments section. Instead of "More is better," my feeling is "More and Better."
10
That's good news!
If the last elections have shown anything, it's that having access to solid, reliable information is crucial.
And in too many cases today, people tend to restrict their sources of information to those who correspond to their own political affiliation.
The only way to break the unavoidable ignorance that this is creating, is to combine news with the possibility for citizens who disagree, to directly exchange information and arguments.
The best way to learn where you're mistaken (and we're all misinformed on certain issues), is to engage in real, respectful debates with those who disagree.
One of the reasons why unfortunately, this has been quite impossible until today on the NYT comment section (contrary to for instance the Breitbart News comment section), is the fact that posts don't appear immediately on the screen, there's often a long delay, which makes any serious discussion among posters impossible.
As a consequence, the NYT comment section was limited to a number of opinions, with at best some people replying to a comment that was picked by the NYT, but with almost no replies to those replies (by the time you read them, the comment section was already closed ...).
The NYT shouldn't leave the pleasure of truly debating news to website's as BB alone. Our democracy needs more than that.
If the last elections have shown anything, it's that having access to solid, reliable information is crucial.
And in too many cases today, people tend to restrict their sources of information to those who correspond to their own political affiliation.
The only way to break the unavoidable ignorance that this is creating, is to combine news with the possibility for citizens who disagree, to directly exchange information and arguments.
The best way to learn where you're mistaken (and we're all misinformed on certain issues), is to engage in real, respectful debates with those who disagree.
One of the reasons why unfortunately, this has been quite impossible until today on the NYT comment section (contrary to for instance the Breitbart News comment section), is the fact that posts don't appear immediately on the screen, there's often a long delay, which makes any serious discussion among posters impossible.
As a consequence, the NYT comment section was limited to a number of opinions, with at best some people replying to a comment that was picked by the NYT, but with almost no replies to those replies (by the time you read them, the comment section was already closed ...).
The NYT shouldn't leave the pleasure of truly debating news to website's as BB alone. Our democracy needs more than that.
4
I expect this will lead to people using bots to generate comments which are more likely to be approved. For example, they may be able to simply state a few keywords such as 'iphone camera bodyshaming' in an article about a survey on eating habits, and their algorithm could then do its work to generate a comment worthy of approval.
Then again, I suppose that could have been happening already with humans doing the reviewing, so the only novel thing about it would be that the bots would be checking the bots.
Then again, I suppose that could have been happening already with humans doing the reviewing, so the only novel thing about it would be that the bots would be checking the bots.
3
We will build more bots to check those bots, which are trying to fool our bots....
And then a human will look and say, "Our bot that checks their bots fooling our bots can't tell, but this sounds like a bot comment, I'll take it down."
And then a human will look and say, "Our bot that checks their bots fooling our bots can't tell, but this sounds like a bot comment, I'll take it down."
18
In the past the Times has been willing to talk about the special status currently enjoyed by "Verified Commenters", and how the Times would like to move beyond the current system. The issue is that there is a small group of users enjoying special status to bypass moderation, and everyone else (like me) has a second-class status where their comments are delayed by moderation. Even if normal users post intelligently, there can be a substantial delay before Moderator Approval and other users see those comments. Whereas the posts "Verified Commenters" breeze through immediately without Moderator Approval, as if they were a pilot at the airport who can bypass TSA Security. Normal users waiting to be approved can be at times resentful of their special status, and even can feel discouraged from participating.
I would like to hear whether the rollout of whether Jigsaw's Moderator software can finally bring an end to the caste system that commenters currently have to live with.
I would like to hear whether the rollout of whether Jigsaw's Moderator software can finally bring an end to the caste system that commenters currently have to live with.
14
I agree. The Verified Commenter status has just got to go because it just isn't fair to ordinary commenters who consider themselves lucky if their posts see the light of day.
1
It's a good move if the change:
- allows a broad range of pro and con,
- expands input to include many more readers,
- continues to include thoughtful, creative, informed comment, and
- publishes ALL of my thoughts. (Okay, just kidding there.)
Obviously this will be a work in progress. I'm glad to see the Times doing this and hope the software lives up to its promise.
- allows a broad range of pro and con,
- expands input to include many more readers,
- continues to include thoughtful, creative, informed comment, and
- publishes ALL of my thoughts. (Okay, just kidding there.)
Obviously this will be a work in progress. I'm glad to see the Times doing this and hope the software lives up to its promise.
4
Great. I've dropped my subscription to WP, because of NO commenting. The comments are the very best part of the NYT experience, it's my lifeline out here in the hinterlands. Excellent work.
14
What your comments system is really lacking is an easy way to track ones own comments so that you can respond and reply to other's reactions. If you're already logged in with your account, then the system already knows your comment handle and should have no trouble making your comment available (instead of having to manually sort through potentially hundreds of other comments).
7
reply to Hmmm: About 3 yrs ago, there was a system. It quietly disappeared. I wrote Margaret Sullivan (Public Editor at the time) about it. No response. The system also had a "bell" icon to alert you when one of your comments was posted rather than having to sort through your email. Poof- it all when away without explanation.
3
So now I'm going to be corresponding with a machine rather than a human moderator? If so, that's a bad move NY Times. A cardinal rule of business is you must think and feel like your customer. Why not hire a few more human moderators? It would be money well spent to shore up one of your most valuable assets, your comment section.
6
How in the world did you arrive at that conclusion?? You imply a 2 way conversation... you don't correspond w/ the moderator, human or otherwise, they are soley a gatekeeper.
1
No you get a free pass every time by having that little green check mark by your name. Your comments have been and apparently will be continued to be posted immediately without moderation.
7
It's still impossible to get anything posted here other than group think.
14
It isn't. You often read pro-Trump comments for instance.
What is lacking is real debate among people who posts comments.
For instance, if you disagree with what I just wrote, I'd be happy to read what your arguments are and think about them, but by the time my reply will be posted online, you will already be somewhere else, and then the comment section will already be closed, so you won't have the time to explain to me why you believe I'm wrong.
I hope that the new comment system will solve that problem ...
What is lacking is real debate among people who posts comments.
For instance, if you disagree with what I just wrote, I'd be happy to read what your arguments are and think about them, but by the time my reply will be posted online, you will already be somewhere else, and then the comment section will already be closed, so you won't have the time to explain to me why you believe I'm wrong.
I hope that the new comment system will solve that problem ...
8
Uhh, you just posted something other than "group think."
5
If what you mean by that is conservative commentary is not allowed, that's simply not true. I see comments from the right, both promoting right-wing and criticizing left-wing points of view, all the time. And by all the time I mean: all the time.
Perhaps you've read somewhere that The Times filters out conservative comments. Is that what you meant by "groupthink"?
Perhaps you've read somewhere that The Times filters out conservative comments. Is that what you meant by "groupthink"?
6
I repeatedly tell my friends and acquaintances that the NY Times comment sections are the best online (and I spend waaay more time online than is probably good for me) and can be counted on to illuminate and augment the article. Some of the respondents (it appears to this reader) bring a depth of knowledge and understanding about issues that is remarkable. I also feel that there is a civility and respect in NYT comments not found much elsewhere. I have no idea if that is the result of rejecting by the moderator or self-selecting by the respondees, but these attributes matter (still) to me, and I find comfort in the fact that they matter to others.
98
I have a different reason for thinking this is a welcome shift. Certain articles on nytimes.com attract thousands of comments, and deservedly so. I picture human moderators reading every single one of those comments and making a thumbs up/thumbs down decision…and the thought makes my head throb in sympathy. Meantime, less prominent pieces languish in comment limbo because the moderation energy is directed elsewhere. Allowing an algorithm to take a first pass at the onslaught and publish what must be a plurality of high-quality content is a big step toward relieving this burden.
7
Often I skim first half of an article and then read dozens of comments.
Often I have something to add to the conversation but there is no comments section.
So, yay!
Often I have something to add to the conversation but there is no comments section.
So, yay!
10
Will be interesting to see if this will reduce the incredible number of duplicate comments on your pages so you can let other commenters in.
4
cool
Good luck.
Hope the machine intelligence will flag the words 'lefty' and 'libtard.'
As grateful as I am to the New York Times for the opportunity to post comments about events of the day, I fear there has been little in the way of actual conversation or debate. Statements, yes. Conversation, no - it's simply been too laborious to locate original postings and follow reply threads (if they exist).
I also hope the algorithm will not go overboard with the delusional ‘balanced and fair’ program. Consumers have Infowars and Fox ‘News’ if they want to hear ‘fair’ things said about conservatives.
Hope the machine intelligence will flag the words 'lefty' and 'libtard.'
As grateful as I am to the New York Times for the opportunity to post comments about events of the day, I fear there has been little in the way of actual conversation or debate. Statements, yes. Conversation, no - it's simply been too laborious to locate original postings and follow reply threads (if they exist).
I also hope the algorithm will not go overboard with the delusional ‘balanced and fair’ program. Consumers have Infowars and Fox ‘News’ if they want to hear ‘fair’ things said about conservatives.
4
Ban the words "lefty" or "libtard".
But it's OK to say stuff like "The Orange-haired Cheeto" or "Trumplestiltskin".
Got it.
But it's OK to say stuff like "The Orange-haired Cheeto" or "Trumplestiltskin".
Got it.
2
Concerned Citizen,
I didn't say 'ban.' I said 'flag.' I have never said "the orange-haired Cheeto" or "Trumplestiltskin." If you're stalking my submissions and have the technical means to do so, please review my commenting history.
Since you bring it up, I'd also like to see "got it" (particularly as a question) and "grow up" voluntarily retired.
I recall mentioning this before, and I think it was in response to a comment you made (I think it was you) months ago, but perhaps it bears repeating. Your guy won. Your dreams of criminalizing abortion and monetizing everything to the benefit of a few of the exalted are poised to come true. You should be dancing in the streets. Yet you still seem unhappy.
I'm never going to think about social issues the way you would like. I don't view the world like you. You painted Sec. Clinton with a heavy bucket of thick black paint; yet you cannot see even the tiniest smudge of charcoal as you paint the current Republican administration with a bucket of whitewash.
I definitely got it. You live in a black and white world and I live in Nuanceland on the Continent of Compromise. Congratulations. I hope things work out for you. I don't think they will; but I guess time will tell.
I didn't say 'ban.' I said 'flag.' I have never said "the orange-haired Cheeto" or "Trumplestiltskin." If you're stalking my submissions and have the technical means to do so, please review my commenting history.
Since you bring it up, I'd also like to see "got it" (particularly as a question) and "grow up" voluntarily retired.
I recall mentioning this before, and I think it was in response to a comment you made (I think it was you) months ago, but perhaps it bears repeating. Your guy won. Your dreams of criminalizing abortion and monetizing everything to the benefit of a few of the exalted are poised to come true. You should be dancing in the streets. Yet you still seem unhappy.
I'm never going to think about social issues the way you would like. I don't view the world like you. You painted Sec. Clinton with a heavy bucket of thick black paint; yet you cannot see even the tiniest smudge of charcoal as you paint the current Republican administration with a bucket of whitewash.
I definitely got it. You live in a black and white world and I live in Nuanceland on the Continent of Compromise. Congratulations. I hope things work out for you. I don't think they will; but I guess time will tell.
This is all well and good, but it doesn't compensate for the elimination of the Public Editor. Unlike the Public Editor, reader/commenters have no way to contact Times management and news staff to determine why a particular story or opinon article was written the way it was. And we certainly have no power to seek changes in news coverage policies and practices.
57
I agree with Margaret that allowing readers to vent is not a substitute for skilled, informed editing. We need principled journalism now more than ever, not just enflamed rhetoric from exasperated citizens.
5
Exactly right, Margaret and Nancy (and others).
This new, proudly-touted, algorithm-driven comments management is clearly just a Band Aid on the amputation of the Public Editor.
This new, proudly-touted, algorithm-driven comments management is clearly just a Band Aid on the amputation of the Public Editor.
1
Plus, with the new comment policy, editors don't have to read or care what readers write, as long as they can google analytic the advertisement viewing.
Will comments critical of the NYT continue to be published? I certainly wouldn't want to see this become as one sided as FOX NEWS, or even worse, the DJT White House.
11
Indeed, they will continue to be published. It may sound odd, but we're of the belief that posting critical things about our paper actually makes us look good.
But more important than that, your criticism makes us better, really. I see it every day in the newsroom.
But more important than that, your criticism makes us better, really. I see it every day in the newsroom.
15
That's interesting. I'm a pretty active commenter, and I sometimes criticize the Times's reporting. And of all my comments that were never published - occasionally because the comments closed as I was writing, others for completely unknown reasons because I'm never abusive or off-topic - by far the most often-unpublished comments have been those criticizing the Times.
And no, that's not my over-active imagination .
And no, that's not my over-active imagination .
2
Or, you could just not screen posts at all and let readers flag the ones they find inappropriate, to be quickly reviewed by human moderators. But there's not enough control for you involved with that method, is there?
1
That doesn't really work. The news websites that I know and have tried something like that (the Huffington Post, during its first years, for instance) have had to drop this kind of system quite rapidly.
The reason? Posters who simply want to block a real debate by posting spam or insults, are often also the ones who massively flag those posters who protest against their comments, so there's no objectivity at all, when it comes to who gets blocked and who doesn't. And as you say, you still need a lot of moderators.
Facebook isn't possible either, because you can't comment in an anonymous/pseudonymous way.
Disqus could be an option though, as it allows for real-time debate, all while giving posters the possibility to flag comments and even profiles, whereas it's a Disqus team that takes the final discussion, not moderators that the NYT has to pay.
Unfortunately, Disqus allows posters to write a lot of insults, so IF you want to keep a civil tone, as the NYT comment section has always done and many appreciate here, then I suppose that it's not an option either.
On the other hand ... you could argue that many people are just too angry about what's happening (based on solid information, or "fake news") to not start insulting, so IF you delete those posts, you can't have a debate with those voters either ...
The reason? Posters who simply want to block a real debate by posting spam or insults, are often also the ones who massively flag those posters who protest against their comments, so there's no objectivity at all, when it comes to who gets blocked and who doesn't. And as you say, you still need a lot of moderators.
Facebook isn't possible either, because you can't comment in an anonymous/pseudonymous way.
Disqus could be an option though, as it allows for real-time debate, all while giving posters the possibility to flag comments and even profiles, whereas it's a Disqus team that takes the final discussion, not moderators that the NYT has to pay.
Unfortunately, Disqus allows posters to write a lot of insults, so IF you want to keep a civil tone, as the NYT comment section has always done and many appreciate here, then I suppose that it's not an option either.
On the other hand ... you could argue that many people are just too angry about what's happening (based on solid information, or "fake news") to not start insulting, so IF you delete those posts, you can't have a debate with those voters either ...
4
(Spoiler alert: This is fake news) NEW YORK - Today the New York Times announced a partnership with Google to bring you Commentator, a machine-learning application that posts thoughtful and articulate comments on Times stories. Reader comments will no longer be posted.
"We thought the best way to ensure high-quality and non-toxic comments was to develop an AI tool that cuts the offenders off before they start," said Jared Cohen of Jigsaw, a technology incubator that's part of Google.
The algorithm uses a database of 16 million user comments to develop pro- and con- positions on all Times stories. The application can actually respond to claims made in earlier comments, albeit in a friendly, non-inflammatory way. To spice things up, it will occasionally use adjectives frequently used by Thomas Hobbes.
The Times said it would extend the app to writing news story "in the very near future," drawing on technology patented by Narrative Science.
"Who needs humans?" a Commentator post will read at the bottom of this story. "They aren't very well educated (#sadly) and generally brutish, nasty and short."
"We thought the best way to ensure high-quality and non-toxic comments was to develop an AI tool that cuts the offenders off before they start," said Jared Cohen of Jigsaw, a technology incubator that's part of Google.
The algorithm uses a database of 16 million user comments to develop pro- and con- positions on all Times stories. The application can actually respond to claims made in earlier comments, albeit in a friendly, non-inflammatory way. To spice things up, it will occasionally use adjectives frequently used by Thomas Hobbes.
The Times said it would extend the app to writing news story "in the very near future," drawing on technology patented by Narrative Science.
"Who needs humans?" a Commentator post will read at the bottom of this story. "They aren't very well educated (#sadly) and generally brutish, nasty and short."
55
I'm going to try to get this in top 10 comments of the week.
13
A sometimes offputting stance the Times has taken towards reader engagement was part of the feedback I gave the Times in 2014: http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/05/the-leaked-new-york-times-innovation-re... …but it's taken years to shift towards being more open to public feedback.
It's good to see the Times investing. While Gawker has ultimately backed away from licensing its platform, Kinja, Denton was spot on in seeing the value of great comments and encouraging writers to engage the people formerly known as the audience in the comments on their articles years ago. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-gawker-media-became-a-social-te...
As far as I've seen, NYT reporters have not done that in any significant way, despite recent attestations to the contrary. Some writers are genuinely, wonderfully social on third party platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
Despite notable missteps, the hard-hitting accountability journalism of the Times is an international treasure. Now that the Times has eliminated its public editor -- a mistake and a loss for readers -- comments and social media taken on increased importance, but it's unclear to me how much will change without leadership by example from the top: https://twitter.com/deanbaquet
It's good to see the Times investing. While Gawker has ultimately backed away from licensing its platform, Kinja, Denton was spot on in seeing the value of great comments and encouraging writers to engage the people formerly known as the audience in the comments on their articles years ago. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/how-gawker-media-became-a-social-te...
As far as I've seen, NYT reporters have not done that in any significant way, despite recent attestations to the contrary. Some writers are genuinely, wonderfully social on third party platforms like Twitter and Facebook.
Despite notable missteps, the hard-hitting accountability journalism of the Times is an international treasure. Now that the Times has eliminated its public editor -- a mistake and a loss for readers -- comments and social media taken on increased importance, but it's unclear to me how much will change without leadership by example from the top: https://twitter.com/deanbaquet
2
I agree with your points. (And thanks for the context through your links.) What is missing in the article is any connection to the Reader Center, its additional roles in marketing and product development and how that fits into this scheme. This underlines the need for continued transparency in operations relative to readership engagement. And yes, I agree that losing the public editor is a mistake. In the light of these big data initiatives, it’s arguably even more necessary.
4
Will Moderator also choose NYT Picks?
And is there any way to make it possible to read more comments? After I've read 30 to 50, I get into a loop that limits me to the same comments. I remember a time when I could read all the comments on a piece by Frank Rich or Bob Herbert. Or perhaps there is an IT trick someone could share to allow access to more?
Thank you to the Times for appreciating your online community -- and for the great journalism on this new administration. I sometimes worry about the health of your reporters and editors, as news breaks at any time, often at night.
And is there any way to make it possible to read more comments? After I've read 30 to 50, I get into a loop that limits me to the same comments. I remember a time when I could read all the comments on a piece by Frank Rich or Bob Herbert. Or perhaps there is an IT trick someone could share to allow access to more?
Thank you to the Times for appreciating your online community -- and for the great journalism on this new administration. I sometimes worry about the health of your reporters and editors, as news breaks at any time, often at night.
26
sure. ML algorithms can be trained to "choose liberal". Just ask Facebook.
1
I believe the looping of the comments is an IT error that seems to go away after the initial few hours.
2
Moderator is not choosing NYT Picks. I'm not saying that one day it won't recommend some comments for a human to NYT Pick, but that will never be automatic.
As for your issues with the comments panel, we are working on a new design that will modernize this space. One trick I tell to people who have problems -- the mobile version of the website has a much simpler implementation of the comments section, and almost never fails to load.
As for your issues with the comments panel, we are working on a new design that will modernize this space. One trick I tell to people who have problems -- the mobile version of the website has a much simpler implementation of the comments section, and almost never fails to load.
9
And what becomes of the practice of certain reporters and desks keeping their personal black lists of commenters? Those lists will still exist or not?
5
(Three hours later, still no NYT reply. Which is, itself, a reply.)
2
Congratulations on getting the new system online. I've long wanted to see more articles open to commenting. I wish you success in doing that while maintaining the current high standards of quality and I'm imagining how wonderful it would be if similar technology spread to the other parts of the Internet, where comments sections have become nothing more than a venue for insults.
4
The NY Times has, up to now at least, the best comment section on the web, by far. I often spend as much time on the comments, reading and writing them, as I do on the articles.
The Times comment page has the highest quality comments, is free from spam and flaming matches and has the Times Select feature which is very special. Comments with Times Select are the best online anywhere. They are the most pertinent, intelligent and informative, and so especially valuable, and often times are even more valuable than the article commented on.
Will there still be Times Select? If so, will it be done by computer or human? I hope the Times realizes how much value they risk losing if this automation is botched.
The Times comment page has the highest quality comments, is free from spam and flaming matches and has the Times Select feature which is very special. Comments with Times Select are the best online anywhere. They are the most pertinent, intelligent and informative, and so especially valuable, and often times are even more valuable than the article commented on.
Will there still be Times Select? If so, will it be done by computer or human? I hope the Times realizes how much value they risk losing if this automation is botched.
3
As an professional IT person who also comments on NYT and has a few degrees in language and literature, this is an interesting development. It will be interesting how the automated system parses/flags Socrates' comments -- which are often bombast -- but the readership generally really loves them.
I DO see the challenge for the NYT to have employed humans moderate every single comment. I wonder if this experiment with machine learning and complex language will succeed. Finally, this serves as another indicator how deep and broad Google Corporation extends to everything everyone does every day.
I DO see the challenge for the NYT to have employed humans moderate every single comment. I wonder if this experiment with machine learning and complex language will succeed. Finally, this serves as another indicator how deep and broad Google Corporation extends to everything everyone does every day.
41
So is this working? I'm posting at 9 am. Let's see how long it takes to be approved.
Just what we all need - machine code judging the "worthiness" of comments. Why can't you just hire a dozen more comment readers???
10
Did you miss the story about the Times offering more buyouts, especially for editors, because advertising revenue continues to decline?
Especially considering the world we live in today, I support AI approving comments to allow excellent reporting by knowledgable journalists with reliable sources.
Especially considering the world we live in today, I support AI approving comments to allow excellent reporting by knowledgable journalists with reliable sources.
2
That would cost money!
1
"...all our top stories will allow comments for an 8-hour period during the day. And for the first time, comments in both the News and Opinion sections will remain open for 24 hours."
So, will there be a time stamp along with the date of an article?
So, will there be a time stamp along with the date of an article?
5
With all due respect, if the Times thinks the extended availability of online commenting is a substitute for the decision to get rid of the Public Editor, they are sorely mistaken. Commenting is important, but the prevalence of hordes of internet people makes it hard for any one voice to be heard, and particularly difficult to play the watchdog the Times claims its readers are in better position to play than someone whose full time job it is to take advantage of their access throughout the news organization to hold the paper accountable for its decisions. Shameful. Bring back the Public Editor.
88
Hear, hear!
4
I enjoy the comments almost as much as the articles and appreciate the lack of irony in having a comments section about the new and improved comments moderator.
3
It is the rise of the machines. Lets hope that the algorithms can replicate the level of common sense that the human moderators generally adhered to.
And what of NYT Picks? Do the algorithms play favorites?
And what of NYT Picks? Do the algorithms play favorites?
4
When there are many comments on an article, I often read only the NYT Picks. Without the NYT Picks, I will probably read only the most recent comments, and few of those if they are repetitive.
So, yes, I second the question of what of NYT Picks?
So, yes, I second the question of what of NYT Picks?
9
Don't worry, we'll still be picking them! Our staff will still review each comment thread and attempt to be sure it's a quality product for our subscribers.
13
Appreciate the additional comments section for more articles.
I certainly hope you also address the bugs that are always a problem when you read comments...such as
*when you hit read more and comments you have already read repeat again, sometimes endlessly
*or as you read you suddenly realize you have already read these comments, they just reappear
*when you want to recommend a comment and it does not allow you to record your support.
I can't believe that I am the only one this happens to.
I certainly hope you also address the bugs that are always a problem when you read comments...such as
*when you hit read more and comments you have already read repeat again, sometimes endlessly
*or as you read you suddenly realize you have already read these comments, they just reappear
*when you want to recommend a comment and it does not allow you to record your support.
I can't believe that I am the only one this happens to.
34
It happens to me, too, and makes reading more than a few screens' worth of comments just about impossible here.
2
The trick is to refresh your browser so the new comments can come in. Do this before hitting the button at the bottom of the comment list, and then hit the all tab again.
4
friend, you are not the only one. when reading on my Android in bed I detest how by accidentally triggering a screen reorient while reading in bed, I am brought back to the top of the queue and have to figure out where I left off!
4
We are living in a time when hard news is scoffed at by the right as mere opinion, and bad opinion at that. I fear that reducing a serious news report in the Times to the status of just another opinion column that is up for "debate" will diminish its impact.
Am I interested in the puny opinions of people who voted for a dangerous simpleton? Absolutely not, and you're giving them an even broader platform. Let them vent their bile at Breitbart.
Am I interested in the puny opinions of people who voted for a dangerous simpleton? Absolutely not, and you're giving them an even broader platform. Let them vent their bile at Breitbart.
4
In a recent opinion piece ("America Made Me Feminist"), many reader comments comprised of one or two words ("Love this!" "Bravo!"). Surely this should be considered "insubstantial "?
It happens that the author of the piece has previously expressed interest in starting her own brand.
What measures does the NYT have in place to prevent astroturfing or, in today's parlance, fake comments? What assurance do we have that comments are from real people and not part of marketing efforts or political agendas?
It happens that the author of the piece has previously expressed interest in starting her own brand.
What measures does the NYT have in place to prevent astroturfing or, in today's parlance, fake comments? What assurance do we have that comments are from real people and not part of marketing efforts or political agendas?
9
I have a group of well educated, worldly friends who are obsessed with the paper version of the NYT. I told them they were dinosaurs and that in addition to the videos and graphics they were missing the best part by not accessing the comments section. During the campaign and it's unfortunate aftermath I have felt part of a community and I have learned so much from the additional perspective of your typically well informed readers. And as someone who was once honored with a "top comment of the week" I can't tell you how much I loved my one minute of fame.
56
Oh Ann I so identify with your paper version obsessed friends! But I also look at the digi version as you can see, but I have never been able to figure out a systematic way to view the content so that I do not miss anything (or most things). With the paper version, the pages you have turned have been seen, the ones ahead have not. There's no equivalent for the online version and it drives me quite crazy. But indeed the comments feature is to me the best part of the online paper.
4
I shied away from the comments sections of the newspapers during the presidential campaign! It was refreshing to read an article in the newspaper, turn the page, and not be tempted to join in the madness!
2
This is yet another interesting application of artificial intelligence. The "Moderator" will initially serve as an assistant. Over time, once the Moderator has proved itself, it will become a peer. Eventually, the Moderator may become a replacement of its human counterpart. As machines take over more and more decision making jobs, what will be left for humans?
3
No doubt the spammers that pollute unmonitored web forums will develop their own machine learning bots (hosted on Google's AI platform, of course) to write comments that express their otherwise undesirable opinions, and that can get by the Moderator AI. What will be left for humans? For a while we will be left to read the results of the battle of the bots. Eventually, with silicon and pseudo-biologic implants, we will become bots. It's a bright new future and we won't need to be there.
Kidding aside, The Times has taken a giant step forward with the Moderator. I enjoy the comments, sometimes post my own (all of which have been accepted by the current human moderators), and welcome this effort to include more comments in more articles. Great move, Times!
Kidding aside, The Times has taken a giant step forward with the Moderator. I enjoy the comments, sometimes post my own (all of which have been accepted by the current human moderators), and welcome this effort to include more comments in more articles. Great move, Times!
2
It has been frustrating in the past when comments were not allowed for a particular story. I try to write comments when I feel that I can add something to an article and I try to be as succinct as possible. I hope that the algorithm looks
favorably on my types of comments.
favorably on my types of comments.
3
Lou, your comment has a 6% probability to be rejected, based on the model. So you're looking pretty good!
5
I love your comment section. Please keep up the good work, society needs you.
4
It would be helpful to readers and provide access to the best comments if you were able to serve comments up randomly to readers, so that each gets equal opportunity to be liked. under the current system the most popular comments are always the ones that were written first.
2
There is something missing from most comments that I read - remarks that reflect other points of view. NY Times readers typically support one set of opinions on most stories just as Fox News supporters support a different one. Although NY Times' picks usually show comments from both sides, if it was somehow possible to create a new category, "opposing points of view" or some such, where there is a way to support them as being "important to consider" I think we would all benefit.
2
Hats can be more than black and white, Mktguy. Think about shades of grey, polkadots, furry, shiny, embroidered with stars. No way I want comments categorized. You have to read them and think!
That's because -- at least until now -- there were staff censors who DELIBERATELY culled any "politically incorrect" comments from being published.
i know FOR A FACT, because I've seen forums where I posted very early, and yet not one of my comments were published -- and yes, they were all polite, no cursing or ad hominem attacks, but were censored for CONTENT because they were deemed "politically incorrect".
i know FOR A FACT, because I've seen forums where I posted very early, and yet not one of my comments were published -- and yes, they were all polite, no cursing or ad hominem attacks, but were censored for CONTENT because they were deemed "politically incorrect".
2
Concerned----yes, what you describe is the very definition of Liberal Intolerance. At the NYT, it is part and parcel of its culture.
Will this post make it to the site?? Doubt it...
Will this post make it to the site?? Doubt it...
1
It was nice to know that the comments were being read and assessed by an actual human being and its bit disconcerting to learn that they will now be sorted like apples by a machine looking for blemishes and rotten specimens. But I completely understand that journalists need to spend their valuable time writing stories, not moderating comments. Just a thought. Is there any chance the comments in the hallowed opinion pages, ie, the editorials. op-eds and the famous (and infamous) NYT columnists, could still be moderated by actual humans? That would be ideal in my opinion.
10
Hey Mark, a human will be reading through many of the automated comments, just not immediately. We still do need to review comments for follow up stories and NYT Picks. Automating approval just allows us to streamline our process so that we can do all of this work in one sitting, rather than stretching our staff throughout the day to analyze each submission individually.
Plus, I should add, a majority of Opinion comments are not totally automated, and I don't suspect they will be anytime soon.
Plus, I should add, a majority of Opinion comments are not totally automated, and I don't suspect they will be anytime soon.
6
Great! Glad to hear it.... keep up the good work, you adorable human, you. :)
2
Commenting on this story seems beta.
I have enjoyed the "Times Selection" of comments, sifting through the chafe as it were.
Hope that isn't lost and that no person lost their job by this automation software.
Same reason I choose a person to check me out, I am keeping people working.
I have enjoyed the "Times Selection" of comments, sifting through the chafe as it were.
Hope that isn't lost and that no person lost their job by this automation software.
Same reason I choose a person to check me out, I am keeping people working.
6
As a Commenter who cannot be trusted with a green check-mark, I relish the chance to have my comments published soon after they are sent to you.
This has always been unfair in allowing Recommends to skew in the direction of the greens.
Make America Fair Again.
This has always been unfair in allowing Recommends to skew in the direction of the greens.
Make America Fair Again.
46
Well, Technic Ally, since you're a regular around these parts, I'll tell you first: We will end the public aspect of the Verified commenters program when the new comments system design is complete and ready for testing.
14
I'll keep that to myself.
1
Bassey,
Before that days comes, of the ending of Verified Commentator,
can I please be a VC for Day ?
After all I have had over 20 NYT Picks and have had over
101 negative comments made to one singe comment I made once
and actually replied to each and every one before the comment section was closed on that article.
Before that days comes, of the ending of Verified Commentator,
can I please be a VC for Day ?
After all I have had over 20 NYT Picks and have had over
101 negative comments made to one singe comment I made once
and actually replied to each and every one before the comment section was closed on that article.
4
I relish reading comments, and I post regularly. But I sometimes -- well, to be honest, often -- I misspell a word, mostly through carelessness in not reviewing my post. This makes me appear to other commenters as an unschooled dolt.
Will your new procedure correct obvious misspellings? Or will commenters be able edit their posts. Or will I continue to suffer the embarrassing consequences of impatience and undisciplined typing?
Will your new procedure correct obvious misspellings? Or will commenters be able edit their posts. Or will I continue to suffer the embarrassing consequences of impatience and undisciplined typing?
8
I'm sorry -- your embarrassment, I think, will continue. Allowing the editing of comments makes Moderation quite difficult. Its hard to implement editing of comments in any moderated system without taking down your new comment for review again.
Perhaps we will try in the future, but for now, we have a bunch of other pressing priorities, like user profiles and better threading.
Perhaps we will try in the future, but for now, we have a bunch of other pressing priorities, like user profiles and better threading.
6
Bassey,
Can we please have a chance to edit before we make it a
Final Post. Many magazine cites allow you to post and re-edit.
I don't know what it is but I often find silly mistakes after initially post
that I miss in my original writing.
Perhaps it is the yellow background. Maybe there can be a five minute
waiting period after the initial submission then the comment can no longer be edited.
Can we please have a chance to edit before we make it a
Final Post. Many magazine cites allow you to post and re-edit.
I don't know what it is but I often find silly mistakes after initially post
that I miss in my original writing.
Perhaps it is the yellow background. Maybe there can be a five minute
waiting period after the initial submission then the comment can no longer be edited.
1
If the system is automated, how do flow through to get gold stickers?
1
That's always been done randomly.
When I comment on an article I do so because I have reacted one way or another. If the Times publishes my comment, I want to see how my fellow readers react. The Times' pros such as Socrates and Gemli (and many, many more) express beautifully opinions I share and reading them is an important part of my daily news routine.
As much as possible, I hope you don't over complicate the process. Venting, especially now, is of great benefit to many of us and I thank you for the opportunity.
As much as possible, I hope you don't over complicate the process. Venting, especially now, is of great benefit to many of us and I thank you for the opportunity.
96
"Readers pay for a subscription or view an ad" - lucky readers, I pay for a subscription AND view MANY ads on the NYT.
74
My thoughts exactly. Even Hulu has an ad-free version now if you pay $2 extra. Why not the Times?
3
Install an AdBlocker and the ads go away.
3
Ad Blocker?
1
A great idea. Its roll out should be interesting. Machine learning strikes again. What will the moderators do now?
4
"What will the moderators do now?"
Work in Trump coal mines?
Work in Trump coal mines?
1
The Moderators are still around! As time goes on, we'll be spending more of our energy creating presentations about the comments for as many articles as possible. Toward that end, we're thinking a redesign of this panel is in order.
11
One question. The addition of comments has enhanced the Times for this reader who didn't feel as tho there was much enhancing to be done. Yes, a goodly number of my submitted comments have, by the original process, been published; but that's totally an aside. I'd stand by enhanced if none had.
Question relates to my anecdotal impression that, 100% human moderation heretofore notwithstanding, some comments get thru - even to NYT Pics - that leave me wondering why/how. And this new approach must certainly be based on the firm conclusion that there will, at worst, be fewer how/why reactions. But, with as much as 20% possibly accepted without human moderation, I respectfully inquire, are you guys sure it will be fewer?
Question relates to my anecdotal impression that, 100% human moderation heretofore notwithstanding, some comments get thru - even to NYT Pics - that leave me wondering why/how. And this new approach must certainly be based on the firm conclusion that there will, at worst, be fewer how/why reactions. But, with as much as 20% possibly accepted without human moderation, I respectfully inquire, are you guys sure it will be fewer?
"some comments get thru - even to NYT Pics - that leave me wondering why/how."
I agree. I strongly suspect there are _some not all_ human moderators who aren't reading every comment carefully to the end of the comment. Then it becomes an Editor's Pick and it really should not have been selected as such. Humans make mistakes.
I agree. I strongly suspect there are _some not all_ human moderators who aren't reading every comment carefully to the end of the comment. Then it becomes an Editor's Pick and it really should not have been selected as such. Humans make mistakes.
8
Indeed, that was the hardest part about training the machine -- there is no perfect human to conduct the training! And believe me, we looked far and wide...
2
Bassey,
You should look into asking fair minded people across the
political/economic spectrum to volunteer as readers of comments.
I would certainly be wiling to do so for an hour each day.
That would bring a wider perspective to the selection of comments.
You should look into asking fair minded people across the
political/economic spectrum to volunteer as readers of comments.
I would certainly be wiling to do so for an hour each day.
That would bring a wider perspective to the selection of comments.
1
Two thoughts:
Limit the number of characters to 750. This will force more quality and less quantity right up front.
Set up a "dump zone" for comments that are rejected. It would be fascinating to see what has been determined to be objectionable. This would give readers a whole new perspective of what others are thinking.
Limit the number of characters to 750. This will force more quality and less quantity right up front.
Set up a "dump zone" for comments that are rejected. It would be fascinating to see what has been determined to be objectionable. This would give readers a whole new perspective of what others are thinking.
58
MIchael, many important topics are difficult enough if not impossible to adequately discuss in 1500 characters if you want to offer data and complete arguments. Thus many comments are reduced to unsupported assertions which I do not find helpful. For example, try and explain if federal deficits are necessary for a reasonably good economy in 1500 characters, let alone 750.
2
M, yes and no. Really long comments are actually pretty rare at the NYT. Instead, they should also require comments to be Longer than 150 characters. Otherwise you get the pointless comments like "i agree!!" over and over again. I would argue that the "worst" comments are the shorter ones -- and not the longer ones.
2
The issue is that the character limit, for technical reasons, needs to be universal right now. And there are a few Times properties where even the current 1,500 character count is shorter than they prefer.
8
It might be of interest for the New York Times to detail the security that you utilize to keep your commentators anonymous. Has the NY Times ever been hacked and if so has the anonymity of your commentators compromised?
13
I wouldn't think those paranoid tweakers need to worry about their identity being sloughed out to some Internet spy
Ok, but the Times has the best comments section in the world. Please don't destroy it, and whatever you do, fight the trolls with everything you have.
Every day I read many of the comments, and make a few of my own. I learn a lot, and think that the Times Comments section offers even more than the Times' fine columnists.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
Every day I read many of the comments, and make a few of my own. I learn a lot, and think that the Times Comments section offers even more than the Times' fine columnists.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
250
I'm with Mr. Massengill! Fight the trolls, but, by the same token, don't take the individual voices away from the Comments Section. I learn not only about the content of NYT articles, but about the readers that take the time to read, think, and make judgements about them. It is interesting to note the location of the commentor, often also they are recognized by name and you get the flavor of a life, a hint of the intellect, and common humanity.
8
I would like to understand in more detail how this new system will work, but I find that the explanation is so full of Powerpoint-style sanitized technical writing and euphemisms that it is hard to read. It is bloodless and airless. The writer might better have realized she is speaking to a readership and not a white-board committee meeting. I will prefer to try the system and learn from that.
25
Hey, my original version of this article was almost 2,000 words, so I'll go ahead and blame my editor :)
I'd love to explain more, so if you have more specific questions, post a separate comment on this story and I'll answer it.
Also, I'm a guy -- but I'm pretty sure Nigerian women have my name, too, so your confusion is warranted.
I'd love to explain more, so if you have more specific questions, post a separate comment on this story and I'll answer it.
Also, I'm a guy -- but I'm pretty sure Nigerian women have my name, too, so your confusion is warranted.
11
I'm also wondering, too, how this will cross-reference in the Google world with other things we do online. Or maybe they already do? Will we be able to delete our online presence on the NYTimes? I do that every year or so just because I don't want my published opinions to come back and haunt me (even though they're under an assumed name-you never can tell!)
2
How about limiting the number of times someone can write in on a particular article.
27
I had noticed yesterday that my comments were appearing within minutes and knew something was up.
My IT guy, my son, then tackled your newish API and retrieved my own comments from your data-base, some 11,000 of them.
I can look at them chronologically or sorted in several other ways, such as by Recommends, and the rare Editor's Choices.
He also downloaded at my request all of Larry Eisenberg's some 12,000 comments, and I can do the same with those.
He sent an e-mail off to your coders with some bugs and questions he found with your system in doing the above. A few years back on the older system a similar email was not responded to. I hope they react differently this time.
I bet you don't know Larry's best-received limerick.
I now do.
You really should offer your readers this ability to see at least their own comments in the same way.
My IT guy, my son, then tackled your newish API and retrieved my own comments from your data-base, some 11,000 of them.
I can look at them chronologically or sorted in several other ways, such as by Recommends, and the rare Editor's Choices.
He also downloaded at my request all of Larry Eisenberg's some 12,000 comments, and I can do the same with those.
He sent an e-mail off to your coders with some bugs and questions he found with your system in doing the above. A few years back on the older system a similar email was not responded to. I hope they react differently this time.
I bet you don't know Larry's best-received limerick.
I now do.
You really should offer your readers this ability to see at least their own comments in the same way.
132
And you should integrate the older data bases pre-2007.
2
I had no idea the API was available for reader use. Can the Times explain how to access it?
6
Same here, but if you Google "NYT API" you'll find lots of documentation on it. I just did.
1
When will the Times provide an archival search engine that allows readers to see any commentator's entire repertoire of comments?
136
I agree that is what this comment platform misses most.
2
At one point, we were able to see all of our comments, going back for months. I don't know why that feature disappeared, but it should come back.
1
I agree. My sense is there is no profit in the NYT offering that particular database of info to the subscriber readership, so it on the lower priority list. And the NSA would happily use it too so that's something to think about :)
Actually now that I think about it and since Google Corp is taking over the NYT comments, we might actually see a searchable database in the future. Google entire profits rests on data mining and selling thereof.
Actually now that I think about it and since Google Corp is taking over the NYT comments, we might actually see a searchable database in the future. Google entire profits rests on data mining and selling thereof.
4
"In the long run, we hope to reimagine what it means to “comment” online. The Times is developing a community where readers can discuss the news pseudonymously in an environment safe from harassment, abuse and even your crazy uncle."
I will be interested in the outcome of this experiment, however I am skeptical of the value of anonymous commenting. It is, without doubt, the root of the troubling on-line trolling phenomenon. I enjoy particpating in discussions where even my crazy Uncle would be proud of the deference that I show others in my debate, even if he would disagree with my opinion.
I will be interested in the outcome of this experiment, however I am skeptical of the value of anonymous commenting. It is, without doubt, the root of the troubling on-line trolling phenomenon. I enjoy particpating in discussions where even my crazy Uncle would be proud of the deference that I show others in my debate, even if he would disagree with my opinion.
4
I agree.
2
Hey, I'm just a little crazy
Anonymous letters to the editor are not published by this newspaper. One wonders why a different policy should apply to posting here.
1
Good move. Now more energy can be used to assure the reporting is accurate and not inflammatory.
Accuracy is often inflammatory to a juvenile and deluded public.
9
:-)
I do hope a human reads some rejects from Moderator. You don't ever want to cede power to a bot.
I do hope a human reads some rejects from Moderator. You don't ever want to cede power to a bot.
63
Sure, look at Trump.
5
Not to worry -- we are only approving comments with Moderator right now, not rejecting them.
3
Hope the bot can tell which comments are from enemy governments and flag them. So far a lot of China and Russia state actors' comments seem to be posted as if they were regular citizens'.
2
Yesterday, I wrote a comment for the article about Chelsea Manning clicked on the "SUBMIT" box, as usual --
A few hours later, I received the standard email informing me that my comment had been posted, with a link to the comment -- however, when I clicked on the link and opened the article, my comment was not there, and instead, I was taken to the main comments window - my "approved" comment nowhere to be found --
Hmmm --
Might I be the first person to have been rejected by the Times' new Jigsaw algorithm --?
And - if so - do I win a prize...?
A few hours later, I received the standard email informing me that my comment had been posted, with a link to the comment -- however, when I clicked on the link and opened the article, my comment was not there, and instead, I was taken to the main comments window - my "approved" comment nowhere to be found --
Hmmm --
Might I be the first person to have been rejected by the Times' new Jigsaw algorithm --?
And - if so - do I win a prize...?
21
This has happened several times to me in the past.
2
I get many null links of this nature too.
2
I have experienced the same thing recently when I posted a comment. The link used to take me directly to my comment, now it takes me to the general comment section and I don't even know where to begin to look for my comment since hours have passed and hundreds more comments have been posted.
2
I hope it works because the Times has been the only place to find comments that aren't pure sewage. I learn from Times' commenters almost every day. I would hate to lose that, or to find quality comments submerged in a torrent of mediocrity or outright garbage. I'd rather have fewer and better, even with the attendant frustrations, limitations, and occasional arbitrariness.
314
Those of us who like to comment are no doubt rejoicing at this liberalization of the comment policy. It's good to know that the Times tried to make comments more prolific, rather tan cut them off.
Excellent...a few comments.
Sometimes a single comment of mine will reach my email notification two or three times on a repeat notice...
Other times I will never get an email notification, although I will see my comment printed after looking thru the comments.
Also I am curious how the Times best written plug on either side of the story is determined. Is it done by human or machine?
Sometimes a single comment of mine will reach my email notification two or three times on a repeat notice...
Other times I will never get an email notification, although I will see my comment printed after looking thru the comments.
Also I am curious how the Times best written plug on either side of the story is determined. Is it done by human or machine?
6
Excellent! You guys offer a public service with the way you're managing your community. If you're taking feedback, we could use a better way to continue our conversations. It's often times hard to follow a conversation when the replies aren't on the thread or have been removed from a thread and it's almost as difficult to continue a conversation because of it.
Thanks again for providing this for us, as a former community manager myself I can only imagine the undertaking an outlet like the New York Times has to undergo to keep conversations constructive and it's appreciated.
Thanks again for providing this for us, as a former community manager myself I can only imagine the undertaking an outlet like the New York Times has to undergo to keep conversations constructive and it's appreciated.
2
How could I resist replying to this article! As someone who posts comments two or three times per month I wondered how the thousands of comments are reviewed, moderated, etc. So now the eyes of individuals will be replaced by the algorithms of a computer. The march of technology into the workplace: speed, accuracy, efficiency, a greater customer experience...computers. So goodbye friendly human reader and hello Jigsaw Moderator! Bring on the histograms! (Why do I feel like I'm living in an episode of the Flash Gordon TV show from the 1950s?).
10
One of the features I most value as a NYT subscriber is exploring the commentary of fellow readers. I'm glad to see that the Times continues to increase its readership and its relevance by adhering to its reputation, without fear or favor, as the newspaper of record.
Thank you.
Thank you.
3
Crowd Source-
Take a look at the comments section of Ars Technica. I find it very well done. Readers vote up or down on a comment. If the ratio becomes too negative the comment is grayed out, but available for a click. My experience with it is that it tends to focus the discussion on the topic at hand while suppressing the worst of the trolls and ad hominum attacks.
Take a look at the comments section of Ars Technica. I find it very well done. Readers vote up or down on a comment. If the ratio becomes too negative the comment is grayed out, but available for a click. My experience with it is that it tends to focus the discussion on the topic at hand while suppressing the worst of the trolls and ad hominum attacks.
5
i love Ars Technica, but their threads frequently go WAY off topic and sometimes hijak the thread entirely. And if readers do not downvote, nothing happens to get the thread back on subject. I can see how that would happen all over again at the NYT. I DO love when someone's comment there gets downvoted and the OP asks "why" and then he/she gets an answer from others. Sometimes the downvoters are mean and bullying themselves. Ars Technica is great but their comments sections are not the best.
3
This is a most unfortunate development: I don't have time to share my opinion on every single article and editorial. The percentage of uncommented articles by anyone important commentator will increase precipitation. This is a test.
7
There has been a notable increase of lesser-quality comments lately as the volume of submissions has no doubt been overwhelming. Please maintain your standards even if fewer comments are accepted.
I'm guessing all of us commenters will have to allot more time now so we can drop in on far more stories to put in our two cents. Sigh.
I'm guessing all of us commenters will have to allot more time now so we can drop in on far more stories to put in our two cents. Sigh.
10
Hey Steelmen, we've been monitoring our rate of comments rejections in both our old system, and the new one. As we've rolled out Moderator, you're right, we've gotten a bit out of balance on a few stories. But we're hyper-sensitive to this issue, and as Moderator ages, we're confident we can strike the right balance with increasing consistency.
In a few months, we'll be surveying readers about comments quality just to be totally sure we've nailed it.
In a few months, we'll be surveying readers about comments quality just to be totally sure we've nailed it.
11
One man's Moderator is another man's Big Brother.
Orwell thou shouldst be living at this hour...
Orwell thou shouldst be living at this hour...
3
So, at minimum, we will be having a conversation with a set of algorithms . We will be collective teachers who are to, perhaps, humanize this software. Ahhhh, well, maybe it will be easier than raising the reasoning of lost WSJ readers.
Hate to say this but ads after every 5 or ten comments might offset some costs.
Can you make your email links in comment acceptance notices anchor straight to one's comment and the possible replies?
Are you really reading this or have we reached the end of our collective attention span on the bridge to nowhere?
Hate to say this but ads after every 5 or ten comments might offset some costs.
Can you make your email links in comment acceptance notices anchor straight to one's comment and the possible replies?
Are you really reading this or have we reached the end of our collective attention span on the bridge to nowhere?
2
With all due respect, I would rather not have ads clutter up The NY Times comments section.
That being said, I don't like the automation, either. The Times can't hire college interns to review comments? Or maybe even people who can work from home?
That being said, I don't like the automation, either. The Times can't hire college interns to review comments? Or maybe even people who can work from home?
3
The issue is the gatekeepers who decide which comments are published and which are not. Thoughtful, incisive, well written comments are often left out in the cold, unpublished . The Times should reserve some articles for on moderated commenting.
4
A Times print reader since my 7th grade English teacher devoted a week to page by page analysis, I am now retired with much reduced envolvement with the wider world and little interchange with anything like a spectrum of people. "Comments" has been a wonderfully additive discovery in the digital format. Some people add credible information especially in non-political areas like Science and Health. The range of responses are more informative than poll statistics. And the impulse to chime in with the Times community is irresistible. This adaptation convinces me the Times and its readers have an indefinite future together. Readers I say. I abhor vapid video. Please no not that. Those are empty calories.
44
A comment on the commenting? I always wondered how you made it through the evaluations without extreme exhaustion. Very best of luck on the endeavor. We will continue to give our comments.
7