It's unfortunate you use human moderators. Humans have biases, whether they acknowledge it or not. And the NYT itself definitely has a perspective/agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if this has progressed into a 'group think' phenomenon/dynamic in your community desk unit/echo chamber. I've been reading the NYT for decades buying off the stand and intermittent subscriptions. I also read across the spectrum, conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian. I detest hypocrisy and double standards, and both are rampant. I recently subscribed to the digital edition and started engaging in the comments feature. It is clear that comments are highly censored for perspective and opinion, and hardly just for the limited and coyly benign reasons outlined in this article. One is much more likely to have a comment posted if it strongly conforms to the NYT agenda inherent in many of the articles/op ed pieces as opposed to not. Contrary or challenging views regardless of how artful or clever, and they should not need to be either, are silenced. Or at best, posted several hours later when the reading and commenting audience have long moved on--if at all. Further, the NYT 'Pick's' aren't picks for concise, sharp, thoughtful, emotionally, intellectually compelling presentations of various perspectives, deliberations, reflections, responses of readers, but just those that reflect the NYT agenda, and fulfill a we agree! group think. I'm at the point where i want to cancel my subscription.
6
You do such a great job that sometimes I read the comments before I read the article. My only wish is for an index or some indication of the ability to comment (or not) at a predictable place on the page.
3
Opinions, when disseminated broadly, are like seeds. Perhaps most of them are merely scattered to the wind. Some, however, may take root.
I feel that if I have an opinion that has merit, especially if it is in regard to an area in which I have some expertise, the readers' forum in the Times offers an opportunity for an effect to be created in the "real world".
For example, there was an article a few days ago about pedestrian safety in NYC ("Giving Pedestrians A Head Start Crossing Streets"). The discussion in the comments section included comments about the dangers presented by bicycles in the city. As a NYC taxi driver I have an expert opinion here which I wrote as a comment of my own: easily half the bikes in NYC have neither front nor rear lights. I have never heard of this being mentioned in any discussion of pedestrian nor bicyclist safety, yet I see it as an alarming problem every day I drive a cab. So I gave my opinion, which is that front and rear lights on bicycles should be mandated by the city.
I think there's a good chance that those in charge of such things here in New York will have read that article, and may as well have read my comment.
If so, a seed has been planted. And even if not, I feel that I've done the right thing.
2
I appreciate the work of the NYT's dozen commentators in keeping the newspaper's comment sections lively and civil. I commend the management of the Times' digital publications for deciding that getting reaction from serious readers was important enough to devote such substantial resources to this enterprise. I wish more online publications so valued their audience.
I have one problem with the comments.
They are biased in presentation. That is, people are more likely to see, and therefore read and recommend the first comments that they see.
Good survey design will present choices in a random order. I believe that in New York, names are presented in a changing order in each election district when there are multiple names for an office (vote for up to six candidate for judge).
I propose that the Times present the "All" comments in a random order each time "All" is selected. Further, I propose that when comments are opened, they should be opened with the "All" selection.
Next, I would propose that clicking on "Readers' Picks" should change the order between most and least popular.
1
Those of us on the West Coast have a definite disadvantage, it seems. Unless, instead of getting up early, we stay up late!
Thank you to the Times for maintaining the Comments so well. I learn a lot, I hardly ever get more than a few "recommends," probably because I post so late. ;-)
But I still get satisfaction from being part of the discussion, instead of just a passive reader.
1
Having worked with many robots sophisticated and not sophisticated, I can tell you nothing beats human touch.
I agree its tedious task to read thousands of comments, but when done outcome is simply marvelous. Nothing beats human. The experience is organic.
Sorry, Watson!
I too want to thank the comments moderators for their hard work and the great job they do, and for putting up with opinionated me. I actually think about you guys when I write a comment and try to be coherent, stay on topic and add something to the discussion. I enjoy reading all the comments and I learn a lot. Much thanks to all of you!
6
I am always impressed by the quality of comments in the NYT. The other paper of high quality that I read every day does not seem to use a moderator, and even when I am in agreement with a comment, I am often offended by the way opinions are expressed. Many would violate the NYT guidelines, especially the name-calling. Thank you for keeping our conversation civil in the NYT.
3
I notice that certain posters always show up like clockwork in certain sections, such as in comments to Krugman's columns. They seem to be using the comments section as a personal forum to display their views. I'm not sure that allowing this hogging of space is good for the concept of readers' comments.
At some point it becomes abusive of the system. Perhaps the Times should consider placing some limits on comment frequency.
4
Commenting and reading comments has become an obsession. An addiction.
I do disagree on barring the use of prostitute as noun or verb: it is useful, descriptive, and entirely appropriate in the right context. Calling certain arrangement "transactional" is simply less vivid.
There are some pet names applied to President Trump which are pretty much the equal of Obummer( ... ( Drumpf? tRump? Groper-In-Chief? ) is it possible that there is a bias? It may be my own bias as well, but, you know, we go high . . . Of course creativity rates extra points and viewer likes.
Occasionally there's an article where I think the comments section was closed too quickly; others trail on for thousands of comments. I cannot imagine slogging through the constant repetition of predictable reactions to Trump stories.
Thank goodness for moderators who keep the site vibrant but free of the nasty stuff that appears on open sites.
1
The comments team deserves congratulations on a great job!
One request - set a pickier threshold for Readers' Picks. E.g., in this thread, 319 of 427 are currently picks. I'd be more interested in reading the top 40 or so.
4
The "readers' picks" are ordered by number of picks. Just read the top 40 from the list.
You'll notice that the reader's picks are listed in descending order based on number of readers who recommended the comment, most recommended first. So, you can set the threshold wherever you want, based on how often the comments were recommended. For example, you can choose to read only the first 40 comments, if you're only interested in the top 40. The reader's picks lists all comments that we recommended by someone, and in my view, that's how it should be. If you would like curated picks, that's what the NY Times picks are for.
And thanks, NY Times comment team, for keeping comments and discussions enlightening and civil.
One thing I would like to see in comments, is more comments written out in short paragraphs. It may be my shortcoming, but a huge block of type makes me tend to scroll to the next comment.
When you space your thoughts out, I think you have a better chance of being read by more Times' readers. They won't skip down to the bottom of your comment.
But instead, read each line and think about what you've just written.
Just my two cents.
5
I would like to see an index to which articles accept comments. Also a special page that allows a reader to recommend topics whose articles (at least some) ought to permit commenting. An example for me is the controversy about women in technology. My 40 years in computers have given rise to much experience and thinking on this topic. I don't see that kind of background reflected in your reporting.
1
Commenting chiefly on NYT Opinion, Editorial and Political stories has provided me with a constructive outlet for the angst, rage and compassion I feel regarding the current state of humanity. In particular, I feel the present ethos we find ourselves in, of destructive governance and fashionably narcissistic value systems, requires citizens to learn, teach and speak out for the common good. The NYT would be well served to encourage non-journalist participation in occasional columns expressing thoughtful"slice of life" points of view related to the current state of the Republic.
6
Bravo! I love reading the comments on Times articles, and often find that I learn something new or consider things from new angles after hearing all of these diverse voices. I applaud the Times' commitment to creating this forum, and to moderating it.
15
I have a love-hate relationship with the NY Times' comments policies and controls.
I love that the comments are moderated. I agree that moderating the comments creates a more engaged, thoughtful conversation. Most other papers' sites, such as the WP and the WSJ, are full of way too much extraneous back and forth as well as being havens for trolls. Also, the ability to still remain anonymous is appreciated.
I hate the limitations moderating places on some of the exchanges. For popular and hot topics, the moderators are often sluggish in posting comments and shut down discussion way too soon, especially on opinion pieces. Also, the prevalence of group think can lead to redundancy (a "dislike" option would help with that). Finally the "approved" commenters is so elitist and smug. With it, you tend to have some of the same voices hogging the discussion...
Well said!!!
I love that the comments are moderated. I agree that moderating the comments creates a more engaged, thoughtful conversation. Most other papers' sites, such as the WP and the WSJ, are full of way too much extraneous back and forth as well as being havens for trolls. Also, the ability to still remain anonymous is appreciated.
I hate the limitations moderating places on some of the exchanges. For popular and hot topics, the moderators are often sluggish in posting comments and shut down discussion way too soon, especially on opinion pieces. Also, the prevalence of group think can lead to redundancy (a "dislike" option would help with that). Finally the "approved" commenters is so elitist and smug. With it, you tend to have some of the same voices hogging the discussion...
Well said!!!
4
Since the new system was implemented, plenty of Trolls have emerged. No Non-Human Google Project system can take Words and somehow be able to decipher their context appropriately. Case in Point. I am Pasting a comment that came in today (just an example of the "stuff" allowed through since the June roll out). This comment was published in conjunction with an intriguing story about the Slave who taught Jim Beam; titled "When Jack Daniel’s Failed to Honor a Slave, an Author Rewrote History."
This is the following posted comment:
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.
There was a time when thoughtful discourse was the rule at NYT; no more. Many "regulars are posting infrequently: Rhett, Rhema, Gemli, even the resident Conservative- Richard Luttgren is posting less. If the above comment is the New NYT Standard; There is no Standard.
This is the following posted comment:
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.
There was a time when thoughtful discourse was the rule at NYT; no more. Many "regulars are posting infrequently: Rhett, Rhema, Gemli, even the resident Conservative- Richard Luttgren is posting less. If the above comment is the New NYT Standard; There is no Standard.
2
Good to know... but one thing, why can we not be sent links to our comments specifically instead of the current system where one must scroll through hundreds or more to see if there were replies or recommendations?
12
I’d just like to thank the crew for their work, which directly supports the First Amendment and saves me tons in therapist bills. I often resolve not to take the time to compose a comment, but then a story gets me going and we’re off. Not only does it provide psychological relief, but the act of writing sometimes reveals flaws in my logic, which leads to deeper thought. It is very rewarding, even when only three people recommend my profundity. But then, my vote in a presidential election is only one in 130 million, yet still I vote because it seems, and is, important.
I feel Ms. Harris’ pain. I hope she can take some solace in the fact that millions, and perhaps billions of people worldwide, hope for the day when “Trump” does not appear on the front page of The Times.
I use the brownies recipe in “The Essential New York Times Cookbook.” My wife is still with me.
I feel Ms. Harris’ pain. I hope she can take some solace in the fact that millions, and perhaps billions of people worldwide, hope for the day when “Trump” does not appear on the front page of The Times.
I use the brownies recipe in “The Essential New York Times Cookbook.” My wife is still with me.
11
Congratulations to the comment staff, who has to put up with the likes of me.
5
I don't envy anyone the job of doing this kind of work. Can you imagine the brain fatigue of having to pour through so much vitriol and then trying to go home and have a normal conversation at the end of the day? My hat is off to those that do and I would buy you all a much needed drink if I could.
5
I agree with the idea of bringing back numbered comments. I've written before that there seems to be no rhyme or reason about which stories allow comments. Editorial or op-ed pieces seem a natural, but they frequently don't allow them. Other stories to which comments may offer little in the way of enlightenment do. I've submitted critical but respectful comments that weren't posted, complained and received the boilerplate answer that the articles' authors decide which comments should be posted, which seems to contradict what this story says about who moderates them. For that matter, why should reporters or guest authors have that decision, when they may decide not to allow something that criticizes them? I find that some columns seem to consistently refuse to publish negative comments. The worst offenders are Modern Love and the fake "Judge" John Hodgman.
2
How is it that some people are not moderated? I'd like to think that my track record indicates that I won't violate the rules.
2
I love the comments section and read it assiduously. I think the thing I'm most happy about is that people read, absorb and react. More than an ironclad ideology, this requires mental agility, intellectual curiosity, a discerning mind, even a sense of humor which is most critical in these increasingly scary times. You guys are making sense of what has to be a very tough job.
5
Why do we write comments? Is it just not to remain silent in the face of everything? It is a little like voting, individually an irrational act, but cumulatively the foundation of our society.
I don't really expect my comments to be read, buried as they usually are in the middle of the cue. If my comments have any influence, or if I have any hope of any influence, it is on the NYTimes itself, through the brief glance the moderators give them looking for bad words or bad thoughts, and by the weight of their mere presence on the stream of articles or opinion pieces that I support. Probably more effective than writing myself is clicking the recommend button on comments that I think should be read by others.
The NYTimes publishes many opinion pieces by writers who I have learned not to waste time reading; and I hate the thought of helping pay their fees. But the comment sections have many people providing free content that makes up the difference.
I don't really expect my comments to be read, buried as they usually are in the middle of the cue. If my comments have any influence, or if I have any hope of any influence, it is on the NYTimes itself, through the brief glance the moderators give them looking for bad words or bad thoughts, and by the weight of their mere presence on the stream of articles or opinion pieces that I support. Probably more effective than writing myself is clicking the recommend button on comments that I think should be read by others.
The NYTimes publishes many opinion pieces by writers who I have learned not to waste time reading; and I hate the thought of helping pay their fees. But the comment sections have many people providing free content that makes up the difference.
6
"The team now has some help from artificial intelligence..."
[Insert Joke here]
But seriously, Yes, you guys do a mystifyingly good job at having a comment section that is worth at least skimming and scanning. Although when you get beyond a couple hundred comments, it just doesn't seem worth the time. As a poster, it feels more like graffiti than communication. In smaller concentrations, when the commenters interact (as in the TV Recaps as an example) The NYT sets the standard.
I will not yet forget what it was like back in the days of the forums. And THOSE moderators often had their work cut out for them. We were unruly, uncivil and uncouth and yet (for the most part, for a while) raucous and rollicking good fun.
I am not much of a fan of the "NYT Picks" in that they seem to come in time batches not in quality. And there is the tendency to try to be sure to "give a voice" to "the other side." Meanwhile, they present JUST the two sides. There doesn't seem to be room there for opinions, observations that are outside the expected narrative. Which tends to diminish the usefulness of the "NYT Picks."
Perhaps the IA bot will have a "NYT Picks" pile for "other" and those will get equal consideration based on their merits.
"Over time, the quality of the comments has improved as readers have become familiar with the way the community desk works, Mr. Etim said."
Let's make sure the machine-learning technology is learning from us, not exclusively Vice Versa.
Thank you.
PLAU,
DPR
[Insert Joke here]
But seriously, Yes, you guys do a mystifyingly good job at having a comment section that is worth at least skimming and scanning. Although when you get beyond a couple hundred comments, it just doesn't seem worth the time. As a poster, it feels more like graffiti than communication. In smaller concentrations, when the commenters interact (as in the TV Recaps as an example) The NYT sets the standard.
I will not yet forget what it was like back in the days of the forums. And THOSE moderators often had their work cut out for them. We were unruly, uncivil and uncouth and yet (for the most part, for a while) raucous and rollicking good fun.
I am not much of a fan of the "NYT Picks" in that they seem to come in time batches not in quality. And there is the tendency to try to be sure to "give a voice" to "the other side." Meanwhile, they present JUST the two sides. There doesn't seem to be room there for opinions, observations that are outside the expected narrative. Which tends to diminish the usefulness of the "NYT Picks."
Perhaps the IA bot will have a "NYT Picks" pile for "other" and those will get equal consideration based on their merits.
"Over time, the quality of the comments has improved as readers have become familiar with the way the community desk works, Mr. Etim said."
Let's make sure the machine-learning technology is learning from us, not exclusively Vice Versa.
Thank you.
PLAU,
DPR
2
I appreciate the Times for allowing reader comments. I often read them, enjoy them, and learn from them. Thank you.
8
"...civil discussion about important issues." What an extraordinarily worthwhile concept! Would you guys be up for moderating congressional debate?
6
Many many thanks to you moderators. Thanks to your good work the comments are as educational as the articles!
4
The dependence on machine learning could very well result in adroit, nuanced and important comments from being approved. I hope the team will monthly check to see how often this is the case. Technology can only go so far and has drawbacks.
1
If you haven't already done so, take a few minutes and read the "comments" on CNN.com -- the comparison is striking...the NYTimes' comments are thoughtful and usually well-articulated...even those I disagree with. There's much to appreciate here, especially Mr. Etim and his staff. Thank you!!!
6
So many brilliant commenters. All working for free. It would be nice if some of them--no I think all of them---would at least get paid a $15 an hour minimum wage.
1
Even the comments I don't agree with in the NYT are generally well written and respectful, and give me insight into a different perspective. In a few cases, I'm moved to change my opinion in some way, but regardless, I appreciate the exposure to considered and considerate opinions of all persuasions.
6
You do a great job! Keep up the good work!
As other commentators have noted, one of the reasons I subscribe to the NYT is the comments. Dipping into the cesspool of some other publications' comments sections can leave me discouraged about the state of humanity. I just avoid them now. Even the comments I don't agree with in the NYT are generally well written and respectful, and give me insight into a different perspective. In a few cases, I'm moved to change my opinion in some way, but regardless, I appreciate the exposure to considered and considerate opinions of all persuasions.
As other commentators have noted, one of the reasons I subscribe to the NYT is the comments. Dipping into the cesspool of some other publications' comments sections can leave me discouraged about the state of humanity. I just avoid them now. Even the comments I don't agree with in the NYT are generally well written and respectful, and give me insight into a different perspective. In a few cases, I'm moved to change my opinion in some way, but regardless, I appreciate the exposure to considered and considerate opinions of all persuasions.
10
As a recent subscriber to your online editions, I really enjoy the comments section, so it's interesting to get the background on how it is operated. I admit sometimes I enjoy the comments more than the article itself.
8
On my iPhone, a link to my contributed comment never brings up the comment itself. Only the entire list.
On my laptop, the connection to my contribution is immediate.
And now, allow this reflection: reading, and contributing, to the Times comments is one of the few parts of the day that allows a sense of validation, as well as communal insight with thinking persons who may or may not be in agreement with my views.
On my laptop, the connection to my contribution is immediate.
And now, allow this reflection: reading, and contributing, to the Times comments is one of the few parts of the day that allows a sense of validation, as well as communal insight with thinking persons who may or may not be in agreement with my views.
7
MOTIVATION FOR THE MODERATORS TO BRING ABOUT CHANGES IN FORMAT
If you folks doing the moderating need more motivation to implement some of the changes suggested by the commenters, consider this:
Imagine all the changes were put in place. Each commenter could, upon receiving an email notification, go to the exact location of the comment, and in addition, would be notified whenever somebody responded. Responses would be indented in a way to easily identify the comment thread.
Now, imagine that many of the minority views (conservative, non-materialist, viewpoints that don’t fit neatly into liberal OR conservative boxes, etc) were expressed more frequently.
Imagine further, that at least some of the conversations were not limited – as so many comments are now – to rants, complaints, attacks on Trump, caricatures of rural, white, male voters, etc etc.
Imagine if, along the lines of the best of Nicolas Kristof’s writings, the NY Times comments section became a veritable hotbed of creative ideas, positive visions (along the lines of EF Schumacher and David Korten’s “Yes!” magazine, not of the “positive thinking” variety)
Just imagine. It would raise the already high level of comments to a level that would make it a unique resource among all media outlets.
Imagine.
www.remember-to-breathe.org/Breathing-Videos.htm
If you folks doing the moderating need more motivation to implement some of the changes suggested by the commenters, consider this:
Imagine all the changes were put in place. Each commenter could, upon receiving an email notification, go to the exact location of the comment, and in addition, would be notified whenever somebody responded. Responses would be indented in a way to easily identify the comment thread.
Now, imagine that many of the minority views (conservative, non-materialist, viewpoints that don’t fit neatly into liberal OR conservative boxes, etc) were expressed more frequently.
Imagine further, that at least some of the conversations were not limited – as so many comments are now – to rants, complaints, attacks on Trump, caricatures of rural, white, male voters, etc etc.
Imagine if, along the lines of the best of Nicolas Kristof’s writings, the NY Times comments section became a veritable hotbed of creative ideas, positive visions (along the lines of EF Schumacher and David Korten’s “Yes!” magazine, not of the “positive thinking” variety)
Just imagine. It would raise the already high level of comments to a level that would make it a unique resource among all media outlets.
Imagine.
www.remember-to-breathe.org/Breathing-Videos.htm
3
I learn an enormous amount from reading the varied, intelligent, and interesting opinions from other readers, particularly on political topics. The opportunity to read and occasionally weigh in on these discussions is a big part of why I enjoy my subscription. Thank you for maintaining --and expanding -- the comment sections.
11
Thanks too for opening some obituaries to comments,
often adding so much to your already WONDERFUL obits.
often adding so much to your already WONDERFUL obits.
2
How very interesting this article ie, and also educational. I'm wondering if the whole fake news frenzy may be more relevant to the issue of fake editors than fake end-products in the form of news items. Perhaps Trump is justified in his hostility to fake news if those articles are taken out of context by bots which never got the context in the first place. Just a few days ago I read an article in the NYT about democracy hobbyists who use these comments sections in lieu of more effective forms of participatory democracy. However, i have rejoiced at being able to comment and have vowed to myself never to write ugliness or hurtful messages. At age 84 I am still able to care, to think, to sort facts from opinions and work at submitting reasoned and reasonable responses to articles. Right now I am pondering, with a sense of the irony of that very statement, the bot who lets me publish my thoughts in the NYT. Does it know that it is keeping me on intellectual life-support, forcing me beyond mundane and less stimulating daily routines, giving me hope that somehow a thought of mine will influence the world positively? I conjure up the vision of a movie about my bot editor and me: "My Bot Validates My Old Age." Watch for it in neighborhood theaters, folks. In the meantime, Happy 4th!
4
I've learned SO MUCH from your comments.
THANK YOU for keeping them civil - what a service to us all!
THANK YOU for keeping them civil - what a service to us all!
6
I'm so glad you enjoyed my comment on Kate Hepburn's brownies! As a nutritionist and researcher, I can only wish my clients and sponsors always expressed similar enthusiasm! Thanks for making my day!
10
I find myself fact checking before commenting which helps me learn new things that I may not have otherwise taken the time to be familiar with. Also, I appreciate the lack of trolls as I'm able to read well thought out comments from conservatives that at least help me understand the other side without resorting to the name calling that is so often an issue with other sites.
The only way to bridge the divide in this country is too talk to each other. The Times allows us to interact with each other and civilly debate opposing views. Thanks for letting us form this little community.
The only way to bridge the divide in this country is too talk to each other. The Times allows us to interact with each other and civilly debate opposing views. Thanks for letting us form this little community.
6
The ability to comment is wonderful. It allows you to participate, and reading others comments is just as fun...
6
As I've been saying for years, on many if not most of the articles, and especially the Op/Eds, I learn more from the commenters than the actual author. It's especially illuminating when experts with detailed knowledge of the article's topic chime in with relevant facts and histories.
Where the Times goes awry, in my (not so) humble opinion, is in letting commenters of certain political leanings get away with posting dishonest tidbits masquerading as facts, if not outright lies. But given some of the regular contributors and, even more so, some of the guest editorialists granted real estate in the Opinion section, perhaps this shouldn't be surprising in the least.
For better or worse (definitely for worse IMO), the "paper of record" relies on online advertising revenue and thus has become susceptible to the click-bait phenomenon. That's why certain folks have "verified commenter" status even when the vast majority of their posts are met by dozens of other comments challenging the veracity of their comment. A saner publication would put a halt to this practice or at least remove the person's preferential "verified" status. But . . . clickbait. (The regular readers know exactly whom I'm referring to . . .)
Where the Times goes awry, in my (not so) humble opinion, is in letting commenters of certain political leanings get away with posting dishonest tidbits masquerading as facts, if not outright lies. But given some of the regular contributors and, even more so, some of the guest editorialists granted real estate in the Opinion section, perhaps this shouldn't be surprising in the least.
For better or worse (definitely for worse IMO), the "paper of record" relies on online advertising revenue and thus has become susceptible to the click-bait phenomenon. That's why certain folks have "verified commenter" status even when the vast majority of their posts are met by dozens of other comments challenging the veracity of their comment. A saner publication would put a halt to this practice or at least remove the person's preferential "verified" status. But . . . clickbait. (The regular readers know exactly whom I'm referring to . . .)
1
Who decides which articles will have a comments section? Seems to me that's certainly a surreptitious way of controlling the discussion.
For example, today there's an article about the gun used by the doctor in the NY hospital shooting. It's full of inaccuracies, steering the tone of the article towards the NYT position supporting even more gun control.
How come no comments will be entertained on that article? Afraid some of those inaccuracies will be brought to light, weakening your position?
For example, today there's an article about the gun used by the doctor in the NY hospital shooting. It's full of inaccuracies, steering the tone of the article towards the NYT position supporting even more gun control.
How come no comments will be entertained on that article? Afraid some of those inaccuracies will be brought to light, weakening your position?
3
Bring back the time stamp!
8
The comment section is the only reason I read David Brooks.
18
Please do more to delete duplicate comments. Some comment threads are double in size due to all the repeats.
7
That appears to be a glitch that occurs sometimes when comments are sent from an iPhone or an iPad. Duplication has happened to me many times. Even though I don't want to make the same point twice within seconds!
2
Another positive:
Frequent participation in the New York Times comments sections can give shape and meaning to lives that might otherwise be characterized by loneliness and empty time.
Frequent participation in the New York Times comments sections can give shape and meaning to lives that might otherwise be characterized by loneliness and empty time.
22
Amen. This is where I always come for intelligent feedback, and it can make all the difference in the world. Thank you, New York Times!
5
Credit where credit is due.
As a self-described "conservative who tries his best to hear", reading the Times, for me, feels like swimming upstream. But I must admit, the comments section's open forum routinely publishes my online opinions, even though most are counter to the official stance of the paper, and is polar opposite to a vast majority of its readers. The Times is one of the few online open forums that is regulated (no trolls, try reading any comments on the Yahoo news page for comparison) AND allows for right wing dissent.
Even though I disagree strongly with the papers slant, I strongly appreciate the attempt to allow other opinions in a regulated, though otherwise open format.
As a self-described "conservative who tries his best to hear", reading the Times, for me, feels like swimming upstream. But I must admit, the comments section's open forum routinely publishes my online opinions, even though most are counter to the official stance of the paper, and is polar opposite to a vast majority of its readers. The Times is one of the few online open forums that is regulated (no trolls, try reading any comments on the Yahoo news page for comparison) AND allows for right wing dissent.
Even though I disagree strongly with the papers slant, I strongly appreciate the attempt to allow other opinions in a regulated, though otherwise open format.
31
Using artificial intelligence seems so very apropos, given that your president also has artificial intelligence.
5
Having been involved for several years in a well-known site which ultimately disposed of much of its comments section, I appreciate the effort it takes from moderators to preserve a forum as one for thoughtful exchanges of ideas.
For those who prefer a comments free-for-all, I would only say that there are so many places on the internet to engage in free-for-all commenting that I think it is wonderful that a few venues, like this one, offer a different experience.
I appreciate too that the NYT on many articles identifies its NYT picks, with that section offering thoughtful responses from different points of view.
Some commenters here have suggested it is not okay to criticize the NYT, but I can say, as someone who reads many of the comments posted on an article, that there are plenty of comments that criticize the NYT in a way that is explicitly connected to the article.
For those who prefer a comments free-for-all, I would only say that there are so many places on the internet to engage in free-for-all commenting that I think it is wonderful that a few venues, like this one, offer a different experience.
I appreciate too that the NYT on many articles identifies its NYT picks, with that section offering thoughtful responses from different points of view.
Some commenters here have suggested it is not okay to criticize the NYT, but I can say, as someone who reads many of the comments posted on an article, that there are plenty of comments that criticize the NYT in a way that is explicitly connected to the article.
8
...and, lest I forget (for I surely will), make the comments searchable by Google et.al.
6
My understanding is sometime back the NYT stopped allowing native anonymous comments and did require a social network gateway.
The Times returned to the current format because it found there was no improvement in the quality of the comments by making people identify themselves through social media.
My only complaint is that more articles do not have a comment section available.
The Times returned to the current format because it found there was no improvement in the quality of the comments by making people identify themselves through social media.
My only complaint is that more articles do not have a comment section available.
6
We subscribe to the NYT and the WP but I will always tout the Times because of the constructive comments. I am essentially able to listen in on a discussion that elevates the topic with readers often trying for a solution. In this respect NYT outshines and outclasses the Washington Post.
Thank you for keeping the comment sections open. I look for it and use it everyday.
Thank you for keeping the comment sections open. I look for it and use it everyday.
25
I agree with some of the commenters saying Green Check status needs to be re-earned every year or so although it my be too much for the moderators to wade through at this point.
Some of the long-timers are now routinely windbagging it because they have no editor or their comments are the only ones up for a long time for readers to respond to.
Some of the long-timers are now routinely windbagging it because they have no editor or their comments are the only ones up for a long time for readers to respond to.
12
The NY Times giving us this forum as a way to voice our thoughts has proven to be much-needed outlet for those of us who need to see and hear what others opinions are, on the news of the day. It goes without saying that others input is extremely helpful in understanding how folks from all around the world see just what is happening to our country, and in the world news.
I will say that personally, if a comment is half as long or more of the article itself I don't even bother reading it. And to be perfectly honest... a few of your "verified commenters" are ignored altogether, for me.
Granted, we see comments we disagree with... but your moderators do a stellar job of weeding out the chaff for us; Thank You! You are still "All the News that's Fit to Print" (and Read Online, and comment on...)
On the Eve of Independence Day I am especially thankful for our forefathers having the wisdom to give the Press it's Freedom, and urge you to keep up the great work despite the opposition you see from a certain shameful individual in Washington D.C. LAM 7/3/17
I will say that personally, if a comment is half as long or more of the article itself I don't even bother reading it. And to be perfectly honest... a few of your "verified commenters" are ignored altogether, for me.
Granted, we see comments we disagree with... but your moderators do a stellar job of weeding out the chaff for us; Thank You! You are still "All the News that's Fit to Print" (and Read Online, and comment on...)
On the Eve of Independence Day I am especially thankful for our forefathers having the wisdom to give the Press it's Freedom, and urge you to keep up the great work despite the opposition you see from a certain shameful individual in Washington D.C. LAM 7/3/17
15
You say it is perfectly O.K. to criticize the Times, but it isn't. If you criticize the Times, your identity is flagged by the mods and after that your comments disappear for hours or forever.
6
That has not been the case in my experience. Not only have I written comments critical of NYT, I've also seen scores of them.
13
They have a gazillion commenters- you think they single you out. Lol.
11
Agreed. Whenever I send a reminder to NYT comment editors that they have allowed another comment that contains an offensive ageism reference, I never get a response. Never suggest to the editors that they do not respect Seniors, or your contributions to the comments section will be ignored forever and ever (as will be this).
2
In general, the problem with comments is that it is impossible to reject comments intended to mislead, that are disingenuous and only exist to muddy the waters. Fake news comments are typically these form of comments, and regardless of how absurd the comment is, it always detracts from the article. I believe comments only detract considerably from the posted article and damage the newsworthiness of the message of the author. This is especially true of complex subjects, e.g. climate change, healthcare, etc. It is too easy to mislead and distract, and thus damage the newsworthiness of an article to make comments worth it. I believe the Times should remove comments altogether as it only damages the intent and purpose of a news organization. Good luck all, it's a brave new world!!
4
I have no problem with the editing, except that your preference for prolixity baffles me. Only lengthy comments get chosen as Times picks. When I was learning journalism as a twelve year-old, I was taught to be brief. What ever happened to that?
5
I'd like to be able to edit typos after I post comments.
Also, I have the impression that NY Times Picks only come from among early comments, and if you are somewhat late in commenting, you will never be designated as a NY Times Pick.
Also, I have the impression that NY Times Picks only come from among early comments, and if you are somewhat late in commenting, you will never be designated as a NY Times Pick.
14
Reply to Dan,
Not my experience.
Not my experience.
1
I have seen examples of too much and too little moderation on various sites. However, the Times has managed to strike a near perfect balance.
I will continued to be annoyed when one of my comments is not posted, but I will try not to take it personally.
I will continued to be annoyed when one of my comments is not posted, but I will try not to take it personally.
7
I subscribe to the NYT for this reason.
9
I appreciate your editing of comments. While I dislike the aspect of censorship that moderation entails, other publications have proven that vulgar comments and hate speech will overrun a comment section unless it is moderated.
I find often find NYT reader comments very insightful and well written. I enjoy reading them.
I find often find NYT reader comments very insightful and well written. I enjoy reading them.
16
I think you open far too few articles for comments. Open them all.
10
I agree - I sometimes get the impression that if they think a news story is controversial or would be the start of a "flame war" they don't allow comments or they close the comments section too early.
2
This is way too meta for me, posting a comment on a story about the NYT's comment section.
2
No it isn't, because you just did it!
6
I agree that the NYT should open up more articles for comments, but I am not all sure what comments your moderators consider acceptable. Hate speech is wrong for sure, but I don't think it's right to decline to post a comment just because it uses profanity or makes a personal attack on someone like Trump. I worry that your policing of the comment section is making it pointless.
2
What is this, a meta-comment? Thanks for detailing the approval process.
The subscriber might suffer through my comments, but at least some people get paid to read them.
The subscriber might suffer through my comments, but at least some people get paid to read them.
1
No comment.
7
Thanks for all your efforts to let readers have their say as they wrote it, including typos.
I have had letters to other publications rewritten in such a manner that they completely change my meaning. I have given up on sending any letters to these publications.
I've confined my comments on the news to the NYT and my own blog.
Keep up the good work and I look forward to the diverse views posted here.
I have had letters to other publications rewritten in such a manner that they completely change my meaning. I have given up on sending any letters to these publications.
I've confined my comments on the news to the NYT and my own blog.
Keep up the good work and I look forward to the diverse views posted here.
4
I really appreciate the moderation done on the NYT comments. I don't know how it could be done, but I wish there were more responses by authors and readers to comments. My spouse is always saying, sure you got xxx recommends or even a NYT picks selection, but how many people responded to your comment.
2
Thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to utilize the comments sections. They are invaluable forums for giving our voices, for weighing different arguments, and for learning. The moderators help give the comments sections their good quality, by monitoring for inappropriate use and also by highlighting posts which themselves spark conversations and offer insights. The NYT recently had an interactive feature in which we could try moderating what could be printed - under the pressure of time, and with a heavy volume to review. That made me even more appreciative of what you do. Still, I sometimes find myself disappointed that something I wrote does not appear (I swear I have never been profane, abusive or off-topic). Is it possible to receive a general email response when something is rejected along the lines of "Your submission was inappropriate and will not appear?" I understand that there would be no recourse, but as things are, I feel frustrated that I don't know if something I said seemed offensive or if something went wrong with transmission. It would also guide my writing to understand what patterns emerge from the posts that don't get cleared.
Thanks to all the NYT staff and commentators who make this so enjoyable and high caliber!
Thanks to all the NYT staff and commentators who make this so enjoyable and high caliber!
4
I completely agree--sometimes my comments just seem to disappear into the ether, and I'm not the type of person who ever uses profanity or even tends to attack anyone at all, so I'm just mystified. I've ended up guessing that maybe there are rules that I don't know about, like that one can't respond to other readers (that's a lot of what I do) more than once or twice per article? I agree that it would be extremely helpful if one could receive an email if one's post has been rejected, letting one know that that's the fact (or, if there are a small number of reasons why, what the reason is...).
5
Such an insightful piece. Keep up the great work! I want to be a Times comment moderator. Sounds like a cool gig. I am no longer on social media platforms, so my preferred interactions on the web are in the comments sections of NYT. I spend some amount of time looking at most of the articles open to comments. I feel it's a community where many of the people have sane remarks with which I can relate. Facebook definitely wasn't giving me that any longer.
3
"The team now has some help from artificial intelligence". Well, that could really mess things up, couldn't it...
1
There articles or opinion pieces that spark a connected thought that is tangential, rather than directly critical or supportive of the premise. I would guess deciding how far afield is accepted is hard to define for the screeners. I can't imagine how this will be done by Google using artificial intelligence
Perhaps as you are evaluating this new procedure, you could send back any that are rejected to the reader (shouldn't be too difficult) The first advantage is that He/she could rewrite it, and an editor could evaluate whether Google may have missed the essence of the message.
People write in different styles if they are making a simple evaluation of an article; or going beyond what was stated to related issues. Feedback to readers is essential to discern whether this expansive commentary is welcomed.
This is more than an experiment of the N.Y. Times comment section, but of how complex thoughts can be "understood" by artificial intelligence. This itself is a fascinating ongoing story. Your publishing these articles about the process is an auspicious sign that you know this.
Perhaps as you are evaluating this new procedure, you could send back any that are rejected to the reader (shouldn't be too difficult) The first advantage is that He/she could rewrite it, and an editor could evaluate whether Google may have missed the essence of the message.
People write in different styles if they are making a simple evaluation of an article; or going beyond what was stated to related issues. Feedback to readers is essential to discern whether this expansive commentary is welcomed.
This is more than an experiment of the N.Y. Times comment section, but of how complex thoughts can be "understood" by artificial intelligence. This itself is a fascinating ongoing story. Your publishing these articles about the process is an auspicious sign that you know this.
1
In my experience, you can get a tangential comment in as long as your topic sentence connects in some way to the topic of the article or op-ed piece.
People have asked before about the green check marks. You people have said that commenters earn them by making good comments over a long period of time. But I've also read that people who comment via Facebook get the green check mark.
Which is it?
In either case, I think you should get rid of them.
Which is it?
In either case, I think you should get rid of them.
7
Thanks for giving us a ready forum to express how much we value this feature! Skillfully moderated comments add great value to quality content. Like many of those responding, I always check the comments on any article I read, and almost always learn a little more. Well-reasoned disagreement that goes beyond ideology is particularly valuable
Your extra effort is much appreciated. Keep up the good work!
Your extra effort is much appreciated. Keep up the good work!
2
I wish you'd get rid of those green check-marked verified commenters.
That their comments inevitably rise to the top is incredibly annoying given their often repetitive content and almost scolding tone.
That their comments inevitably rise to the top is incredibly annoying given their often repetitive content and almost scolding tone.
11
You and your team do a great job. It is the gold standard for web comments and really, the only one worth reading.
5
I thank the Times for having the only comments section that is guaranteed to be civil. I appreciate all the hard work done by the moderators.
However, like many others, I think the Verified Commenters system has got to go. I've seen numerous readers repeatedly complain about this system, but there is never a response from the Times. Why not? Why do you continue with a system that is so unpopular?
However, like many others, I think the Verified Commenters system has got to go. I've seen numerous readers repeatedly complain about this system, but there is never a response from the Times. Why not? Why do you continue with a system that is so unpopular?
16
Thank you for this - was wondering how you managed this process. "Comments" allows me to "off load" my opinions and your process has caused me to "think twice" and maybe clean it up a bit if I want to make the front page. I especially appreciate you keeping the attack/counter attack stuff to a minimum. Most importantly - I believe your process allows honest debate and I learn from others opinions. Thanks again!
3
Your process of using machine learning to categorize similar comments sounds very intriguing. I wish that you share more information about that, perhaps an article just about that process, or an ongoing blog by the developers.
Also, you might consider combining your categorizing algorithm with a user interface to enable quicker access to comments with different and original ideas. You could also add a within-category normalized score, so that like-minded-comments are competing on the basis of rhetoric (- as opposed to the vote for political preference).
Also, you might consider combining your categorizing algorithm with a user interface to enable quicker access to comments with different and original ideas. You could also add a within-category normalized score, so that like-minded-comments are competing on the basis of rhetoric (- as opposed to the vote for political preference).
1
I've found that when there is a large number of comments the 'read more' button becomes increasingly non-functional, each click returning less comments, eventually returning none at all.
8
I feel an obligation to send remarks on trump; he is repugnant to our nation's values and it is important not to allow him to smear people with impunity. I appreciate your efforts to set limits, although I must say it is more fun reading (and writing) Washington Post comments, since they seem a bit more willing to consider content that may not pass your muster. But I appreciate having the forum you provide readers to respond to trump's malevolence.
1
Using AI to help approve comments, is only the first step. Eventually AI can be used to measure consensus, or to mine other angles on a story, and even replace or complement polling.
But will all this data and information make Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell better decision makers? - Somehow I don't think so.
But will all this data and information make Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell better decision makers? - Somehow I don't think so.
1
Thanks y'all! You have the best comment section of anywhere. I always learn something and feel like I know some of these folks. Nice to be reminded that there are brains and hearts behind these sections. Much appreciated.
2
Perhap there could also be an enhancement enabling Reader/Commenters to see their own or specific other Readers' comments after postisng? Searching through a thousand or more comments to find one's own comments or those of a Commenter whose views we like to follow is especially tedious without even a search function. On my screen, I have to click "Read More" after each batch of 10 or 15.
5
This screened public forum alone would be worth the price of an online subscription. I have learned so much from reading other well-informed, intelligent comments on important and complex subjects. I also (too rarely) learn the point of view of well-informed, intelligent readers who disagree with me on the issues and voted differently. The NYT renders a great public service that is more vital to the functioning of our democracy today than ever. I am grateful.
2
Very edifying. The care The Times takes is evident in the fact that even the comments that strike me as politically or ideologically ridiculous are in sentence form. Not all such publications can say that. My main local newspaper got rid of comments, and I'll never forget the publisher there shutting down the comments section when the wife of a U.S. senator was injured in an auto accident and the comments lamented that she and her husband hadn't been killed. It never occurred to the publisher that his editorials and columns had contributed to that atmosphere. The Times can do better on its op-ed page with demanding accuracy from its columnists (a couple in particular, anyway), but its standards even there are mostly admirable.
1
Validated comments are great. Lack of trolls is great. Lack of timeliness is unacceptable. I hardly ever open comments anymore. I don't need to know what someone wrote 12 hours ago, never know whether there's been a response to a comment. Post & Wsj have usable comments.
1
I suppose I am one of the few who misses the online community on nytimes.com of the early 00's. Those were fascinating discussions, particularly about books and politics. Since Web 2.0, it seems like the general tenor of discussion has declined. Sure, NYT's is better than most, but in the land of the blind...
1
The comments in The NYT is one of few places online where things have not descended to a food fight. Despite the fact some of my comments that were respectful and on topic have gotten the axe, I appreciate the hard work the staff does. Please keep them.
What I would like to see is an update to your posting system so we can review our comment before submitting it. Auto correct on my Mac and iPad have burned me a few times.
What I would like to see is an update to your posting system so we can review our comment before submitting it. Auto correct on my Mac and iPad have burned me a few times.
2
The Times may have weak spots--that's true of any endeavor worth doing--but the way it handles comments is unparalleled. There's a fair amount of chaff, but, lordy, the grains of wheat are spectacularly tasty. Keep it up, and let's hope that this AI thingy doesn't get too weird.
1
Kudos on an excellent approach to comments...and on this very article commenting on the comments. (So, thanks for letting me comment on your comment on the comments.)
Anyway, you've really built this feature up into something unrivaled by other fine news outlets. While I really admire the Washington Post also, for example, the tenor of comments there ranges from gracious to in the gutter, with many superficial and even insulting remarks sprinkled in. In contrast, your comments sections offer some enlightening and thought-provoking information. Keep up the great work!
PS: One of the comments here suggested you block out links to blogs. I beg to differ. Such links help to expand the discussion for those interested. And in a way, by including them you're simply returning a favor, since many bloggers link to the Times and perhaps even expand your readership in the process.
PPS: There may be a minor glitch in your approach: I find that if I try to copy my own comment in case I want to use or adapt it for some other purpose later (and since something about the Times's online formatting precludes doing this once a piece is published), the comment vanishes entirely.
Anyway, you've really built this feature up into something unrivaled by other fine news outlets. While I really admire the Washington Post also, for example, the tenor of comments there ranges from gracious to in the gutter, with many superficial and even insulting remarks sprinkled in. In contrast, your comments sections offer some enlightening and thought-provoking information. Keep up the great work!
PS: One of the comments here suggested you block out links to blogs. I beg to differ. Such links help to expand the discussion for those interested. And in a way, by including them you're simply returning a favor, since many bloggers link to the Times and perhaps even expand your readership in the process.
PPS: There may be a minor glitch in your approach: I find that if I try to copy my own comment in case I want to use or adapt it for some other purpose later (and since something about the Times's online formatting precludes doing this once a piece is published), the comment vanishes entirely.
The key is apparently intelligent focused effort led by a person who gets it...it's people not algorithms. I really appreciate some of best writers/commenters as they offer context to stories. Thanks!
1
I very much appreciate your efforts to maintain a reasonable level of decorum in this hyper-partisan time. I avoid the comments sections on most websites as they have descending into name calling and/or ignorant diatribes. I've always thought there was a limit to one comment per person per article in the Times, but recently I've noticed that is not always the case--to the detriment of the comments section. I think a one comment rule forces more thoughtful commentary.
1
Waiting to read more about the 100 editor positions that are being eliminated. Algorithms are great, but will never amount to more than Memorex.
4
Thank you for allowing this platform!
2
I learned about obtaining primary car insurance from American Express prior to renting car- from a NY Times comments section. Brilliant! The comments can be as informative as the articles
2
Bravo, NYT Comments! Keep up the excellent work. I would like to second a few of the recommendations made by others here:
- Add an Edit button -- or what I would rather call a Preview button. Allow us to preview our comments as many times as we choose before hitting Submit.
- Add a Search function. Really necessary now that comments on a single article regularly number in the thousands.
- Scrap the green checkmarks, especially now that you have bots helping the moderators. First come, first served!
- Add an Edit button -- or what I would rather call a Preview button. Allow us to preview our comments as many times as we choose before hitting Submit.
- Add a Search function. Really necessary now that comments on a single article regularly number in the thousands.
- Scrap the green checkmarks, especially now that you have bots helping the moderators. First come, first served!
6
Having been a subscriber for many yrs., I am spoiled as to the excellent reporting found in your publication. When you started allowing reader commentary, it made what was already a good thing even better. I never fail to learn something from them and I'm constantly amazed at the quality of writing, intellect, heart and humor expressed in those comments - but mostly by the civility. It is for this reason alone that I do not subscribe to your major competitor - WaPo.
My only suggestion - is that you occasionally (annually?) zero out the green check folks who've held that status for over a couple of yrs., allow some fresh voices to be heard. Because they're allowed numerous comments, are almost always "first", they've become a bit predictable and drown out other equally interesting commentary that gets lost in the volume.
I don't know what a kudo is so will just say hats off to your moderators, and thanks for saving me from myself on a couple of occasions!
My only suggestion - is that you occasionally (annually?) zero out the green check folks who've held that status for over a couple of yrs., allow some fresh voices to be heard. Because they're allowed numerous comments, are almost always "first", they've become a bit predictable and drown out other equally interesting commentary that gets lost in the volume.
I don't know what a kudo is so will just say hats off to your moderators, and thanks for saving me from myself on a couple of occasions!
6
I don't like the Verified Commenters status. They generally dominate the early comments because they don't have to be vetted, and some write numerous comments on the same article, which gets tedious. Also, I've noticed that when my comments agree with the majority (and the Times), they almost always get printed, but when they diverge (eg, if I defend religion, esp. Catholicism), very rarely do they pass inspection. I never indulge in vitriol, so I conclude some views are more "quality" than others.
7
I echo that experience. As an old time liberal, I often disagree with hypersensitive modern progressives. I am invariably polite, reasoned and articulate, but feel that failing to adhere to progressive orthodoxy often gets comments rejected.
Are all the moderators (and the AI system) young SJW's intolerant of divergent viewpoints?
Are all the moderators (and the AI system) young SJW's intolerant of divergent viewpoints?
The reason I continue to subscribe is the quality of the comments, and the fantastic job your moderators do. Thanks very much for that.
1
About 97% of my comments are published, including the many that I have fun with. But if I ever point out the hypocrisy of the columnist identified here only as "MD," my words never see the light of day. Never.
And to those readers who wondered about my nom de plume, well, it has something to do with my approximate latitude.
And to those readers who wondered about my nom de plume, well, it has something to do with my approximate latitude.
2
You neglected to mention that some times reader comments are automatically published, sort of the "priveledged few", while the rest of us, paying customers included, must wait to have our comments "approved". Indeed.
4
I love writing comments to the Times and reading those of others. I'm often disappointed when the comments section has been closed. You do a wonderful job in presenting a broad spectrum of opinions without letting the level of debate degenerate into vitriol. I am so often delighted by a new "take" on an issue I had never seen before except on these pages.
If I may - a few suggestions.
I have had this happen to me several times - I have actually been in the process of editing a comment and when I went to submit it, the Comments had been closed - poof. Maybe you could consider a half hour warning for the closing of the section?
I have some favorite commentors but if they happen to not be a NYT or Reader's Pick it's hard to find their submission. Could you have a search option to search for a particular commentor?
I don't detect a schedule for closing Comments. Sometimes I will go to bed without seeing an article and get up in the morning and the Comments section is closed. It does not seem to be related to the number of comments received.
I have signed up to be notified if and when my Comment has been published, but the results are very erratic. Sometimes I get multiple e-mails of the same Comment. Sometimes I get no notification at all. Sometimes the notification will come 18 or 24 hours after publication.
I know, by now you're saying Nancy takes this a little too seriously, but I'm pretty housebound and this is an important connection for me. Thanks.
If I may - a few suggestions.
I have had this happen to me several times - I have actually been in the process of editing a comment and when I went to submit it, the Comments had been closed - poof. Maybe you could consider a half hour warning for the closing of the section?
I have some favorite commentors but if they happen to not be a NYT or Reader's Pick it's hard to find their submission. Could you have a search option to search for a particular commentor?
I don't detect a schedule for closing Comments. Sometimes I will go to bed without seeing an article and get up in the morning and the Comments section is closed. It does not seem to be related to the number of comments received.
I have signed up to be notified if and when my Comment has been published, but the results are very erratic. Sometimes I get multiple e-mails of the same Comment. Sometimes I get no notification at all. Sometimes the notification will come 18 or 24 hours after publication.
I know, by now you're saying Nancy takes this a little too seriously, but I'm pretty housebound and this is an important connection for me. Thanks.
5
Thank you for your hard work. The comments section is something I get a lot of value and insight. There are other papers, with good journalists, whose comments are overwhelmed by "lib", "cuck" and "republican". (sorry, couldn't resist). Anyway, keep up the good work.
1
Thanks for this piece. The NYT comments feature is the best in online media, and this article tells us why: because of the professionalism of Times editors and moderators.
My one suggestion would be an addition to the ground rules: that links to personal blogs not be allowed in postings. Bloggers should figure out other ways of building readership.
My one suggestion would be an addition to the ground rules: that links to personal blogs not be allowed in postings. Bloggers should figure out other ways of building readership.
37
Agree with many here about the preferential placement of Editor pics and Verified commentators that make Reader's pics somewhat redundant. Added to that, however, is another redundant feature - the Times best comments from the week. I wouldn't have as much objection if those really were the best comments from the week, but they are not. Invariably they are the ones who garnered the most recommends. Not the same thing at all.
Some of the best comments are to stories buried deep behind the front page. Couldn't the editors flag the most interesting ones, and bring them into the Best comments of the week feature? Would that not increase readership in those behind the headline stories?
Most liked is not a measure of quality, not when constraints like first off the mark, heavily weigh the result.
Some of the best comments are to stories buried deep behind the front page. Couldn't the editors flag the most interesting ones, and bring them into the Best comments of the week feature? Would that not increase readership in those behind the headline stories?
Most liked is not a measure of quality, not when constraints like first off the mark, heavily weigh the result.
17
It is great work that you do. The last year must have been especially challenging in determining if comments are appropriate. I see valuable insights that are published even though they are a little off color. At the same time, I have had a few comments referencing Trump's "underground army of brownshirts" that were not published. I believe they were acceptable given the historical reference but I understand it isn't easy deciding where the line is.
6
My husband wrote this e-mail to the editors the night before this story appeared. I thought it might be nice to include it here.
Dear Editors,
With your decision to expand the comments feature of the NYT, I believe a couple of enhancements are warranted.
First, a keyword search facility to scan through the thousands of comments that regularly are submitted every time a controversial subject is addressed, would be very useful feature. It would facilitate readers finding comments suited to their particular interests or points of view. Furthermore it might reduce redundancy and permit better threading of comments on specific topics, relating to the articles.
Second, new categories of comments needs to be created. In addition to NYT. Selections, and Readers' Selections, we need a Most Comical and a Most Intellectual Selections. Most Comical might be a little tough to generate, but there's plenty of submissions from which to choose. Most Intellectual is easy, because you can use an automated algorithm based upon the Flesch–Kincaid readability test.
I think these enhancements would greatly enhance the value of the comments section and, more importantly, greatly add to your readers' enjoyment of the NYT.
Thank you.
Dear Editors,
With your decision to expand the comments feature of the NYT, I believe a couple of enhancements are warranted.
First, a keyword search facility to scan through the thousands of comments that regularly are submitted every time a controversial subject is addressed, would be very useful feature. It would facilitate readers finding comments suited to their particular interests or points of view. Furthermore it might reduce redundancy and permit better threading of comments on specific topics, relating to the articles.
Second, new categories of comments needs to be created. In addition to NYT. Selections, and Readers' Selections, we need a Most Comical and a Most Intellectual Selections. Most Comical might be a little tough to generate, but there's plenty of submissions from which to choose. Most Intellectual is easy, because you can use an automated algorithm based upon the Flesch–Kincaid readability test.
I think these enhancements would greatly enhance the value of the comments section and, more importantly, greatly add to your readers' enjoyment of the NYT.
Thank you.
11
The criteria for having a comment posted is similar to that of a Yelp Review.
The NY Times decides if it is worthy of being posted. How very self serving of them. It explains why a significant portion of the comments posted support the articles (op-eds) published. Unbiased reporting has taken a backseat to Trump bashing, liberal left views, and weak international coverage at the NY Times. It's sad to see a once great institution devolve to this current state.
The NY Times decides if it is worthy of being posted. How very self serving of them. It explains why a significant portion of the comments posted support the articles (op-eds) published. Unbiased reporting has taken a backseat to Trump bashing, liberal left views, and weak international coverage at the NY Times. It's sad to see a once great institution devolve to this current state.
7
I guess you missed the part where 85% of the comments are approved. And there are plenty of people defending Trump and the views of the Republicans. Far more than I would have expected from Times readers actually.
2
"Criteria" is the plural of the word; I infer that your education level tracks to your uninformed opinion. Which, of course, you are perfectly well entitled to, as are those with "liberal left views."
1
I welcome moderator screening, although I have read frustration on the part of others. Thanks to the Times moderator standards the comments section adds insight beyond the that the original column or story. Because of the moderators and the quality of other commenters, I feel as if my own writing has improved.
Thank you for writing this piece. I have been trying to find a way to let the moderators know how much I value their screening. Papers that do not use human moderators are nothing more than a sounding board and often the comment section devolves into personal attacks. Reading the comment sections in these publications is pointless.
The observations of NY Times readers is insightful and often entertaining. Thank you for all that you do to make NY Times comments sections the best.
Thank you for writing this piece. I have been trying to find a way to let the moderators know how much I value their screening. Papers that do not use human moderators are nothing more than a sounding board and often the comment section devolves into personal attacks. Reading the comment sections in these publications is pointless.
The observations of NY Times readers is insightful and often entertaining. Thank you for all that you do to make NY Times comments sections the best.
18
Big fan of the comment section here at the NYTimes...keep up the good work.
28
Dear Comments staff: Since you're rejiggering the whole shebang: I have wished for years that there were more options below each comment than Reply and Recommend. "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" should not apply to comments columns. Currently the only way to express disapproval is to write a comment, and one doesn't always have something trenchant to say. You might at least offer a thumbs-down (or another "no" image) "Disagree" option...or, better, "Strongly disagree." Gauging general disapproval of a comment merely because it has reaped far fewer thumbs-up "likes" than other comments doesn't quite work. The thumbs-up icon is far too facebooklike for my taste, by the way; can you design a different one? Sometimes I'd like to recommend a comment because it's stupid, yet representative, but there is no option for that.
4
Downvotes have pretty much disappeared from most comments sections on the web. Mainly to protect down voters from incurring too much Bad Karma on themselves.
And I would add, sometimes the comments section is closed, and one cannot add a rebutting reply. I am all in favor of some sort of "unrecommend" option.
But if I refer to the President as the village idiot it could be a compliment, or an insult, or both!
6
Well, it would ring true in this case, but how could it be a compliment?
1
We also referred to Bush II as the village idiot. It is a compliment insofar as it avoids spluttering obscenities even though they are so well deserved.
1
And you are the arbiter of who is a charlatan?
1
Horrible. This is no substitute for the public editor.
3
Yet the Times has eliminated its Public Editor.
Obviously, it prefers critiquing the comments of its readership to having its own staff writers critiqued.
Obviously, it prefers critiquing the comments of its readership to having its own staff writers critiqued.
8
This was enlightening—explained why some of my comments never appeared and a couple were NYTimes' Picks. I see that labelling our president a "thug" was my mistake in an otherwise stellar comment. Can't think how I could have made such a mistake.
10
Sneaking through the censors is already sport and great fun. The greatest disappointment in readership/comments is the seriousness and the absence of irony. One can readily say that NYT readers do not have a sense of humor, or, more regrettably, imiganation. The New York Times readership is typically maudlin, overtly verbose and shallow and conventional, --exceptionally normal. This is a problem because the President can be more outrageous than what gets censored by the NYTimes. Essentially, the Trump standards are not the NYTimes standards and he can say anything but readers cannot. Think about that.
4
I don't agree. My three times as a NYT pick were for apt irony two out of the three times. The third was "merely" really good statement of a related fact.
1
Sometimes when you censor all vulgar languge, you may often censor the context and meaning of a comment. Your class educational bias may also blind your readers to the powerful emotions generating the comment.
The NY Times missed that Mrs. Bill (Hillary) Clinton was not a slam dunk to be elected because it excludes the language ---- hence the feelings and, yes, Trump supporters ----Clinton's "deplorables"'s uncensored epithet ----have politically informed ideas --- and like that uneducated language, the values of his supporters in the states that upset Mrs. Clinton. You absolutely bar or exclude the richness of ideas often when your algorithms/moderators curating discourse reflect the narrow views of frowned upon by Emily Post. Often anger or strong opposition to a political goal can best be summed up in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic vernacular. And it's more precise than any sentence or more. And it may be the truth you ignore.
The NY Times missed that Mrs. Bill (Hillary) Clinton was not a slam dunk to be elected because it excludes the language ---- hence the feelings and, yes, Trump supporters ----Clinton's "deplorables"'s uncensored epithet ----have politically informed ideas --- and like that uneducated language, the values of his supporters in the states that upset Mrs. Clinton. You absolutely bar or exclude the richness of ideas often when your algorithms/moderators curating discourse reflect the narrow views of frowned upon by Emily Post. Often anger or strong opposition to a political goal can best be summed up in Anglo-Saxon/Germanic vernacular. And it's more precise than any sentence or more. And it may be the truth you ignore.
2
The censoring of Clinton "deplorables' comment was done by people like you you refer to it completely out of context. It actually said the opposite if what you think it said.
""You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- ... -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from.
They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
""You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" Clinton said. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- ... -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from.
They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well."
1
Bravo! It feels great to comment on this story. Comments on a Gail Collins column "on a good day" makes life better.
Thanks for your efforts.
I've convinced myself that some of the hateful stuff is done by paid operatives.
We shall overcome - with your help.
Thanks for your efforts.
I've convinced myself that some of the hateful stuff is done by paid operatives.
We shall overcome - with your help.
8
I had never read a Stephen King novel, but he had become my favorite stand-up comedian. For very personal reasons I wanted to send a fan letter, but I understood that there was 0.43% chance that Mr. King would read a fan letter—so I wrote the letter to the over worked soul hired to read his mail. It was enough that just one person heard me.
When my blood pressure spikes enough to want to comment on a NYT article, I usually write to an audience of one—the overworked soul who has to read NYT comments. And it is enough to know that just one person has heard me. Thank you.
When my blood pressure spikes enough to want to comment on a NYT article, I usually write to an audience of one—the overworked soul who has to read NYT comments. And it is enough to know that just one person has heard me. Thank you.
7
Well, if you had read this article to the end, you would know that one month ago NYT started "using machine learning intelligence to group similar comments" so that the same number of reviewers could increase their output by a factor of eight. So now you can say, "at least they read a comment similar to mine".
Is it possible to notify commenters re: rejected comments?
4
No.
Why not?
Congratulations. But please keep this in mind: No one wants to comment to a machine. While we all know the amount of comments can be overwhelming, there's a certain intimacy between reader and the NYT that should be preserved.
9
You say that the NYTimes first started taking comments online in 2007.
Nan Socolow says here earlier that she has been commenting online at the nyt for seventeen years.
It seems to me that she is closer to the actual number of years that Comments have been open.
What gives?
Nan Socolow says here earlier that she has been commenting online at the nyt for seventeen years.
It seems to me that she is closer to the actual number of years that Comments have been open.
What gives?
1
Oh dear, my 2nd comment and criticism: When you let the comments rise to over 2,000 per article, in my opinion, this tends to diminish all the comments. Under or at 1,000 is much better.
5
Thanks to Kat Long and The Times for "The Approval Matrix", which explained the commenting system rather well.
I would like to add just one additional suggestion: The original poster should be given the final rejoinder to a particular person replying after no more than, say, two such replies. (If the original posting is something that needs to be responded to, then there are usually others who will do so...)
I would like to add just one additional suggestion: The original poster should be given the final rejoinder to a particular person replying after no more than, say, two such replies. (If the original posting is something that needs to be responded to, then there are usually others who will do so...)
2
I am super grateful for the quality of the NYT comment sections. I really can't tolerate others. Not surprised to read of the dedication of the people behind it!
9
I find the comments most interesting and usually will take a look at the readers views after I view an article. I have stopped commenting on Facebook but find myself writing more often in the NYT comment section. The discourse is polite, often enlightening, and thoughtful. Keep up the great moderating work. I had no idea this much went into reading all these posts. Too bad Facebook and Twitter can't have some type of moderation function in place.
4
I'm one of many volunteers who help moderate the www.city-data.com website which is heavily moderated. Our Terms of Service are much the same rules of the road as here at the NY Times. We ban a lot of people for trolling, flaming, spamming and violating the PG-13 standards. Too bad the Washington Post doesn't moderate heavily, it's forums are often over run with trolls.
7
Not so fast...although the Times may invite criticism of it, I have found they rarely post comments of mine which are sharply skeptical of the viewpoint or assumptions of the particular author in question...no matter how cogently reasoned (I say as former professional philosopher). As to profanities, it's fine to delete them out of propriety, but MY FAVORITE unpublished comment concerned the Times unwillingness to publish a comment in which I criticized the Times for failing to reproduce the profanities (in quotes) used by Federal judges in a famous free speech case about profanities in the media, specifically broadcast television. Guess the problem was my using the offending language, albeit in double quotations (the judge quoting the original source and me quoting the judge.) Hard to keep the readers informed of free speech issues if the judges' comments on the main free speech substance of a case is reported with the pertinent words deleted.
To find the actual words in dispute, I literally had to go to other, less , shall I say, inhibited web sites where the actual language of the Courts was permitted to be reproduced.
To find the actual words in dispute, I literally had to go to other, less , shall I say, inhibited web sites where the actual language of the Courts was permitted to be reproduced.
6
What is troubling is that I have, many, many "Times Picks" but I'm not considered a "Trusted" contributor. That makes no sense.
Also, I wish many times that I could edit something a few minutes or even much later. And it would be very nice if we could upload pictures! Imagine if we had the ability too, to wipe out and delete a post that we later have regrets about, just like the Wall Street. Oh, and Journal also lets us review all of our posts in one convenient location. And there's no time line for deleting. There is for basic editing.
So, I'm glad that you're expanding what we can comment on, but the system needs some upgrades and a better way to recognize those of us who make many important points.
Thanks for making the effort...now expand it even further!
Jay
Also, I wish many times that I could edit something a few minutes or even much later. And it would be very nice if we could upload pictures! Imagine if we had the ability too, to wipe out and delete a post that we later have regrets about, just like the Wall Street. Oh, and Journal also lets us review all of our posts in one convenient location. And there's no time line for deleting. There is for basic editing.
So, I'm glad that you're expanding what we can comment on, but the system needs some upgrades and a better way to recognize those of us who make many important points.
Thanks for making the effort...now expand it even further!
Jay
5
Comments have been more civil lately. Thank you!
2
I find the comments section to be fascinating. My greatest fear is that no one in political office or their staff members bother to read it. It may be the fastest polling method for gauging public opinion to breaking events even though I suspect most readers of NY Times articles who take the time to write a comment are liberals like myself.
22
Paul -- most readers are libs and most of the comments represent that frequently beknighted world view. So the comment sections of the Times wouldn't provide much of a sample reflective of the population would it now?
2
Paul ,
Educated and informed journalists are hard to come by and on the rare occasion I happen to see one and see the homework that goes into being a real journalist I am amazed. I am even more amazed when they interview a Senator or House member only to realize that these representatives of the people know nothing and agree to be interviewed when they are unwilling to do homework so they can be seen to be doing their homework.
I watched two fine journalists well prepared to interview legislators (Stephanie Ruhle and Ali Velshi) try to interview a number of legislators this week. The journalists were well prepared and I can only guess how many hours of prep work went into the interview.
I can't imagine how they remained calm and courteous as these public servants came on the air knowing absolutely nothing about the subject they were supposed to discuss.
I cannot understand why anyone would run for office when they can't even pretend to do the work they supposedly want.
I don't know what an American liberal is, I know I like public servants who do the work necessary to make informed opinions and that is why I so fear for my second country.
Educated and informed journalists are hard to come by and on the rare occasion I happen to see one and see the homework that goes into being a real journalist I am amazed. I am even more amazed when they interview a Senator or House member only to realize that these representatives of the people know nothing and agree to be interviewed when they are unwilling to do homework so they can be seen to be doing their homework.
I watched two fine journalists well prepared to interview legislators (Stephanie Ruhle and Ali Velshi) try to interview a number of legislators this week. The journalists were well prepared and I can only guess how many hours of prep work went into the interview.
I can't imagine how they remained calm and courteous as these public servants came on the air knowing absolutely nothing about the subject they were supposed to discuss.
I cannot understand why anyone would run for office when they can't even pretend to do the work they supposedly want.
I don't know what an American liberal is, I know I like public servants who do the work necessary to make informed opinions and that is why I so fear for my second country.
3
Well, you can always email your particular comment or the comments of others to your chosen representatives, but short of that, you can consider your "greatest fear" reality at this point.
I also enjoy reading the comments on select stores, but there's just too much information going around, and my sense is that even the "left-leaning" office holders and their aides these days are more focused on the opinions of their constituents or political funders to read more than selected complete stories and opinions - maybe only the occasional NYT Picks. The NYT itself needs a Google algorithm to digest them, what political aide is the equivalent?
As to the "right-leaning" political office holders and aides, the NYT to most Trump supporters I've met is the flagship of the "mainstream media" - a term that somehow has become pejorative.
Add to that a general conservative skepticism as to the value of intellectual endeavors generally (e.g., climate science, public health, thorough budget-crunching, etc.) and perhaps you can live with an audience for this forum of limited political authority.
I know I've made peace with the same question and answer. There is power in ideas, so it feels good to express them and read those of others. At a minimum, I can sense that someone, even if only a gatekeeping NYT Moderator, will read what I have to say.
I also enjoy reading the comments on select stores, but there's just too much information going around, and my sense is that even the "left-leaning" office holders and their aides these days are more focused on the opinions of their constituents or political funders to read more than selected complete stories and opinions - maybe only the occasional NYT Picks. The NYT itself needs a Google algorithm to digest them, what political aide is the equivalent?
As to the "right-leaning" political office holders and aides, the NYT to most Trump supporters I've met is the flagship of the "mainstream media" - a term that somehow has become pejorative.
Add to that a general conservative skepticism as to the value of intellectual endeavors generally (e.g., climate science, public health, thorough budget-crunching, etc.) and perhaps you can live with an audience for this forum of limited political authority.
I know I've made peace with the same question and answer. There is power in ideas, so it feels good to express them and read those of others. At a minimum, I can sense that someone, even if only a gatekeeping NYT Moderator, will read what I have to say.
1
Yeah, Hi again, so I can't be sure that a human is ever going to lay eyes on my comment?
6
'Don’t get me wrong, insults are fine as long as they aren’t about appearance, but name-calling is not, for anyone, public or private.” (“Obummer” would be rejected.)'
Really? If this were true, then by now the habitually highest ranked commenter on the NYT, who takes as his nome de plume the name of a long dead Greek philosopher, should surely have lost his green tick. Which would be a great shame because his name calling is inventive, rarely repetitive, and right on the mark.
Look. If there's a charlatan occupying the most powerful office on earth, and this charlatan is a brash, unscrupulous buffoon, who constantly lies or simply makes things up, and as well as being a malignant narcissist is extremely vain and touchy about his appearance, intellect, and wealth, then he deserves to be called every name under the sun.
Really? If this were true, then by now the habitually highest ranked commenter on the NYT, who takes as his nome de plume the name of a long dead Greek philosopher, should surely have lost his green tick. Which would be a great shame because his name calling is inventive, rarely repetitive, and right on the mark.
Look. If there's a charlatan occupying the most powerful office on earth, and this charlatan is a brash, unscrupulous buffoon, who constantly lies or simply makes things up, and as well as being a malignant narcissist is extremely vain and touchy about his appearance, intellect, and wealth, then he deserves to be called every name under the sun.
90
I heartily agree with most of what you are saying, except the commenter in question while inventive, and right on the mark, is rarely not repetitive with regard to the exploits of Trump and the Grand Old Pyromaniacs. Just sayin'.
2
What he deserves is not the issue. Name-calling, no matter how deserved, still lowers the quality of any discourse.
3
Memi, you're right. I should better have written, perhaps, '... inventive, sometimes repetitive, but always right on the mark.' (And, of course, 'nom de plume' rather than 'nome de plume').
NYT is the only publication in which I bother to read (much less contribute) user comments, and that is true solely and exclusively because of the moderator staff.
69
What he said. And thanks for your hard work.
1
On 26 June 2017, I called out a nyt senior something (name withheld) for not having one iota of evidence for labelling Nancy Pelosi as "wicked witch".
I'm convinced my comment got killed for stepping on toes. And I'm sure at least one contributing writer has now banished my comments, even if it's positive.
nyt massages the placement of comments, and I've benefited and I've been disappeared (emailed approved, but link is not to my comment, and comment can't be found thru exhaustive search).
nyt's "make nice" review activity is a feedback loop: the approval/or not and the order of placement show favor and disfavor. It's interesting to me, but seriously nyt, are you claiming that the comment approval and placement is the result of only passing straight thru a 'civil ground rules' sieve?
I'm convinced my comment got killed for stepping on toes. And I'm sure at least one contributing writer has now banished my comments, even if it's positive.
nyt massages the placement of comments, and I've benefited and I've been disappeared (emailed approved, but link is not to my comment, and comment can't be found thru exhaustive search).
nyt's "make nice" review activity is a feedback loop: the approval/or not and the order of placement show favor and disfavor. It's interesting to me, but seriously nyt, are you claiming that the comment approval and placement is the result of only passing straight thru a 'civil ground rules' sieve?
5
Thank you, nyt moderators, for improving free speech with my post, and thus enabling me to "Recommend" myself...again.
The more looney the story, the less likely the story will have comments activated. And the NYT has some looney stories!
4
Though the article sheds some light on the Times process of publishing / excluding comments, I believe you need to go back and rework your math. As of 8 am this morning their are only 2 comments for this article. One can reasonable assume, there were substantially more submitted. The only contra argument to this would be that the Times is guilty of dismissing comments critical of their screening process, just like Yelp Reviews! Additionally, no mention is made as the process the Times employees in making their NY Times Pick.
2
My Id comments at the Wash Post, my Ego at the Times. When my SuperEgo engages I don't check back to count recommendations. Thanks to the Moderators.
10
Thanks NYT for having some finely balanced moderators and hats off to your 3rd moderator for not wanting to demean prostitutes by categorizing them with "Republican prostitutes"
Other well established papers like Washington Post and Finanfial Times have "comment" sections that are not moderated resemble political Facebook rants.
My NYT subscription is worth every penny.
Other well established papers like Washington Post and Finanfial Times have "comment" sections that are not moderated resemble political Facebook rants.
My NYT subscription is worth every penny.
52
The moderators certainly have their work cut out for them, but perhaps the rules of "commenting" should be altered.
Too often I wonder the non-rhetorical question: "when is a comment not a comment?" It is, in my opinion, when a particular commenter seizes a writer's work, and "comments" in the form of belabored, attempted parody. This occurs in the daily "Metropolitan Diary" where one individual seems to lie in wait at 8:15pm the previous night to be the first to remark on a writer's hard-won acceptance (by the New York Times) of a diary submission. The "parody," if it can be called that, is nothing more than a narcissistic attempt to siphon off comments from the original work to bring praise, and comments, to his own. It is tactic obnoxious, disrespectful, and rude.
Moderators, please! Be aware of this and stop this awful invasion.
Too often I wonder the non-rhetorical question: "when is a comment not a comment?" It is, in my opinion, when a particular commenter seizes a writer's work, and "comments" in the form of belabored, attempted parody. This occurs in the daily "Metropolitan Diary" where one individual seems to lie in wait at 8:15pm the previous night to be the first to remark on a writer's hard-won acceptance (by the New York Times) of a diary submission. The "parody," if it can be called that, is nothing more than a narcissistic attempt to siphon off comments from the original work to bring praise, and comments, to his own. It is tactic obnoxious, disrespectful, and rude.
Moderators, please! Be aware of this and stop this awful invasion.
23
gruntled, could you please explain: Is your problem that you feel the verse is belabored, or that the verse is allowed at all?
More a request than a comment; wondering what the NY Times has learned from comments? Is there "topic fatigue"? What provokes anger, empathy and other reader emotions? Has the paper compared comment patterns with other papers, perhaps less liberal ones? Do comments impact what the Times writes about? Thank you.
4
Great work by the moderators on the comments section, which is my most-visited page in NYT, indeed in any newspaper. I hope with the use of AI, The Times is not planning to get rid of the job of moderators, similar to what they seems to be doing to copy editors!!
22
I don’t know who at the Times came up with the idea of moderator for the comments section. Brilliant to say the least. I know of no other national publication that does this. True innovation, simple but effective. The comments are invaluable in these times. I post comments daily and enjoy reading a reply now and then. Some disagree with me, some agree. Isn’t that what this is all about? Reading those comments helps all of us to take stock in the differing opinions on any given article.
There are some improvements that could be addressed, but not here. You’re doing a great service to your readers. Thank you
There are some improvements that could be addressed, but not here. You’re doing a great service to your readers. Thank you
24
The Times seeks to be a more international newspaper, but all the comments are in English. Many non-English speaking foreigners can understand written English, but for them drafting a comment in English is probably daunting. Could the Times experiment with foreign language comment sections?
2
Thank goodness for AI.
The sooner we can replace human involvement in the comments section on the admin side, the sooner we can replace those pesky human opinions on the posting side.
Maybe the Times can get some assistance with posting bots from Russia.
The sooner we can replace human involvement in the comments section on the admin side, the sooner we can replace those pesky human opinions on the posting side.
Maybe the Times can get some assistance with posting bots from Russia.
3
A while back I became aware that some readers are able to have their comments published without prior review by NYT staff. I also became aware that I was not one of them because I had previously had a comment rejected by NYT staff. I'm afraid that this has left me feeling rather like I am in comment purgatory. My comments MUST be reviewed by NYT staff for offensive content before they can be published. The question which has occurred to me is "how do I get out of purgatory?" Is there an appeal process or some way to be granted reprieve based upon good behavior? The apparent answer is "no."
7
Your observation that some get in for free (unscreened) has a whiff of (paranoia, defensiveness, irrelevance) you choose. I have had comments unpublished either from excessive bile or because comments were closed. I learned and did better. This comment was published - you have ascended from purgatory at last.
Isn't the view spectacular?
Isn't the view spectacular?
1
Dear Hal, I'm afraid that you misunderstand. Yes, my comment above was published, AFTER it was screened for offensive content. I am not feeling paranoid or defensive or irrelevant. I am simply asking whether there is some way to get out of comment purgatory. The answer so far seems to be "no."
1
Dear Al,
Sorry I misunderstood - is the definition of *purgatory* that of being a screened at all? In that case nearly all 12,000 daily commenters share your condition. By whatever the TSA's criteria du jour some have received "Pre-check" and are allowed to comment without taking their laptop from the bag or removing their shoes. IOW, as always, some are more equal than others. I would suggest an appeal to a higher authority.
Sorry I misunderstood - is the definition of *purgatory* that of being a screened at all? In that case nearly all 12,000 daily commenters share your condition. By whatever the TSA's criteria du jour some have received "Pre-check" and are allowed to comment without taking their laptop from the bag or removing their shoes. IOW, as always, some are more equal than others. I would suggest an appeal to a higher authority.
Having been a moderator of a medium size dog breed list, I cannot even imagine doing this for the Times. It's a thankless job and not an easy one.
On our dog list, the members dubbed us Moderator Goddesses; I think perhaps we should call the NYTimes Moderators Moderator Gods and Goddesses as well.
On our dog list, the members dubbed us Moderator Goddesses; I think perhaps we should call the NYTimes Moderators Moderator Gods and Goddesses as well.
4
So that's what the comment section monitors are … Please don't ignore me, or drop me!
2
Just want to say thanks to all the moderators :) NY Times is one of the few places on the Internet where you still could have civil and substantive discussions even on divisive issues. Please keep it this way!
13
Bravo to the woker bees moderators ! Thank you.
13
Please please bring back the self edit feature to comments. It is easy to miss a typo. Would be good for a commentor to be able to correct a mistake or delete a post.
32
How about creating an ombudsman column where readers could ask questions of or criticize the Times?Oh,wait.
14
In its economy move the NY Times got rid of its Public Editor as an independent forum to air readers’ complaints about reporting at the Times. The Times rationalized this by saying that "Comments" sections of the paper would serve the same purpose by having a wide range of readers directly present their information and views.
As a rationalization by the Times, this is intellectually bankrupt. On many topics the Times is liberally tendentious and many read the Times to confirm their liberal biases. This results in a strong liberal, often extreme progressive tilt to many of the posted comments. The Times panders to this tilt with its NYT Picks that often cheerleads extreme liberal views especially concerning capitalism and identity politics.
An example recent Pick started off with “The police in the US are an occupying army... “ The Times justifies such Picks as being “meritoriously representative of the range of public views.” But the dishonesty of this is that there is the equivalent of a Gresham's Law in such comments, namely, the tendentious nature of the comments drives opponents away, leaving an ever increasing unrepresentative echo chamber of polemical views. The Times cheerleading of extreme views from an unrepresentative sample of the population just offends opponents and reinforces this phenomenon.
At least get rid of the NYT Picks.
As a rationalization by the Times, this is intellectually bankrupt. On many topics the Times is liberally tendentious and many read the Times to confirm their liberal biases. This results in a strong liberal, often extreme progressive tilt to many of the posted comments. The Times panders to this tilt with its NYT Picks that often cheerleads extreme liberal views especially concerning capitalism and identity politics.
An example recent Pick started off with “The police in the US are an occupying army... “ The Times justifies such Picks as being “meritoriously representative of the range of public views.” But the dishonesty of this is that there is the equivalent of a Gresham's Law in such comments, namely, the tendentious nature of the comments drives opponents away, leaving an ever increasing unrepresentative echo chamber of polemical views. The Times cheerleading of extreme views from an unrepresentative sample of the population just offends opponents and reinforces this phenomenon.
At least get rid of the NYT Picks.
6
So after all the $0.75 words are removed, you said "Comments favor one viewpoint over another" and "people with different views are intimidated." I felt totally frightened by the tendentiousness of your non-denominational excoriation and I will therefore demur
3
I have seen Picks comments that could not be considered "liberal" by any measure. If the preponderance of comments present a view that seems canted toward a liberal point of view, then would it be reasonable to divide the picks down the middle?
2
To be fair to the NY Times most of the posters lean left. They are very few conservative posters and on occasion I saw a few NYT Picks on them.
5
Now, that just 'tweren't right..stealin' her husband and all...and what if it were just to get that recipe for brownies? We never woulda known 'bout this egregious wrong if 'tweren't for the comments section in the Times. Keep up the good work. There's just so much civilizin' work to do, it just makes ya tard thinkin' 'bout it.
2
Bravo. Good job on keeping reader comments civil, productive and informative. If only the NYT would apply similar standards to it's Editorial Board and Columnists. The shrieking, name calling and ridicule of personal appearance seem to be alive and well in the published work of professional journalists.
4
Might The Times allow us to search comments by author? I'm always eager to read Bruce Rozenblit and other notables. See, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/23/nytnow/23commenters.html?....
4
I, for one of many, appreciate your efforts. Lord knows it's got to be one hell of an undertaking. (Or should I have said "heck"?)
26
Oh God, no. Heck would have reduced your comment to the basement of Disney World.
1
What? No comments yet? Just kidding. Nice leisurely article for a Sunday. I'm gonna try that recipe of Ms. Hepburn's. Thank you. Happy July 4th weekend!
3
You do not mention that the Times does not allow comments on articles dealing with subjects on which your editors have strong opinions, e.g. Bernie Sanders and Al Jazeera. You publish opinion pieces disguised as articles, and closed to comments.
Your recent coverage of Al Jazeera NEVER mentions freedom of the press as an issue. No comment.
Your recent coverage of Al Jazeera NEVER mentions freedom of the press as an issue. No comment.
14
More items need to allow responses or comments!
1
Is it possible to have a "view all" default, instead of seeing just 25 comments at a time?
6
Brilliant, yes, view all! Excellent suggestion.
3
Thank you. Please, never turn into a "Facebook"!
10
Two suggestions:
1. Get rid of "Trusted Commenter" status. It's arbitrarily assigned and unfair.
2. In the interest of journalistic quality, cut way back on reader comments and use the money saved to re-instate the copy desk.
In case you missed it, as the Washington Post reported last week, "In the era of 'fake news,' averting error is more important than ever . . . Employees at the New York Times are outraged over a recent decision to eliminate the newspaper’s stand-alone copy desk, a team that includes more than 100 copy editors." Hundreds of NYT employees staged a walkout last Tuesday to protest this change.
If funding is really so tight, the Times could also eliminate Times Insider. It's self-indulgent for newspaper staff to write articles focusing on themselves, patting themselves on the back for how wonderful they are. In the age of Trump, we're exposed to enough narcissism already, thank you very much.
1. Get rid of "Trusted Commenter" status. It's arbitrarily assigned and unfair.
2. In the interest of journalistic quality, cut way back on reader comments and use the money saved to re-instate the copy desk.
In case you missed it, as the Washington Post reported last week, "In the era of 'fake news,' averting error is more important than ever . . . Employees at the New York Times are outraged over a recent decision to eliminate the newspaper’s stand-alone copy desk, a team that includes more than 100 copy editors." Hundreds of NYT employees staged a walkout last Tuesday to protest this change.
If funding is really so tight, the Times could also eliminate Times Insider. It's self-indulgent for newspaper staff to write articles focusing on themselves, patting themselves on the back for how wonderful they are. In the age of Trump, we're exposed to enough narcissism already, thank you very much.
42
I agree with 2 points:
(1) Get rid of the Trusted Commenter" status. I feel like I can tell what some of the regulars will say without even reading them!
(2) Cut back on reader comments and staff devoted to it to save copy editor positions.
(1) Get rid of the Trusted Commenter" status. I feel like I can tell what some of the regulars will say without even reading them!
(2) Cut back on reader comments and staff devoted to it to save copy editor positions.
1
I'm a bit embarrassed to say, sometimes I start with the comment section before reading the article! Does this make me a bad person?
12
Me too Jane C. I have to catch myself and in the middle of my comment I tell myself I better read the story..
2
I do the same.
When the number 1 comment is about hot dogs there is something wrong when the world goes spinning, spinning out of control The Times is not the Reader's Digest.
3
Why not demand people use their real name? Who and what are you protecting by allowing anonymous comments?
3
They once did. Some people are not in a position to make comments under their own names. It would impact their work lives, for example, by implying some endorsement or by prejudicing sales to those who disagree. Another example might be teachers. We want the efforts of all these people too.
16
Yes, absolutely.
I have to hand it to the moderators! It's not a job I could do and still stay sane. The quality of your work, though, is obvious. Times comments are one of only a few I will read end to end (that's poorly said, but you get the point). Now, if only there were a search function...some days I'll craft a comment and forget to hit "Email me when published". Aarrgghhhh!
5
So how are "verified commentators" chosen? I comment several times a week and have done so for several years and have yet to achieve this lauded status.
6
I read TW it is done using some computer formula, whatever that means.
Agreed I have posted countless comments. None to my knowledge have ever been rejected but yet have not yet received the lauded status..
Agreed I have posted countless comments. None to my knowledge have ever been rejected but yet have not yet received the lauded status..
3
May I make a technical suggestion. I really hate getting barrages of emails, and if I forget to un-click the the email check, then the NYTimes adds to the pile. Why shouldn't the default be not to spam me about my comment being published. If you want to email me about my comments, send the ones back that you don't like (if ever there are any – my assumption is that everything I submit gets published, but if occasionally not, so what).
I have a technical question. Some of my comments are approved (that is I get the email saying so) and am told to follow the address to get to it. However, when I click on the address, it takes me to the article and a BLANK box, my name on top, in which to comment. The comment has gone into the ether…..
Your problem or mine?
Your problem or mine?
14
You're not the only one this has happened to and it happens too often.
4
Your're not alone MRotermund...I have the same problem. It is obviously a glitch in the system...
4
Common problem.
2
My question- why not just allow comments on ALL articles? As a conservative reader on a very liberal website, I often find that of the handful of articles that would actually support our President- these will almost never allow for comments. Of the many that criticize the President- it's open season for like-minded individuals to sound-off on their dislike for the President. I'd be curious to know, of the few individuals at NYT that determine whether or not to allow comments on articles, how many actually have a fair, unbiased opinion of our country's leader?
3
For a commentator's opinion to be considered fair and unbiased it needs to be supportive of our president? Can't one criticize and still be considered fair and unbiased?
1
In a June 12 column by Collins (Trump Talks, America Trembles), she wrote:
"Then Pence would ram ahead with a social conservative agenda on every topic having to do with people having sex."
I replied:
"Except masturbation...because if that ever became outlawed, he would then have to re-direct all his new found free time to actually being concerned about other people."
Did this not get published because it was considered a vulgarity?
"Then Pence would ram ahead with a social conservative agenda on every topic having to do with people having sex."
I replied:
"Except masturbation...because if that ever became outlawed, he would then have to re-direct all his new found free time to actually being concerned about other people."
Did this not get published because it was considered a vulgarity?
4
No. It is res ipsa loquitor, hence redundant (although a clever way to sneak in an onanism (and I say that in the kindest way...).
How much time would it take a reader with average reading speed to read two thousand comments. Too long to be practical and wouldn't a readers time be better served by reading more professional/expert written news and opinion.
2
Kat.
Hopefully your new AI won't reject this Comment because the word 'prostitute' is in it, but I must say that the reader's initially rejected Comment, now enjoys a broader platform, having now appeared in an actual Times article.
Seems as though the minority vote on acceptance finally got its way.
The Comment bears repeating, now that you've given the green light to printing the statement: 'Republican prostitutes in power have sold themselves to the privileged few.'
Amen to that!
Hopefully your new AI won't reject this Comment because the word 'prostitute' is in it, but I must say that the reader's initially rejected Comment, now enjoys a broader platform, having now appeared in an actual Times article.
Seems as though the minority vote on acceptance finally got its way.
The Comment bears repeating, now that you've given the green light to printing the statement: 'Republican prostitutes in power have sold themselves to the privileged few.'
Amen to that!
10
It would be interesting to allow negative votes on comments rather than just the 'recommended'.
5
On the whole, the Times comments are more intelligent and better informed than on-line comments in other publications. But I do think there's room for improvement.
First, too many comments offer nothing but negative, often nasty characterizations of articles or of other comments, adding nothing to the discussion. Times moderators should exclude them as personal attacks, and should focus on comments that add substance to the discussion.
Second, along similar lines, I don't see value in endless comments that do no more than agree (or disagree) with the author they're commenting on, or with other commenters. Instead of "How true!" comments or "How ridiculous!" comments, I would prefer that moderators focus on comments that add actual ideas to the discussion.
Third, too many comments accuse the Times or other commenters of giving bad facts (often including gratuitous suggestions of insidious motives or poor intellect), but don't offer corrections - the "pants on fire" comments. Moderators should give preference to comments that purport to correct the facts, and even greater preference to comments that source those corrections.
Twelve thousand comments a day is way more than anyone reads. Concentrating on substantive comments that introduce new facts, ideas or perspectives would reduce the number of comments but would increase the overall quality and value of the comments.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
First, too many comments offer nothing but negative, often nasty characterizations of articles or of other comments, adding nothing to the discussion. Times moderators should exclude them as personal attacks, and should focus on comments that add substance to the discussion.
Second, along similar lines, I don't see value in endless comments that do no more than agree (or disagree) with the author they're commenting on, or with other commenters. Instead of "How true!" comments or "How ridiculous!" comments, I would prefer that moderators focus on comments that add actual ideas to the discussion.
Third, too many comments accuse the Times or other commenters of giving bad facts (often including gratuitous suggestions of insidious motives or poor intellect), but don't offer corrections - the "pants on fire" comments. Moderators should give preference to comments that purport to correct the facts, and even greater preference to comments that source those corrections.
Twelve thousand comments a day is way more than anyone reads. Concentrating on substantive comments that introduce new facts, ideas or perspectives would reduce the number of comments but would increase the overall quality and value of the comments.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
6
I'd disagree with comments being civil It apparently wasn't ok to call Obama "Obummer" but it's ok to call Trump "Drumpf", stupid, etc.
And if moderators try to keep things civil why have I read at least 2 comments since Trump was inaugurated which suggested he be taken out of office by any means necessary -- and I'm not talking impeachment or the 25th amendment.
And when I post comments skeptical of climate change -- I get called names and no one seems to stop that.
but, all in all, it is mostly civil. Here are some suggestions for improving:
1) too often when I post a comment that disagrees with the TImes, it isn't posted until late in the day after comments have been closed and people have quit reading. So I make a comment at 9 in the morning and it doesn't get posted until late afternoon?
2) The comments section should stimulate debate as much as possible. We all know the paper itself and most of the commenteriat are a progressive echo chamber. Opposing voices therefore, should be welcomed. And if a dialogue starts among commenters the Times should make sure responses are posted in a timely fashion so the debate goes forward. And that also means allowing responses by a commenter to a reply to their comment after the section is closed.
3) Why allow repetitive "Trump is evil, etc." comments? Shouldn't rants w/o a view point be limited?
4) Allow sorting by commenter. Some commenters I enjoy and would like their view w/o having to read through all.
And if moderators try to keep things civil why have I read at least 2 comments since Trump was inaugurated which suggested he be taken out of office by any means necessary -- and I'm not talking impeachment or the 25th amendment.
And when I post comments skeptical of climate change -- I get called names and no one seems to stop that.
but, all in all, it is mostly civil. Here are some suggestions for improving:
1) too often when I post a comment that disagrees with the TImes, it isn't posted until late in the day after comments have been closed and people have quit reading. So I make a comment at 9 in the morning and it doesn't get posted until late afternoon?
2) The comments section should stimulate debate as much as possible. We all know the paper itself and most of the commenteriat are a progressive echo chamber. Opposing voices therefore, should be welcomed. And if a dialogue starts among commenters the Times should make sure responses are posted in a timely fashion so the debate goes forward. And that also means allowing responses by a commenter to a reply to their comment after the section is closed.
3) Why allow repetitive "Trump is evil, etc." comments? Shouldn't rants w/o a view point be limited?
4) Allow sorting by commenter. Some commenters I enjoy and would like their view w/o having to read through all.
4
Ah, I beg to differ: commenting quality has declined.
This I know because my comments appear more frequently.
This I know because my comments appear more frequently.
22
I gain a lot from reading the NYT comments, even the ones I disagree with. They are some of the most reasoned and articulate that I have seen in media comment sections. It is much easier to consider the opposition argument when it is stated rationally and without personal attacks and insults.
I appreciate not seeing epithets like "Obummer" cluttering up the space. They are not helpful, do not move the discourse forward, and say more about the commentator than about the subject. I, for one, stop reading when I encounter them.
So keep up the good work, NYT comment-moderators.
I appreciate not seeing epithets like "Obummer" cluttering up the space. They are not helpful, do not move the discourse forward, and say more about the commentator than about the subject. I, for one, stop reading when I encounter them.
So keep up the good work, NYT comment-moderators.
27
FREE SPEECH!
I know it's shouting but I did use two words. Seriously I love your comments platform.
I know it's shouting but I did use two words. Seriously I love your comments platform.
5
Hey Philip...you beat the computer and/or the moderating staff!!
Congrats!
Congrats!
1
Thank you Paul. I feel special LOL!!
I am a long time digital subscriber. Goes without saying the NYT is a renowned publication. With that said after our surprise election the media has obviously chosen sides. The NYT and the Washington Post accompanied by CNN and Fox are overtly biased. End of sentence.
2
I hope you can now eliminate the grossly unfair green check mark elite. I find the anointed ones no better than others. Some of them take advantage by responding a dozen times to comments by their inferiors.
Their exalted status is apparently not available to some of us: though I have had many "Times Pick" rewards and thousands of reader recommendations I've never been invited to this A-list party.
Judge us by the value of what we say, not by who we are.
Their exalted status is apparently not available to some of us: though I have had many "Times Pick" rewards and thousands of reader recommendations I've never been invited to this A-list party.
Judge us by the value of what we say, not by who we are.
12
Charlie B
Me too. Totally agree. The verified green check does seem a little slanted. I would actually like to see the algorithms by comparison....
MIMA
Me too. Totally agree. The verified green check does seem a little slanted. I would actually like to see the algorithms by comparison....
MIMA
3
Yes..Charlie B...I agree. I am in the same boat. Maybe wiki leaks can hack into the secret NYT computer formula they use so we can get inside knowledge on how to get this top status.
I will get the Russians working on it.
I will get the Russians working on it.
6
@ Charlie: I'm relatively new to the comments, and I've been wondering about those checks. Thanks for the info. And yes, they need to go.
2
I love the NY Times comments. There are even times when i feel i am on my way to receiving a 2nd degree in say, Understanding The World Better or Understanding Humanity. Thank you all moderators. Thank you NY Times.
4
"Thank you!" to the Comments section editors for the heavy lifting you must do daily - kudos! I've been a TIMES reader for 40 years and the reader's comments is my favorite part of the paper. It brings a whole new dimension to the news, allows us, as readers, to vent and commiserate, and to sometimes find assurance that maybe the world isn't going to hell in a handbasket after all. Please don't tell the writers, but often the thoughtful, pithy comments are better than the Op-Ed piece on which they are based.
9
Having commented for past 17+ years in NYTimes online, will only note that the amount of comments has increased enormously - from well under a hundred comments to thousands on one opinion column alone. The amount of comments - Just since Donald Trump assumed our Presidency in January - has grown like Jack's beanstalk. Just a question of time before the loyal Gray Lady commentariat stops commenting. Walter Rhett earned his little green check from Bassey Etim et al after commenting for years. Verified commenters here and now are rare as hen's teeth. Nice work and great job, Bassey!
2
The NYT is the only news forum on which I feel comfortable commenting, precisely because the comment section is moderated. The rude and vituperative comments that appear in other major newspapers do not contribute to civil discourse, and I applaud the Times for holding up these standards. People need to learn how be articulate when they disagree, without being abusive.
34
Moderator: "if I see the word Trump one more time....."
If there was only a day when he wouldn't be in the news negatively.....through his own fault.
Thanks to Mr. Etim and crew. We do appreciate all you do, even if we do have our complaints from time to time. Like mostly verified commenting for some and not others.
Here's to the Times. Carry on! We need you more than ever.
If there was only a day when he wouldn't be in the news negatively.....through his own fault.
Thanks to Mr. Etim and crew. We do appreciate all you do, even if we do have our complaints from time to time. Like mostly verified commenting for some and not others.
Here's to the Times. Carry on! We need you more than ever.
5
The patience and judgement of the NYT moderators is amazing! They make comment reading as interesting as the original article.
The comment management software, not so much. Surely the must be some highly advanced technology to allow us to see replies in line in the Reader and Times picks, to allow commenters to occasionally review their past posts, to fix the ever present duping of posts in the iPad app, and to provide basic word processor functions.
To actually have a comment read, you've got to get in early. The green checkmark commenters almost always get high reader pick ratings, not only because they're often cogent and reflective of the Times demographics, but because being first means getting early recommendations, pushing them to the top of the Readers Picks, which in turn makes them highly visible and likely to receive additional recommendations.
Without denigrating the excellent thoughts and writing of the green checkmark gang, the comments section often becomes somewhat of an echo chamber (I'm looking at you: Socrates and Gemli.)
Without the green checkmark system we would likely see a more diverse cluster of comments at the top of the Readers Picks section, simply because early exposure in the comment stream is likely to lead to a self reinforcing cluster of reader recommendations as the early birds are more likely to bubble to the to of the Readers Picks. Green checkmark posters automatically have their thumb on the scale.
Make the greens columnists instead.
The comment management software, not so much. Surely the must be some highly advanced technology to allow us to see replies in line in the Reader and Times picks, to allow commenters to occasionally review their past posts, to fix the ever present duping of posts in the iPad app, and to provide basic word processor functions.
To actually have a comment read, you've got to get in early. The green checkmark commenters almost always get high reader pick ratings, not only because they're often cogent and reflective of the Times demographics, but because being first means getting early recommendations, pushing them to the top of the Readers Picks, which in turn makes them highly visible and likely to receive additional recommendations.
Without denigrating the excellent thoughts and writing of the green checkmark gang, the comments section often becomes somewhat of an echo chamber (I'm looking at you: Socrates and Gemli.)
Without the green checkmark system we would likely see a more diverse cluster of comments at the top of the Readers Picks section, simply because early exposure in the comment stream is likely to lead to a self reinforcing cluster of reader recommendations as the early birds are more likely to bubble to the to of the Readers Picks. Green checkmark posters automatically have their thumb on the scale.
Make the greens columnists instead.
13
Please, Mr. Etim -- stop corruption of the rankings of our Readers' Picks rankings by including multiplied-exposure recommendations given to comments in the NYT Picks section. That makes our Readers' Picks rankings deceptive. On the scales, it's a giant NYT Gold Thumb.
As it is now, to sense what readers think from the Readers' Picks ranking, we have to exclude the comments bearing the dreaded rectangular Gold Thumb, indicating multiplied exposure and recommendations in the NYT Picks section.
On this matter, you recently replied that some readers prefer to look at reader comments the NYT picks. Fine, keep the NYT Picks section. But to make the Readers' Picks ratings valid, the NYT must stop including in the Readers' Picks rankings recommendations made in the extra exposure of the NYT Picks section.
I've recently read in several places that the NYT wants to increase interaction with readers. This step I'm requesting would be a giant advance in that direction.
I mean -- the NYT governs everything else on the website. Leave our little Comments Corner Readers' Picks section for us the readers to rank. That will make it more informative to the NYT as well as to us the readers.
As it is now, to sense what readers think from the Readers' Picks ranking, we have to exclude the comments bearing the dreaded rectangular Gold Thumb, indicating multiplied exposure and recommendations in the NYT Picks section.
On this matter, you recently replied that some readers prefer to look at reader comments the NYT picks. Fine, keep the NYT Picks section. But to make the Readers' Picks ratings valid, the NYT must stop including in the Readers' Picks rankings recommendations made in the extra exposure of the NYT Picks section.
I've recently read in several places that the NYT wants to increase interaction with readers. This step I'm requesting would be a giant advance in that direction.
I mean -- the NYT governs everything else on the website. Leave our little Comments Corner Readers' Picks section for us the readers to rank. That will make it more informative to the NYT as well as to us the readers.
1
Thank you for this feature.
It is an incredible relief
to be able to weigh in on
something touching or disturbing
and it is interesting to read other
opinions. A good resource on the App.
Must be an interesting job to till through
many points of view and you all get the
comments posted quickly.
It is an incredible relief
to be able to weigh in on
something touching or disturbing
and it is interesting to read other
opinions. A good resource on the App.
Must be an interesting job to till through
many points of view and you all get the
comments posted quickly.
There has been a welcome trajectory over the last couple decades in film as well as journalism to be more realistic. That includes eliminating the blanket censorship of profanity. While I would still edit actively disgusting speech, most real people, including the well educated, use profanity. It is real, it gives emphasis and an intended edge which the "Leave it to Beaver" version may not capture. A reasonable compromise or transition for the Times to enter the well underway 21st century on this censorship issue would be to allow some letters replaced with ... or ***. I speak as someone who you have censored, my whole comment eliminated because of one word with X...
One only has to look at the Comments in other leading publications and the obvious lack of high standards, to see what an an exceptional job the Times staff does. Thanks!
24
I'm not sure I'd even read the NYT if there weren't comments: When I read a ridiculously pro-establishment article (of which there are many), it's very helpful to see the opposing comments. Helps keep me sane.
10
First, Ms. Long thank you and the NYT team for sifting through all of our rants and insights. I do find value in trying to understand the perspectives of all commenters.
Why is it that I receive an email notice that a comment has been approved but when I click on it my post is not there or anywhere? Feedback would be appreciated if it was subsequently censored from the comments. One word would suffice: racist, sexist, etc.
It is clearly obvious that certain subjects or writers do not provide any opportunities for comments or at best very few. For example, Israel a country that receives more foreign military aid that exceeds the military aid of America's wartime allies, Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the NYT seems to favor Neocons' op-eds without allowing commenters to respond to their provocative propaganda. In both preceding instances that is totally unfair.
Finally, when is the NYT going to explore the fact that China is Israel's number one weapons customer? China is not a US ally; therefore, to think that Israel's use of America's weapons technology does not transfer to China is frankly a fantasy.
I love Israel I don't care for their extremists, but I don't want my colleagues to be attacked by weapons that incorporate harvested US weapons technology. Arms dealers are greedy their politics and religion are irrelevant to the real risk they pose to America's security. What safeguards if any are in place is a simple question to an important issue. Thank you.
Why is it that I receive an email notice that a comment has been approved but when I click on it my post is not there or anywhere? Feedback would be appreciated if it was subsequently censored from the comments. One word would suffice: racist, sexist, etc.
It is clearly obvious that certain subjects or writers do not provide any opportunities for comments or at best very few. For example, Israel a country that receives more foreign military aid that exceeds the military aid of America's wartime allies, Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the NYT seems to favor Neocons' op-eds without allowing commenters to respond to their provocative propaganda. In both preceding instances that is totally unfair.
Finally, when is the NYT going to explore the fact that China is Israel's number one weapons customer? China is not a US ally; therefore, to think that Israel's use of America's weapons technology does not transfer to China is frankly a fantasy.
I love Israel I don't care for their extremists, but I don't want my colleagues to be attacked by weapons that incorporate harvested US weapons technology. Arms dealers are greedy their politics and religion are irrelevant to the real risk they pose to America's security. What safeguards if any are in place is a simple question to an important issue. Thank you.
1
Thanks!
2
Hey Mike..It's a one word post and the computer/moderator should have caught it!!!! They are slipping.
Maybe the NY Times should not give out info on how their process works. People will start to try and beat it.
Maybe the NY Times should not give out info on how their process works. People will start to try and beat it.
1
I agree that NY Times comments have been a huge success and a civic forum for debate. Thanks.
What I don't understand is why when I receive an email notification the link does not take me to the published comment, but rather only to the article itself. It used to be one would see the published comment and if it had been recommended. Did the Times change it's procedure or am I doing something wrong?
What I don't understand is why when I receive an email notification the link does not take me to the published comment, but rather only to the article itself. It used to be one would see the published comment and if it had been recommended. Did the Times change it's procedure or am I doing something wrong?
9
I just stopped by at "6 comments" (9:26 AM).
First, you guys (moderators) are amazing. This is hands down the best comments section of a major news source on the web. I don't a single day goes by when I can't find comments that are at least as interesting if not more so than the op-ed writers!
Second, you guys are amazing (can't say it enough). I've always wondered how exhausting it is for you; makes me want to include more yoga/relaxation suggestions in my comments!:>)) (or you can go to our website - I won't list it here for now... well..."remember to....... you know"
Ok, now, the suggestions. I agree with Richard Luettgen's comment (agreeing with Richard!) - if the URL in the email could go straight to our comments, it would make it MUCH easier to have genuine conversations.
I find the single biggest drawback to the way NY Times comments are set up is the it is VERY hard to have an ongoing conversation. Perhaps you're intentionally trying to dissuade people from doing that (you'd have to manage more comments that way?)
But the feel of the comments section is often of isolated people in their own worlds sending out isolated messages - often with the same point repeated ad nauseam. I wonder if it was easier to get to one's comment, it would then be easier to see replies and respond in turn to them.
To conclude, once again, you guys are amazing.
Thank you thank you thank you!!
First, you guys (moderators) are amazing. This is hands down the best comments section of a major news source on the web. I don't a single day goes by when I can't find comments that are at least as interesting if not more so than the op-ed writers!
Second, you guys are amazing (can't say it enough). I've always wondered how exhausting it is for you; makes me want to include more yoga/relaxation suggestions in my comments!:>)) (or you can go to our website - I won't list it here for now... well..."remember to....... you know"
Ok, now, the suggestions. I agree with Richard Luettgen's comment (agreeing with Richard!) - if the URL in the email could go straight to our comments, it would make it MUCH easier to have genuine conversations.
I find the single biggest drawback to the way NY Times comments are set up is the it is VERY hard to have an ongoing conversation. Perhaps you're intentionally trying to dissuade people from doing that (you'd have to manage more comments that way?)
But the feel of the comments section is often of isolated people in their own worlds sending out isolated messages - often with the same point repeated ad nauseam. I wonder if it was easier to get to one's comment, it would then be easier to see replies and respond in turn to them.
To conclude, once again, you guys are amazing.
Thank you thank you thank you!!
9
Hmm, I can think of a number of my comments that have not appeared, and they didn't trip any of your wires. Jealousy?
3
"...but it is perfectly fine to criticize The Times, as long as the comment offers a cogent argument."
This is patently false. I have personally had comments rejected because they pointed out inconsistencies or hypocrisy on the part of either the author of the article, the NYT in general, or both. My criticisms were never ad hominem, didn't use obscenities, and were certainly not off topic.
The most egregious section of the Times in this regard has been the Dealbook section.
I have, both successfully and otherwise, appealed to the Public Editor(RIP) and the Executive Editor to have rejections overturned.
I have repeatedly asked the comments department and the Public Editor(RIP) whether protecting the sensitivities of a reporter or columnist is part of their mandate and have been met with a stony silence.
Technically, the comments system is a shambles. A good 20-25% of the time, I receive email notice of a published comment only to find it links to a blank comment. Another 10% of the time, I receive no email at all even though the comment has been published.
Oh, BTW, allowing a 2-3 minute window for readers to edit mistakes in their comments (a la the Financial Times et al) would be nice.
This is patently false. I have personally had comments rejected because they pointed out inconsistencies or hypocrisy on the part of either the author of the article, the NYT in general, or both. My criticisms were never ad hominem, didn't use obscenities, and were certainly not off topic.
The most egregious section of the Times in this regard has been the Dealbook section.
I have, both successfully and otherwise, appealed to the Public Editor(RIP) and the Executive Editor to have rejections overturned.
I have repeatedly asked the comments department and the Public Editor(RIP) whether protecting the sensitivities of a reporter or columnist is part of their mandate and have been met with a stony silence.
Technically, the comments system is a shambles. A good 20-25% of the time, I receive email notice of a published comment only to find it links to a blank comment. Another 10% of the time, I receive no email at all even though the comment has been published.
Oh, BTW, allowing a 2-3 minute window for readers to edit mistakes in their comments (a la the Financial Times et al) would be nice.
5
Although this is feeling a bit recursive, my comment: I enjoyed learning how the NYTimes feels about all the comments. Thanks.
2
This article is among the best I have read in this paper. It's clear, helpful, and exactly to the point.
I loved the mention of the Katharine Hepburn’s brownie recipe comment, and as an ex-German I can emphasize with the woman whose husband was stolen.
And the struggle with allowing the use of an old word (prostitute) for defining Republicans is hilarious. Probably better to define present Republicans (maybe all politicians?) as the definition other than the traditional one for prostitutes which is people who are "devoted to corrupt or unworthy purposes".
Thank you
I loved the mention of the Katharine Hepburn’s brownie recipe comment, and as an ex-German I can emphasize with the woman whose husband was stolen.
And the struggle with allowing the use of an old word (prostitute) for defining Republicans is hilarious. Probably better to define present Republicans (maybe all politicians?) as the definition other than the traditional one for prostitutes which is people who are "devoted to corrupt or unworthy purposes".
Thank you
6
An opportunity to make a correction before final submission would be appreciated; perhaps an edit button in addition to the submit button. Sometimes one catches an error just as the submit button is pushed.
8
The comments section in the Times was one of the most pleasant surprises I've experienced since subscribing. I like the Readers Picks and Time picks sections, and really consider some of the regular commenters, with their erudition and thoughtfulness, to be an extension of the opinion pages.
I really wish I could bookmark where I left off, or some sort of color-coding to mark comments that I have read or scrolled through. It's kind of hard to scroll through page after page of comments when the number gets over 200.
I really wish I could bookmark where I left off, or some sort of color-coding to mark comments that I have read or scrolled through. It's kind of hard to scroll through page after page of comments when the number gets over 200.
3
I frequently get more out of the comments than I do out of the articles. I love hearing the varying opinions on subjects, as well as personal anecdotes. This is one area in which I find the NYT vastly superior to the Washington Post, my hometown newspaper, and even to the WSJ, whose commenters can be quite caustic. Please keep up the moderation and don't fire anyone.
11
Yes I too like to comment almost daily. However sometimes I realize that it is a knee jerk sort of reaction and I wonder to myself. Have I become trump like? The answer is yes. But then I am not in any public office or a leader of a country. Sometimes I feel the need to vent about the outrages this administration is undoing to our democracy. Thank you New York Times. For allowing the comments section whether or not you have ever printed one word of what I say.
3
I greatly respect and admire the moderators' curation of the comments. They keep the discourse civil and constructive (unlike many other papers). Your moderators won't get Pulitzers. Indeed, they don't even get recognition, but their work in fostering civl discourse is practically as important as the stories that generate all the comments. It is a huge commitment but a worthy investment by the Times.
4
The Commentators add great insights to an article & at times seems to have a better grasp of the topic.
There are a handful of steady contributors whose submits I duly search. Clicking on Readers's Picks is a major reason for my subscription.
There are a handful of steady contributors whose submits I duly search. Clicking on Readers's Picks is a major reason for my subscription.
6
Having been online since before it was the WWW, I think that the NYT comment moderators have and are doing an excellent job, especially considering the volume of comments and how heated some topics have become. Comments are fun as well as educational for me as I typically prepare a comment like a mini-term paper; try to make sure I understand the topic, research a bit, and try to assemble a coherent comment.
Do I think there is bias in the moderation? Yes, but it is typically not flagrant, and for me is expected. The moderators appear to have no more bias than the news section, where what is not covered and how often different topics are covered is more telling than how the stories are presented. The editorial section as expected is biased, that is what the section is for.
Keep it up, and thanks!
Do I think there is bias in the moderation? Yes, but it is typically not flagrant, and for me is expected. The moderators appear to have no more bias than the news section, where what is not covered and how often different topics are covered is more telling than how the stories are presented. The editorial section as expected is biased, that is what the section is for.
Keep it up, and thanks!
2
Thanks for this article! I have found the NYT comment section to be the most informed and interesting of all the online media I peruse. I do, however, have a pet peeve, and that is the pass that appears to be given to certain, "veteran" contributors whose posts are almost always "NYT Picks" even though they may lack insight, contain factual errors (i.e., "North Korea has nuclear missiles") and / or repeat the sentiments expressed by others who have posted previously. I confess that I sometimes wonder if these particular comments are even reviewed for content, or just approved because of the identity / track record of the author.
I also echo the sentiments of Ron Cohen: it is critical, in my opinion, to thread replies to comments so that we can see the debate / discussion unfold. Other online media, whose comment sections are little more than shouting matches and exchanges of vulgarities, do this. It would be terrific if the NYT did the same while maintaining its standards for value and civility. I also endorse comment links, as discussed by Walterhett. Thanks and regards.
I also echo the sentiments of Ron Cohen: it is critical, in my opinion, to thread replies to comments so that we can see the debate / discussion unfold. Other online media, whose comment sections are little more than shouting matches and exchanges of vulgarities, do this. It would be terrific if the NYT did the same while maintaining its standards for value and civility. I also endorse comment links, as discussed by Walterhett. Thanks and regards.
4
6:30 PM, Sunday evening, July 2, 2017. My 4th post in this wonderful and unusual comments section.
1. Thank you again.
2. I see many others agree about having an edit function of some kind.
3. Mr. Hayden's suggestion about threading replies is brilliant.
4. Yes, I agree regarding comment links, too.
I'm personally not so concerned about the green check and NYT picks (i think a lot of people don't get that - if I'm right - you may intentionally choose a poorly thought out and/or badly written comment which you believe represents widespread views and attitudes).
Well, I've been up since 5 AM. Caught up on the finances, took a lovely walk at the Biltmore Estate, and finally, after several months, getting back to finishing the voice recording for our mindfulness and the brain e-course
....see, isn't that just ever so wonderful - I know so much more about the regulars here - I noticed "Pogo was right", Montreal Moe (great names!!) and I think Christine M may have shown up too, I'm not sure.
I'll close with a plea to the commenters, not so much to the moderators:
Folks like Socrates and Gemli, whatever you think of their ongoing rants, are brilliant writers, as are many others here.
I wonder how many of us could *do* more of what we so often ask our leaders to do - put forth more of a vision (though I disagree with almost everything he writes, Richard Luettgen actually does this quite often).
So, it's in all of our hands - to make a difference.
www.remember-to-breathe.org
1. Thank you again.
2. I see many others agree about having an edit function of some kind.
3. Mr. Hayden's suggestion about threading replies is brilliant.
4. Yes, I agree regarding comment links, too.
I'm personally not so concerned about the green check and NYT picks (i think a lot of people don't get that - if I'm right - you may intentionally choose a poorly thought out and/or badly written comment which you believe represents widespread views and attitudes).
Well, I've been up since 5 AM. Caught up on the finances, took a lovely walk at the Biltmore Estate, and finally, after several months, getting back to finishing the voice recording for our mindfulness and the brain e-course
....see, isn't that just ever so wonderful - I know so much more about the regulars here - I noticed "Pogo was right", Montreal Moe (great names!!) and I think Christine M may have shown up too, I'm not sure.
I'll close with a plea to the commenters, not so much to the moderators:
Folks like Socrates and Gemli, whatever you think of their ongoing rants, are brilliant writers, as are many others here.
I wonder how many of us could *do* more of what we so often ask our leaders to do - put forth more of a vision (though I disagree with almost everything he writes, Richard Luettgen actually does this quite often).
So, it's in all of our hands - to make a difference.
www.remember-to-breathe.org
1
Thank you for maintaining this labor intensive and " old school" comment approach. Clearly social media is the better way to enable discussions about articles, alas I am old and averse to social media (classic Facebook comment to my wife on the rare occaision I look at our family page, "What is all this inane claptrap, where are the interesting Facebook posts I always read about?") ... but I do on occaision check out NYT article comments because they're right there. Of course I'd never write a comment on an article.
2
Be careful about the help from the AI overlords. Soon, all human moderators will become obsolete and lose their jobs!
3
If you need help improving the quality of your training sets for machine-learning, I would be happy to share with you the key insights of how to apply CoderRank to the annotation process.
I often spend more time reading comments than reading the NY Times articles themselves. I value the additional breadth of information and insight that an articles author cannot hope to match. And even though the readership of the Times doesn't represent equally All Americans there is considerable diversity of experience and perspective among commenters and that serves to broaden my knowledge of the day's issues.
I seldom read NY Times picks, preferring the Readers' Picks. I believe the voting process, including for replies, not only rewards content but factuality.
I seldom read NY Times picks, preferring the Readers' Picks. I believe the voting process, including for replies, not only rewards content but factuality.
4
Thanks. People read my comments and I get a recommend. Makes me feel good I have some cogent thoughts on a subject. Most of all I get educated by others thoughtful comments.
4
I have had 2 NYT Picks! On the other hand, I am pretty certain I have had a few sports section comments rejected. (I hate the Patriots) Sometimes the rejections tweak me but, I gotta say, it's nice to read civil and thoughtful comments. These comments truly are an extension of the NYT great articles. Kudos to the NYT!
2
Kat Long, et al, of the NY Times,
Thanks for providing a quite civil and well-moderated discussion space.
Please provide more information about criteria for selection by which some respondents acquire recognition and advantage as "Trusted Commenters".
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-- George Orwell, "Animal Farm", 1945
Thanks for providing a quite civil and well-moderated discussion space.
Please provide more information about criteria for selection by which some respondents acquire recognition and advantage as "Trusted Commenters".
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-- George Orwell, "Animal Farm", 1945
6
I am a big fan of the NY Times and the comments feature as an important public service. But the NY Times must do better for its readers and those who comment.
See my experience as one who commented described at http://www.legalreader.com/interview-louis-lombardo-on-whistleblowing-an...
See my experience as one who commented described at http://www.legalreader.com/interview-louis-lombardo-on-whistleblowing-an...
Generally, the Comments section works well, both in substance and in the paper's operation of it. It's a major improvement over "Letters."
But there is room for improvement: (a) it is frustrating to write something, hit "Submit" and nothing happens, meaning, I've learned, that capacity has been reached and you aren't getting in even though Comments still appear to be open. It's also impossible at that point to save what you tried to submit to use later. There should be a better way and avoid wasting our time; (b) there is no way to write a draft, and finish and submit it later; (c) the criteria for "NYT Top Pick" is mysterious, including whether it is possible for a late submission; (d) the criteria for (forget the actual term) getting in automatically is also mysterious, despite the guidance given and my unanswered questions about what it actually takes; (e) while usually I can still easily access my published comment at the URL you send me considerable time after publication, sometimes it no longer works and it becomes very difficult to tell someone later how to find it; (f) while not a problem, it is strange how sometimes the comment is published almost right away, and sometimes it can take a couple of days; and (g) columnists should be required to read a sample of what readers think about their work. I remember very few times that a columnist ever responded to a comment. It is therefore unclear whether communication between writer and reader has been achieved.
But there is room for improvement: (a) it is frustrating to write something, hit "Submit" and nothing happens, meaning, I've learned, that capacity has been reached and you aren't getting in even though Comments still appear to be open. It's also impossible at that point to save what you tried to submit to use later. There should be a better way and avoid wasting our time; (b) there is no way to write a draft, and finish and submit it later; (c) the criteria for "NYT Top Pick" is mysterious, including whether it is possible for a late submission; (d) the criteria for (forget the actual term) getting in automatically is also mysterious, despite the guidance given and my unanswered questions about what it actually takes; (e) while usually I can still easily access my published comment at the URL you send me considerable time after publication, sometimes it no longer works and it becomes very difficult to tell someone later how to find it; (f) while not a problem, it is strange how sometimes the comment is published almost right away, and sometimes it can take a couple of days; and (g) columnists should be required to read a sample of what readers think about their work. I remember very few times that a columnist ever responded to a comment. It is therefore unclear whether communication between writer and reader has been achieved.
4
I guess one could say it is a matter of opinion but for myself I believe my comments are lucid and follow all the NYT guidelines but all too often fail to see the light of day. For myself, my editing skills may be compromised by failing eyesight but I do think I do more than my fair share of fact checking before submitting comments.
I think more than a decade of insightful observations and uncanny predictions should count for something.
Yes, the NYT does provide the best comment section that I have found and continues to provide fair comment from many points of view without the nasty attacks and viciousness that have forced other comment sections to close down completely. I am grateful the NYT comment section continues to practise due diligence but the chorus is often too loud and and the comments that offer unique perspective and insight are often too difficult to find.
Why might I ask have I been notified so often of late of comments being printed only to find no comment?
Yes, I like comments that agree with my opinions and offer additional insight the most but next to them I really appreciate opposing viewpoints that offer honest comment and argument.
I think more than a decade of insightful observations and uncanny predictions should count for something.
Yes, the NYT does provide the best comment section that I have found and continues to provide fair comment from many points of view without the nasty attacks and viciousness that have forced other comment sections to close down completely. I am grateful the NYT comment section continues to practise due diligence but the chorus is often too loud and and the comments that offer unique perspective and insight are often too difficult to find.
Why might I ask have I been notified so often of late of comments being printed only to find no comment?
Yes, I like comments that agree with my opinions and offer additional insight the most but next to them I really appreciate opposing viewpoints that offer honest comment and argument.
4
We were told recently that there is a Reader Center where we commenters and others can raise questions. So far it is a Center without a link so it is a failure to date.
Why?
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
JDUAL citizen USA SE
Why?
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
JDUAL citizen USA SE
4
If you do a comparison of NYT comments with the raw unfiltered comments like those in Twitter, NYT does an awesome job. The quality of comments, many well thought out, mostly coherent English is well above average American communication. That quality is set by the expectations of and hard work by the moderators. If NYT truly accepts 85% of submissions, the elevated expectation of thoughtfulness and coherence is accepted and complied with by most commenters. Thanks!
9
It would be interesting (at least on occasion), for the NYT editors (or the computer) to not select their favorites until after the comments section is closed. As it stands now, all the regular and early submitters have the highest probability of being designated as an NYT Pick. Wait until all the comments are in and the tell us which ones you liked.
7
back again!
Well, I should start by saying, yes, you guys are amazing, and thank you thank you.
Now:
EDITING!!!!!
Allow Editing of submitted comments.
"Wait," you say, "doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of moderation?"
No, I don't mean after the comment is published.
After it's submitted.
It's frustrating enough when I've just quickly typed a comment, hit "Submit" and DARN! there's that typo that completely changes the meaning of what I intended to write.
But occasionally, I'll take 5 or 10 minutes to carefully craft a comment, then hit "Submit" and DARN! There's that one point I just remembered I wanted to add, and now the comment is sitting there, highlighted in yellow, and I can't do a darn thing about it.
Editing.
Let there be an edit function, so after we submit a comment (but before y'all look at it) we can do a final edit. Doesn't seem like it would make things any more difficult for you - in fact, you would have many many more finely edited comments.
I've seen many by Socrates, Gemli, Christine M and other regular commenters where a typo clearly mangles the meaning and requires extra effort to figure out what they were saying. I'm guessing that diligent commenters like those three (or the excellent poet Walter Rhett who also shows up in these first 6 comments) review their posts after they're submitted, and would take the extra minute to clean it up if they could.
Now, relax and take a breath! www.remember-to-breathe.org/Breathing-Videos.htm
Well, I should start by saying, yes, you guys are amazing, and thank you thank you.
Now:
EDITING!!!!!
Allow Editing of submitted comments.
"Wait," you say, "doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of moderation?"
No, I don't mean after the comment is published.
After it's submitted.
It's frustrating enough when I've just quickly typed a comment, hit "Submit" and DARN! there's that typo that completely changes the meaning of what I intended to write.
But occasionally, I'll take 5 or 10 minutes to carefully craft a comment, then hit "Submit" and DARN! There's that one point I just remembered I wanted to add, and now the comment is sitting there, highlighted in yellow, and I can't do a darn thing about it.
Editing.
Let there be an edit function, so after we submit a comment (but before y'all look at it) we can do a final edit. Doesn't seem like it would make things any more difficult for you - in fact, you would have many many more finely edited comments.
I've seen many by Socrates, Gemli, Christine M and other regular commenters where a typo clearly mangles the meaning and requires extra effort to figure out what they were saying. I'm guessing that diligent commenters like those three (or the excellent poet Walter Rhett who also shows up in these first 6 comments) review their posts after they're submitted, and would take the extra minute to clean it up if they could.
Now, relax and take a breath! www.remember-to-breathe.org/Breathing-Videos.htm
10
Yes, a self-editing function, much as Amazon allows for comments on books, so that one may change a typo or clarify a point.
2
I long ago gave up suggesting that the Times stop censoring political opinions that its gatekeepers oppose. One saw evidence of this censorship with the obvious bias against Trump in his primary campaign, which continues. Apparently, the Times massages the news as well. A recent report on the Supreme Court voter gerrymandering scanted a brilliant Justice Thomas dissent (joined by Justice Gorsuch) on the Court rejection of hearing a gun case. The arguments Thomas made elucidated the core arguments based in our 2nd Amendment. No regular reader of the Times, given its interpretation of our 2nd, expected the Times to give much space to the Thomas dissent. But the case was as important as the voter ruling. And it was a brilliant dissent.
1
I often enjoy the comments even more than the articles. While the articles are good, the comments bring in a wide range of experience and perspective. To me, it is like the difference between a judge trial and a jury trial. A well chosen jury brings humanity and common sense, and the invaluable time of thoughtful people trying, in ways just one person can not.
In that way, comments are themselves content, and can be very good content. This has been especially so regarding topics like energy conservation, topics on which a range of ideas and personal experiences is push the margins out all the time. No one reporter or story could keep up with all that comments can bring. Hat tip to our friend in Sweden who brings their very different experiences and technology to us on energy conservation.
This works only because of the effective moderation. They are like reporters or editors, bringing us content too.
In that way, comments are themselves content, and can be very good content. This has been especially so regarding topics like energy conservation, topics on which a range of ideas and personal experiences is push the margins out all the time. No one reporter or story could keep up with all that comments can bring. Hat tip to our friend in Sweden who brings their very different experiences and technology to us on energy conservation.
This works only because of the effective moderation. They are like reporters or editors, bringing us content too.
20
I enjoy reading the comments in the NY Times. I also like that I can sort them by most liked, newest, oldest & NYT recommended.
My one criticism is that it seems like the same commentators frequently provide the "most liked" comments. I almost feel like I know what they are going to say before I even read it! I have wondered if the reviewers have a list of "read these first" for approval, instead of just approving comments in the order in which they are made. (Just considering how long it has taken some of my comments to get approved!)
After one of the Trump-Clinton debates last fall, I got online subscriptions to both the NY Times & the Washington Post, and I have really been enjoying them. One valuable service they provide is through the comments sections in making me feel like there are many Americans who share my many negative feelings & thoughts on a Trump presidency & administration with a Republican-controlled Congress.
My one criticism is that it seems like the same commentators frequently provide the "most liked" comments. I almost feel like I know what they are going to say before I even read it! I have wondered if the reviewers have a list of "read these first" for approval, instead of just approving comments in the order in which they are made. (Just considering how long it has taken some of my comments to get approved!)
After one of the Trump-Clinton debates last fall, I got online subscriptions to both the NY Times & the Washington Post, and I have really been enjoying them. One valuable service they provide is through the comments sections in making me feel like there are many Americans who share my many negative feelings & thoughts on a Trump presidency & administration with a Republican-controlled Congress.
2
When there are hundreds or thousands of comments on NYT stories about policy, I worry that people think they are actually taking part in a public discourse. I wish they would channel that need to communicate their support or opposition to an issue into calling a politicians office or spending time working with a group. Just like me, now, I imagine the Sulzbergers or Dean Baquet reading my missive when really this is the digital version of writing a letter and instead of sending it, burying it in the backyard.
2
Wunderbar!
1
It shows great openness and strength of character to allow comments on this article. Thanks to the moderators for a hard job that is well done.
4
Congratulations to Mr. Etim and his team. I recently subscribed to the Times (President's Day special offer!) and enjoy reading articles and commenting. Other papers do not have this level of quality control where comments so often devolve into insults and personal attacks.
3
It is striking that the New York Times devotes this level of effort to the readers being heard, allowed to argue (with each other as well as the newspaper), and all by keeping a somewhat civil tone.
I do not "keep score" based on how many responses my posts inspire. What I value are the different points of view expressed. Paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson; the surest way to expose a fool is to let him speak his mind.
I often disagree with the Times' choices but with so many viewpoints presented someone who succinctly and correctly represents my views will usually appear and receive my "recommend" vote.
I find the greatest compliment for the staff of the NYT is in reading the comments in competing media where adult supervision is lacking. Theirs are filled with many examples of shouted expletives without evidence, rhyme, or reason, simply devolution into shouting matches. Here, instead, commenters writing (and riding) to the defense of the indefensible requires some meat with the potatoes.
Not all views and political values are equal. Some deserve immediate dismissal. Being American does not create a right to argue free of reason or critique. Belonging to any political identity does not create privilege of unopposed expression. Even the tweeter in chief should know that!
I do not "keep score" based on how many responses my posts inspire. What I value are the different points of view expressed. Paraphrasing Woodrow Wilson; the surest way to expose a fool is to let him speak his mind.
I often disagree with the Times' choices but with so many viewpoints presented someone who succinctly and correctly represents my views will usually appear and receive my "recommend" vote.
I find the greatest compliment for the staff of the NYT is in reading the comments in competing media where adult supervision is lacking. Theirs are filled with many examples of shouted expletives without evidence, rhyme, or reason, simply devolution into shouting matches. Here, instead, commenters writing (and riding) to the defense of the indefensible requires some meat with the potatoes.
Not all views and political values are equal. Some deserve immediate dismissal. Being American does not create a right to argue free of reason or critique. Belonging to any political identity does not create privilege of unopposed expression. Even the tweeter in chief should know that!
2
Given the news from other sources (not from the top stories that appear on my internet subscription to the NYT) that the paper is drastically cutting so many copy-editing jobs, and that all the media are under such pressure, I am grateful that the paper takes the time and effort to create a decent public comments format. Other newspapers that do not moderate their reader comments give an open platform for fake-news avalanches and hatespeech wildfires. It must, as the article says, be draining at times to have to wade through so much repetition and rhetoric, but being able to comment, read other's thoughtful comments are greatly appreciated by your readership and subscribers.
2
No need to post this, but I wanted to express my deep appreciation for comments and I want someone on your staff to have this additional tiny pat on the back from one of your gazillions of commenters. They help me see other sides of a story, even if I disagree. sometimes I read the comments first, and then the comments can stimulate me to read the story with more nuance. NYT comments are a great 21st century addition to media-public relations.
13
I'm glad the NYT has put so much into their comments section. It's the only place I know of where I can hear reasonable arguments for perspectives I don't necessarily agree with. I learn new things all the time, and question things I wouldn't otherwise question. Commenters often add a rich multidimensionality to articles and editorials.
2
Some of my comments are published in a nano second, others still can take days.
Also since I assume the best written posts on either side of the issue are still moderated by humans, don't humans have to read all posts anyway?
Also since I assume the best written posts on either side of the issue are still moderated by humans, don't humans have to read all posts anyway?
1
Sometimes I think moderators either do NOT read the comment, or go overboard on the PC. Nuance is everything. In THIS "presidency," it's not surprising that we are losing our edge in the business of nuance.
2
Thanks to all you great people at my favorite newspaper!
4
Thank you for the opportunity contribute our expertise or views on important stories reported by the NYT.
Plus, I find that the comments add information and perspective as well as humor to many stories, even the political ones.
Thanks for screening out the detritus for us too.
Plus, I find that the comments add information and perspective as well as humor to many stories, even the political ones.
Thanks for screening out the detritus for us too.
3
I think the new NYT software for editing article comments took a break this past week. Fewer articles and editorials with comment sections was the first clue.
I think interaction with news and articles to be a wonderful thing, and it is all new to me as of the past 5 months. It certainly beats shouting from the rooftops, and there are evidently thousands of us, or more, out there who not only love to express our opinion, but to also see it in print. Who knew?!
Thank you for providing thought-provoking articles and allowing us to express our opinions on them. I know we provide you with grist for the mill as well, so it is mostly a win-win situation. You keep your thumb on the public pulse and we let you into our heads.
You provide us with a forum. You are a boost to our morale. You confirm that there are people listening to us. There are others who care and want to be heard and make a difference. The current government is deaf to the majority of Americans, so thank God the media is listening and responding.
I think interaction with news and articles to be a wonderful thing, and it is all new to me as of the past 5 months. It certainly beats shouting from the rooftops, and there are evidently thousands of us, or more, out there who not only love to express our opinion, but to also see it in print. Who knew?!
Thank you for providing thought-provoking articles and allowing us to express our opinions on them. I know we provide you with grist for the mill as well, so it is mostly a win-win situation. You keep your thumb on the public pulse and we let you into our heads.
You provide us with a forum. You are a boost to our morale. You confirm that there are people listening to us. There are others who care and want to be heard and make a difference. The current government is deaf to the majority of Americans, so thank God the media is listening and responding.
3
The NYTimes' moderated comments add value to my online subscription.
I do wish there was a separate tab for the pre-approved frequent writers, so that I could more easily find my favorite contributors, especially Larry the poet!
I do wish there was a separate tab for the pre-approved frequent writers, so that I could more easily find my favorite contributors, especially Larry the poet!
2
I thank goodness every day for The Gray Lady -- far and away the best newspaper on the planet. And the biggest bang I get for my buck is the cost of my subscription.
The moderated comments feature in the digital version of The Times adds a critical dimension to the newspaper. Over the years I've learned as much from readers' insights as I have from the articles themselves. Thank you, thank you to the superb moderators who make this possible.
One thing that could be improved is the link provided in the email I get notifying me that my comment has been published. On my PC, when I click on the link it takes me to my comment. On my mobile phone, however, the link takes me only to the top of the article.
The moderated comments feature in the digital version of The Times adds a critical dimension to the newspaper. Over the years I've learned as much from readers' insights as I have from the articles themselves. Thank you, thank you to the superb moderators who make this possible.
One thing that could be improved is the link provided in the email I get notifying me that my comment has been published. On my PC, when I click on the link it takes me to my comment. On my mobile phone, however, the link takes me only to the top of the article.
1
This is great context. I often wondered how articles are chosen for Comments, as well as how they are moderated and approved. Readers often provide as much value to the topic as the original reporting they are commenting on, and I appreciate the wide variety of insight and information stories provoke. 12,000 daily?!? Congratulations to Bassey and the 12 moderators for distilling all of that input into a cogent conversation that readers benefit from.
6
Bravo NYT! Your welcome to all approach while maintaining standards for honesty, accuracy and civility may just save civilization as we know it. Ah, perhaps not as we know it but as we would like it to be. Congratulations to your team and bot handlers (AI nerds).
4
I really enjoy reading comments from others. I also have from time to time submitted my own views. The first time I was"accepted " i felt empowered. Glad someone would hear my words. Thank you for the opportunity to vent. I admit some of my "rants at 2 AM get a little over the top. But for some reason- "you like me." Thanks once again. Please keep this venue open.
3
Ms. Harris, you are far from alone in suffering from a "Trump" overload.
Thank you and all the staff members who handle Comments. You are doing a wonderful job.
Thank you and all the staff members who handle Comments. You are doing a wonderful job.
6
Some times it is a challenge to comment intelligently instead of venting frustration- even anger - at the many revelations and reporting of this administration. My guess is that the 15% that are not approved are intelligent commenters who crossed the line to vent with a small portion of trolling that A.I. should be able to filter fairly well.
Thank you for the many science articles and other positive and inspiring stories allow commenting - usually generating positive comments - for our sake and the comment reviewer's sake and sanity. Lets hear it for Trump (oops, sorry), ... T-free zones.
Thank you for the many science articles and other positive and inspiring stories allow commenting - usually generating positive comments - for our sake and the comment reviewer's sake and sanity. Lets hear it for Trump (oops, sorry), ... T-free zones.
2
Thanks for this inside look at the comments section. I have been commenting off and on since 2008, and appreciate the herculean task being performed by Bassey Etim and his team.
While almost most of my comments make it through moderation, and there were times I thought surely I deserve a green check mark after all this time, I have come to realize those comments that did not pass moderation for the most part did not deserve publication. I tend to push boundaries, take contrarian positions, make intemperate comments, in life as well as in the comment section and have to deal with the fallout.
With regard to the green check marks in general, I do find it odd that there are long time commenters who post thoughtful and interesting comments who don't have one, and a slew of others who merit them for reasons that baffle me. I know what the Times says about the criteria, but I can't help feeling its done by algorithm that weeds out the edgy in favor of the bland.
Other than that, its the greatest comment section in the industry by far. Thank you for all your hard work. And thank you for not publishing some of my comments which, in retrospect, I'm glad did not live to see the light of day.
While almost most of my comments make it through moderation, and there were times I thought surely I deserve a green check mark after all this time, I have come to realize those comments that did not pass moderation for the most part did not deserve publication. I tend to push boundaries, take contrarian positions, make intemperate comments, in life as well as in the comment section and have to deal with the fallout.
With regard to the green check marks in general, I do find it odd that there are long time commenters who post thoughtful and interesting comments who don't have one, and a slew of others who merit them for reasons that baffle me. I know what the Times says about the criteria, but I can't help feeling its done by algorithm that weeds out the edgy in favor of the bland.
Other than that, its the greatest comment section in the industry by far. Thank you for all your hard work. And thank you for not publishing some of my comments which, in retrospect, I'm glad did not live to see the light of day.
8
Thank you for doing this vitally important work. As a subscriber I appreciate that the NYT comments sections are readable and often in fact enrich the articles themselves. The reliably intelligent and mature commentary here sets you apart from your competitors (this, the fact that you don't discernibly compromise quality on the editorial/copyediting process in the online version, and the fact that you don't use clickbait headlines).
As an English teacher, I also appreciate that you approach language with such nuance and clarity. This is one area of public discourse where close attention to words still matters.
As an English teacher, I also appreciate that you approach language with such nuance and clarity. This is one area of public discourse where close attention to words still matters.
2
The NYT comments section is was swayed me into getting a subscription. The comments on articles often provide insightful information or a different point of view.
Frequently if I read about an event on another news site I'll hop over to the NYT site to see their story and read through the comments.
Keep up the good work!
Frequently if I read about an event on another news site I'll hop over to the NYT site to see their story and read through the comments.
Keep up the good work!
7
The NYT's comments are one of the most enjoyable aspects of reading the paper online. Unlike some other comment sections of news feeds where you feel depressed for the state of humankind, I have many favorites and appreciate the distillation of salient points and additional relevant information, not to mention humor and play with words. A shout out to gemli.
5
It's heartening to hear that comments can spark future reporting. Here's a story idea that pops up almost daily in comments about our health-care fiasco. Your commenters are begging you, pleading with you, to report how other countries have successfully solved the problem with single-payer systems. Why do these intelligent requests go unheeded? Surely, it would be helpful to get news of successful national solutions into the headlines, rather than tucked away in the comment sections, where only the most devoted of us tend to see them.
8
The NYT comment section is unique. Keep it going strong.
Personally I have to confess that sometimes I'm more eager to read the comments than the article they belong to.
Personally I have to confess that sometimes I'm more eager to read the comments than the article they belong to.
3
I agree with your philosophy of civil discussion. But you have rejected some of my political comments when I use the same language that the Presidents uses.
How do you explain or justify your decisions?
How do you explain or justify your decisions?
1
I'd be interested to hear a response on this too--at first I was just going to reply that, well, some of the language the current President has on record *does* contain some profanities, and really shouldn't be published in the comments section, but then I decided that such language might indeed be OK to use, as long as it's clearly attributed to him. My guess is that since so much of this depends on context--I'd imagine it could be tough and time-consuming to decide whether a certain profanity is being used for a real purpose or not, or whether it's just been thrown in to express a person's emotions. I worry that as the AI procedures take up more and more of the winnowing of comments, they won't be able to make these kinds of distinctions that you really need humans for...
Thanks for providing this feature so that we, the people of this great nation who elected Hillary Clinton President of the United States, can provide a running commentary on the temporary rule of Don Gotti.
2
So how many will probably lose a job thanks to your new technology? (see today's NYT article about robots/technology displacing workers and today's NYT about the link between lose of jobs and addiction).
3
Thanks to all who make the comments sections work, from the moderators whose job must be exhausting to the people who submit them. Many NYT readers are terrific writers. They are intelligent, entertaining, and often infuriating but always a good supplement to your reporting and editorials.
12
I subscribe to two online newspapers and read articles from several others each day. I have learned to skip the comment sections in all of them except this one. I understand and appreciate the effort you put in every day to ensure a reasonable standard of civility, and I believe that standard has invited a thought-provoking mix of informative and even clever commentary. Thank you for devoting the resources to this aspect of your newspaper.
4
You must be doing a great job, because yours is the only comment section I've seen that hasn't entirely deteriorated into invective and insult. The comments here are often enlightening and thought-provoking. Even our other "major" national newspaper hasn't been able to maintain standards nearly as well in policing reader comments.
3
What a great advancement for news -- immediate reader feedback, that other readers can see, and react to! I have benefited greatly by fellow readers' comments; my understanding of issues broadened.
My college English professor said, "Once you've mastered the rules you can break the rules, if it makes your point more clearly." Is that true for Readers Comments? Sometimes when drafting a comment I think, 'That's a great point .. but they'll never accept That word.' Do you ever edit comments?
My college English professor said, "Once you've mastered the rules you can break the rules, if it makes your point more clearly." Is that true for Readers Comments? Sometimes when drafting a comment I think, 'That's a great point .. but they'll never accept That word.' Do you ever edit comments?
2
I can only say "Thank You, New York Times" for creating your "comments" sections accompanying your various reports. As some would say: they are the greatest idea since bubble gum. I realize my rants do not make a difference in anybody else's world except mine, but as a long time NYT reader they are important to ME. What a marvelous idea: letting your readers reveal their thoughts. Keep it up, NYT ! Make it even more extensive if you can. You have hooked me, and evidently thousands more, on the idea. Thanks again!
10
I'm a recent subscriber to The Times, and wondered why some articles allowed for comments while many others did not. Now I have my answer! And I'm glad to hear that more articles will be including this feature. I love reading comments posted by other readers to see what other people are saying. And to the poster commenting on NY Times picks, I go to All for every article!
Additionally, I have noticed that I'll read about 50 or more comments, only to see the next 50 as repeats to what I just read. This is my only criticism of the comments section so far.
Additionally, I have noticed that I'll read about 50 or more comments, only to see the next 50 as repeats to what I just read. This is my only criticism of the comments section so far.
2
"A third argued that it would be “derogatory to use ‘prostitute’ in any way, because it’s demeaning to prostitutes,” she said. The comment was rejected."
I can't stand it.
I can't stand it.
1
It's true that the NYT moderating of comment threads keeps them civil. I applaud them for that. But the problem is this:
No reasonable person will read through more than 50 or so comments.
And lots of the comments are similar or redundant. Plus, the pre-approved commentators get a disproportionate number of "recommends" because they can post before others. Thus, they appear on the first page of comments, which many readers clearly don't go beyond and just click without critical thought.
Thus, the solution is to find some way to iterate the comments into the most cogent arguments on an issue after collecting a critical mass of comments, say 200 (including the pre-approved and un-pre-approved commentators). The process should distill the pros and cons into summary statements and let the readers decide what the best solution is -- if there is one.
Simply summing readers' "recommends" does not produce a plurality of opinion
No reasonable person will read through more than 50 or so comments.
And lots of the comments are similar or redundant. Plus, the pre-approved commentators get a disproportionate number of "recommends" because they can post before others. Thus, they appear on the first page of comments, which many readers clearly don't go beyond and just click without critical thought.
Thus, the solution is to find some way to iterate the comments into the most cogent arguments on an issue after collecting a critical mass of comments, say 200 (including the pre-approved and un-pre-approved commentators). The process should distill the pros and cons into summary statements and let the readers decide what the best solution is -- if there is one.
Simply summing readers' "recommends" does not produce a plurality of opinion
2
Like many tasks that tend to be unseen when I learn about it I am impressed. And, thankful someone is paying attention.
Bravo moderators.
Bravo moderators.
3
Congratulations! I so enjoy reading comments and often learn a lot from them. While I also read The Guardian, I am very put off by the level/quality of the comments, many just snarky, flip retorts which I suppose make the writers feel better, but are just a waste of space. Keep up the good work and may the robots continue to help.
2
Thank you. I comment frequently and I appreciate being allowed to do so. It great relieved my frustrations. And I am really, really frustrated these days.
2
The Comments sections are the best addition to the Times enu in many years. I ready a lot of them every day and am generally impressed by their quality of thought and, often, valuable information. But like other commenters here, I'm frequently perplexed by some of the Times Picks - the rationale behind their selection, which often seems inferior to un-picked comments. Perhaps a brief, explanatory note at the top of each section would help. Another suggestion: why not urge the regular opinion writers to occasionally devote a column acknowledging comments they've found enlightening, especially those that take issue with their own views?
2
I love to read through the comments. I often scroll through "Readers Picks" so see what my fellow citizens are voting for. By and large, they show good judgment and common sense.
3
Thank you NYT for providing a robust comment section. Reading the comments adds context to an article and is a sample of what readers think.
Thank you to those who read and moderate the comments.
Thank you to those who read and moderate the comments.
7
When I'm trying to read through a comments section and click on "read more," it usually stops after little while. For example, if there are 800 comments and I start at "oldest" and read down, then click on "read more," I might get to read a total of 100. Then clicking on "read more" gets me nowhere. I can go to "newest" and read 100 there, but I'll never be able to read the 600 in the middle. Seems unfair to those who took the time to write their comments.
15
Yes, I have the same problem. Seems like a technical glitch.
1
"Verified Commenters can leave comments on NYTimes.com without initial moderation. Verified status is earned based on a history of quality comments.". Where oh where have I gone wrong? Having been a daily contributor for five years with thousands of comments published, a history of one Times pick a week and placement in the the top twenty readers picks more often then not (depending on the initial placement), I'm left to wonder who or what I have done to offend the comments staff. As walterhess eloquently (but he's always eloquent) suggests below, it can be very frustrating trying to find ones comment in a slew of 1200 when your comment can take anywhere between 5 min to 24 hours (in the case of the weekends) to appear in print, leading to a constant checking and rechecking of the comments section that I find necessary but my wife finds obsessive/compulsive. When I started this essay writing experiment in 2012 none of the current regulars had green checks except Richard luettegen and I have applauded each new Christine and Socrates who have achieved this (earned) status but people appear now who I've never heard or read before. So I must ask, one more time, where have I fallen short? If it's a question of joining your facebook page I can tell you that is a hoop too far but if I just haven't proven myself in the quality department, I'm willing to have that, embarrassing, fact stated for all to see in one of those rare NYT responses that, sometimes, accompany these features.
7
It seems to me that comments on many online periodicals function as a release valve, a way for someone to let off steam without really doing any damage. PBS Newshour online really seems to get its share of disgruntled, contrary comments, especially when commenters start bickering with each other. Credit to NYT, PBS and other outlets for alowing these comments, when it would be so easy to disallow them.
As we approach July 4, I have a keen appreciation for freedom of speech and press.
As we approach July 4, I have a keen appreciation for freedom of speech and press.
5
I want to say a big "Thank you" to the Times and its comment moderators for maintaining probably the best news comments section in the world. This is a difficult, time-consuming job but very much appreciated by this reader.
I am often educated even further by following the thoughtful comments of your readers on various articles.
It is off-putting on other sites to slog through the personal attacks, vulgarities and banalities to find a well reasoned point of view.
I am often educated even further by following the thoughtful comments of your readers on various articles.
It is off-putting on other sites to slog through the personal attacks, vulgarities and banalities to find a well reasoned point of view.
4
Reader's comments are one of the primary reasons I read the NY Times. They almost always help me see things I missed or think about things I don't normally think about or illuminate things I don't understand, or show me viewpoints I have never considered - it's a diversity of opinion one cannot get from just reading a newspaper. That said, the comments sections can be an awful echo chamber. That's why I often wander over to Breitbart for a few minutes, to cleanse the palate, so to speak.
3
The non-failing NYT has made it easy to both contribute and read comments, and it is a vital part of the news experience now. As a Canadian, I also subscribe to the online Toronto Globe and Mail. It has taken a different approach. Commenters must now answer a quiz when trying to upload a comment, essentially taking a short course in civil writing. It's extremely off-putting and now very few comments appear next to its articles. Many thanks to the Times for showing the way and widening the window the world has on the thinking of Americans. It's important!!
11
I think the I think the NYT comment nmoderators do a superb job. The opportunity to make comments on current events in as distinguished a newspaper as the Times is a privilege, and it makes me feel like I have a voice, a chance to put my two cents in for thinking people to consider. I rarely comment in the WaPo because that environment is comparatively nasty.
Thanks to all of the editors for their work. You are providing a true service which is essential to democracy.
Thanks to all of the editors for their work. You are providing a true service which is essential to democracy.
4
As an advocate for healthy human development, community builder & entrepreneur, I know a key strategy to changing perceptions & growing innovations is taking problems and turning them into strengths.
Here is a suggestion for turning social media into a platform for healthy human development - training. Let us work through a critical thinking exercise, etc in order to be allowed to post, initially & regularly.
Facebook just instigated an opaque process. I'm pleased they are trying something, but the strategy misses an opportunity to educate.
Looking back at Milgram's Stanford Prison Project is enough to recognize the value of utilizing these 5 principles of healthy human development, developed by social and development psychologists:
1. Caring relationships that form a safe base
2. Skill building (emotional, physical, mental, social)
3. Clear and High expectations
4. Meaningful participation
5. Community involvement
Another idea is to institute guidelines based on philosophy, and train your crew and hire people and recruit interns who know how to determine if a comment is valid based on critical thinking criteria. Is the premise proven? Is that a fallacy of thought? Is that a rhetorical device? - And if you don't post a comment, send poster feedback. Direct learning through our mistakes can also help curb the pervasive fixed mindset in our individualistic culture. Mindset is a tiny book from Dr. Carol Dweck, head of Stanford's Developmental Psychology Dept. Read or Google.
Here is a suggestion for turning social media into a platform for healthy human development - training. Let us work through a critical thinking exercise, etc in order to be allowed to post, initially & regularly.
Facebook just instigated an opaque process. I'm pleased they are trying something, but the strategy misses an opportunity to educate.
Looking back at Milgram's Stanford Prison Project is enough to recognize the value of utilizing these 5 principles of healthy human development, developed by social and development psychologists:
1. Caring relationships that form a safe base
2. Skill building (emotional, physical, mental, social)
3. Clear and High expectations
4. Meaningful participation
5. Community involvement
Another idea is to institute guidelines based on philosophy, and train your crew and hire people and recruit interns who know how to determine if a comment is valid based on critical thinking criteria. Is the premise proven? Is that a fallacy of thought? Is that a rhetorical device? - And if you don't post a comment, send poster feedback. Direct learning through our mistakes can also help curb the pervasive fixed mindset in our individualistic culture. Mindset is a tiny book from Dr. Carol Dweck, head of Stanford's Developmental Psychology Dept. Read or Google.
2
I am shocked that it is only 16 million comments in 10 years. I really never thought about the number, but I would have bet it would be over 100 million.
1
The NY Times has, imho, the most erudite commenters among all the on-line fora I see, the quality of which can be ascribed to your moderators.
People are generally respectful, educational, frequently witty, often very worth copying and sending on to friends.
I always check to see where a poster lives (I do wish everyone would give this info), as it's helpful to get opinions of articles from people in another part of the country, or world.
Thank you so much!
People are generally respectful, educational, frequently witty, often very worth copying and sending on to friends.
I always check to see where a poster lives (I do wish everyone would give this info), as it's helpful to get opinions of articles from people in another part of the country, or world.
Thank you so much!
8
Twelve moderators! I'm very impressed. I am grateful to the NY Times for providing readers' comments on so many articles, particularly ones about current issues. By reading them while I'm at home with only my wonderful cats for company, I feel some comfort to know that I'm part of a huge community of like-minded people. I appreciate the moderators' nixing responses that are only personal attacks on commenters--the sort of ugly insults printed in other publications that sully this whole process.
5
My daily news-gathering routine includes reading dozens of comments by NYT readers in response to political editorials, and acknowledging with a 'recommend' those I find particularly insightful. What impresses me most is the quality of the prose, and the staff's extraordinary ability to weed out trolls. No other publication is able to do this as effectively.
I hope the new procedure for publishing comments maintains the same level of excellence so that I might continue paraphrasing to friends and colleagues not only articles I've read, but also what a woman in Minnesota or a man in Connecticut had to say about them.
I hope the new procedure for publishing comments maintains the same level of excellence so that I might continue paraphrasing to friends and colleagues not only articles I've read, but also what a woman in Minnesota or a man in Connecticut had to say about them.
6
Why so few "comments" on the comments process?? I have but one frustration: It has become so popular that often I must spend too much time looking for the posting of my comment, and often give up which, in turn, discourages commenting.
Might we be able to word-search for our comment, or those of others whom we enjoy reading? Alternatively, might the e-mail notification indicate the time of posting? Other solutions?
There, no "Trump."
Might we be able to word-search for our comment, or those of others whom we enjoy reading? Alternatively, might the e-mail notification indicate the time of posting? Other solutions?
There, no "Trump."
2
I like the comments sections and have regularly participated. I've also had a few of my own comments file 13'd by the moderators because, sometimes, I do get a bit vitriolic, or acerbic, or needlessly provoking. And usually I'm glad afterwards that they didn't put it up. So, I feel they do a good job of keeping things civil.
So, Good job Times moderators! Best comments section anywhere!
So, Good job Times moderators! Best comments section anywhere!
3
I have a love-hate relationship with the NY Times' comments policies and controls.
I love that the comments are moderated. I agree that moderating the comments creates a more engaged, thoughtful conversation. Most other papers' sites, such as the WP and the WSJ, are full of way too much extraneous back and forth as well as being havens for trolls. Also, the ability to still remain anonymous is appreciated.
I hate the limitations moderating places on some of the exchanges. For popular and hot topics, the moderators are often sluggish in posting comments and shut down discussion way too soon, especially on opinion pieces. Also, the prevalence of group think can lead to redundancy (a "dislike" option would help with that). Finally the "approved" commenters is so elitist and smug. With it, you tend to have some of the same voices hogging the discussion.
Overall, keep up the great work - it is much appreciated!
I love that the comments are moderated. I agree that moderating the comments creates a more engaged, thoughtful conversation. Most other papers' sites, such as the WP and the WSJ, are full of way too much extraneous back and forth as well as being havens for trolls. Also, the ability to still remain anonymous is appreciated.
I hate the limitations moderating places on some of the exchanges. For popular and hot topics, the moderators are often sluggish in posting comments and shut down discussion way too soon, especially on opinion pieces. Also, the prevalence of group think can lead to redundancy (a "dislike" option would help with that). Finally the "approved" commenters is so elitist and smug. With it, you tend to have some of the same voices hogging the discussion.
Overall, keep up the great work - it is much appreciated!
3
I'd just like to say thank you for moderating comments. This is the reason I continue to subscribe to the NYT online. Often the comments here are thought-provoking and sometimes they even surpass the information in the original article. On other sites that don't moderate comments simply devolve into shouting matches. Thank you.
8
One of the major reasons I read the NY Times on the iPad. It's uplifting to read a well-crafted and thoughtful opinion--shocking or disconcerting to see vitriol and closed-mindedness, but overall one of the most satisfying activities of my day. I'm sure there are others like myself who live in relative isolation (or who simply feel isolated in their opinions) and find it comforting to know there are others of like mind who are so fluently expressive. Thank you moderators, for your vigilance and obvious respect for both readers and commenters.
4
Thank you for creating and maintaining this wonderful platform. A big part of my morning ritual is reading The New York Times and the Comment Section is a big part why I'm reading The New York Times and not some other newspaper. I love reading all the comments the articles you pick generate. Right after I read Ms. Dowd or Mr. Friedman, I go right to reader's picks. Doing this always deepens my understanding and appreciation of what I just read. I think, for the most part, the comments are well thought out and the writers, because of the high bar you have created, do their best to be civil and thoughtful. This, of course, is thanks to each of you. Keep up the good work you are doing. We all enjoy it so much!
6
I love and learn from the comments. If the fact is real that Trump's advocates are from the ranks of high school or less, education wise, that would explain the overwhelming number of posts from anti-Trumpers, presuming they have more education, read more, keep up with current events, etc. It's the thoughts, opinions and variety of ways readers post their responses to your various stories and articles that help me survive in the Bright Red State, and County I live in.
3
Even though I am a loyal fan of reading actual hard copies of a variety of periodicals, the NYT comments feature has made my online subscription even more appealing. Please keep quality and considerate monitoring in what you do everyday. We need outlets for critical discourse more than ever. Thanks for a journalistic job well done!
6
What I most enjoy about the comments is the extra information contributed by many responders. Seeing other aspects and considerations of a topic along with commenters personal experiences is often fascinating and enlightening - frequently regarding topics that have never particularly been of interest.
Thanks for providing this service.
Thanks for providing this service.
6
I became very concerned about our freedom of the press when Trump was elected. At that time, I chose to subscribe to the Times over another well known newspaper in our nations capital, because the comments were so much more thoughtful and civil.
Keep up the great work Mr. Etim!
Keep up the great work Mr. Etim!
4
Thank you for your work. I hope someone is "archiving" the rejected comments. They'd be a fascinating source on the boundaries of public discourse at a time when those boundaries---in the media, in social media, and in political speech---seem to shift daily.
2
I also want to say a big thank you to the Times for making the comment sections available. I often feel a bit of gratitude when I see people doing jobs that I know I couldn't do and moderating comments would definitely fit that category. I easily get overwhelmed by too much information at one time, so I can imagine how hard it is to keep up. I appreciate it even more because I have no interest in Facebook or Twitter.
I do get frustrated at times when I see what I think is misinformation repeated in some comments, but now that I understand more about the process, I can see how that happens and it's not a big deal. It would be impossible to fact check everything. Overall, I think you're providing a great service and I appreciate it very much.
I do get frustrated at times when I see what I think is misinformation repeated in some comments, but now that I understand more about the process, I can see how that happens and it's not a big deal. It would be impossible to fact check everything. Overall, I think you're providing a great service and I appreciate it very much.
4
The work of this team has been, and is, stellar (and I'm sure will remain so even if an algorithm is assisting in the culling). The comments that get through are rare in the industry for absence of garbage, and they truly illuminate the associated column or article.
Thank you for an oasis of sanity.
Thank you for an oasis of sanity.
6
Now you've got me curious about the backstory of the all time favorite comment! You drop a mystery like that.... and... well, likely that's why it's your favorite. We'll never know...
But thank you for the interesting glimpse of who reads the comments. At times, I've imagined the group of you laughing hysterically or whatever, depending on topics.
And good to know that we can actually plant story ideas. Or that our encouragement to "keep it up" may make a difference.
Thanks!
But thank you for the interesting glimpse of who reads the comments. At times, I've imagined the group of you laughing hysterically or whatever, depending on topics.
And good to know that we can actually plant story ideas. Or that our encouragement to "keep it up" may make a difference.
Thanks!
4
This inveterate fan of the comment section and frequent comment writer commends the whole endeavor, including staff. Thanks.
Some very smart people weigh in and often clarify, expand upon, or intelligently rebut or support the author of article.
This country has some super sharp people who should be called on to add their expertise and experience. We see it in the comments.
Improvements?
1) number the posts so we can refer to each other's comments handily. Have a "jump to" tool as I describe below.
2) the link that we get in email that tells us our comment has been published should take us directly to our comment. So, we can see/engage replies. (maybe that engagement is too much for staff to monitor?)
3) have a toggle at the bottom of any "Reader Pick" comment that opens up all replies to that comment. Currently, replies to these well read comments get buried in the stack with the original comment or scattered in the pile, can't be accessed and there can be no robust back and forth between readers.
Also, numbering comments and having a "jump to" tool (you enter the number and that comment opens) would facilitate discussion.
4) "Sort" option for oldest / newest. That's just basic.
And a character counter at top of the comment field.
Comments are the democracy of the online Times.
Extremely valuable for sharing ideas and opinions.
Make it work better for that purpose please.
Some very smart people weigh in and often clarify, expand upon, or intelligently rebut or support the author of article.
This country has some super sharp people who should be called on to add their expertise and experience. We see it in the comments.
Improvements?
1) number the posts so we can refer to each other's comments handily. Have a "jump to" tool as I describe below.
2) the link that we get in email that tells us our comment has been published should take us directly to our comment. So, we can see/engage replies. (maybe that engagement is too much for staff to monitor?)
3) have a toggle at the bottom of any "Reader Pick" comment that opens up all replies to that comment. Currently, replies to these well read comments get buried in the stack with the original comment or scattered in the pile, can't be accessed and there can be no robust back and forth between readers.
Also, numbering comments and having a "jump to" tool (you enter the number and that comment opens) would facilitate discussion.
4) "Sort" option for oldest / newest. That's just basic.
And a character counter at top of the comment field.
Comments are the democracy of the online Times.
Extremely valuable for sharing ideas and opinions.
Make it work better for that purpose please.
2
What a delight to learn how comments are approved!
It's not easy work, & the whole paper (& our experience of comment-reading) is improved by what you do. The world feels a little less grimy.
Big thank-you!
It's not easy work, & the whole paper (& our experience of comment-reading) is improved by what you do. The world feels a little less grimy.
Big thank-you!
7
I appreciate the intelligence, candor, experiences, and opinion spectrum represented by the Times' comments columns. It's invigorating to read a challenging essay or analysis and then find a chorus of insightful comments that extend, challenge, question and applaud the original assertions. It would be lovely if the talking heads on cable news could emulate the breadth of knowledge found in these brief responses--or simply institute the ban on name-calling!
6
I love reading the comments too. They often add additional dimensions to the story. But my favorites are when people are let loose to comment on small everyday pieces of life. The best was when everyone wrote in about colleagues habits at work that are annoying. i still laugh when I think of all the comments from other people complaining about the exact same things that made me cringe in my workday.
1
For some of us, commenting is in our blood and we feel less than well when we aren't commenting. My commenting began when I was 10 years old delivering the Chicago Sun, before it became the Sun-Times. Gradually I worked my way up the journalistic ladder and in1964 rose from an obituary writer at Chicago's City News to a reporter-writer at the Associated Press and then to the editorial desk at Chicago's revered Daily News in 1967. And one day I sat down with the publisher and told him that it would be a good idea to print comments by readers, who are usually heard grumbling about our articles anyway. He looked at me and smiled and I knew the idea was dead. Becoming weary of the Chicago climate, I moved to Arizona and wrote a book about how I got my pilots licenses. Soon the local newspaper, the Bisbee Observer, came calling and asked me if I wanted to write a column for them. How could I refuse? Then for 17 years I wrote a weekly column about an old Western mining town with some 6,000 residents. And I became a small-town celebrity. Being somewhat of a recluse I didn't really care for the attention, but the comments I was receiving at the Safeway where rewarding. And then one day my publisher called and said she was having financial problems and couldn't afford me anymore. And in the next issue of the newspaper, I had been replaced by a crossword puzzle. So if you are going to write comments, don't get too involved for someday you may also be replaced by a crossword puzzle.
4
Bah!
English was my worst subject in high school - I barely passed!
But now I find myself obsessed with alerting the world to the "great" problems we have, like how we could elect a man I would not want as my neighbor as president; why the fact that we are killing our planet with pollution and over population is not the most important news item, etc. etc.
And, worst of all, I have to compete with so many others who are utterly superb at consolidating their thoughts and expressing themselves in a coherent, thought provoking way!
But thank you NYT for giving me the opportunity to express myself, and who knows, with enough practice I may eventually even be able to properly articulate my ideas!
English was my worst subject in high school - I barely passed!
But now I find myself obsessed with alerting the world to the "great" problems we have, like how we could elect a man I would not want as my neighbor as president; why the fact that we are killing our planet with pollution and over population is not the most important news item, etc. etc.
And, worst of all, I have to compete with so many others who are utterly superb at consolidating their thoughts and expressing themselves in a coherent, thought provoking way!
But thank you NYT for giving me the opportunity to express myself, and who knows, with enough practice I may eventually even be able to properly articulate my ideas!
6
The comments section is one of the most important aspects of molding a modern newspaper. Right there next to the article itself, are a raft of opinions and other points of view. It rounds out the article by adding information , often personal experience, and contrary sentiment on the gist of the news piece. Social media and blogs are fine but being remote from the article lack the importance and punch. Comments is a great innovation .
5
Thank you New York Times for allowing your readers to express their opinions. And I also agree with your guidelines, which are necessary and proper for keeping in line with your outstanding content, particularly your editorials. when I read your comments, I gives me an idea of what our follow readers think and their viewpoints. Some of them are wanting in logic, however, I find most published comments to be well thought out and well written. Sometimes, it takes longer to read the numerous comments than to read your article, and this is fine and reflects the quality of your readers. Of course, we only get to read those comments which are published, and do not have the benefit of reading those that were rejected. Good job in screening those, and I look forward to continue to read your comments which I enjoy tremendously. Thank you.
7
Aha! i noticed the new grouping of similar comments in June. Thought I had overlooked it before, but I guess it is really new.
2
Thanks for giving a chance to people to write about what seems to be important to them and to the Nation since we are the people of this Nation.
Thank you for enduring what seems to be a seemingly thankless job that others have abandonned.
I know, that for myself, I try to get better in expressing my thoughts, usually written in a hurry, by reading comments from others as well as trying to devine why a particular one of mine may have been rejected.
I like the idea of the NYT Best Picks as well.
So, in some sense, it is an online course (Socratic method style) about manners, critical style, passions, history, political science, economics, wisdom, humaness and humanity, equality, diversity, the 21st century.
Maybe a neural network will analyze all the comments in toto and pass judgment on our worthiness.
Thank you for enduring what seems to be a seemingly thankless job that others have abandonned.
I know, that for myself, I try to get better in expressing my thoughts, usually written in a hurry, by reading comments from others as well as trying to devine why a particular one of mine may have been rejected.
I like the idea of the NYT Best Picks as well.
So, in some sense, it is an online course (Socratic method style) about manners, critical style, passions, history, political science, economics, wisdom, humaness and humanity, equality, diversity, the 21st century.
Maybe a neural network will analyze all the comments in toto and pass judgment on our worthiness.
2
I can understand that the workload leaves you little choice but to use AI tools but beware of potential pitfalls. What if a reader uses those objectionable words that you have mentioned in the piece as quotations that are needed to prove a "valid" point? (And this is not the only potential pitfall with AI.)
You have been doing great. My thanks as a reader.
You have been doing great. My thanks as a reader.
3
This is my opportunity to say THANK YOU New York Times.
I came to the US in 1956,age 19.Did not speak the language.There was a native language newspaper available at the time but I chose to "read" The Daily News instead.The following year,1957,I picked up the first copy of the NYT and been reading it ever since.Greg Whiteside of WOXR woke me up every morning.
I can not imagine a world without the NYT.
I came to the US in 1956,age 19.Did not speak the language.There was a native language newspaper available at the time but I chose to "read" The Daily News instead.The following year,1957,I picked up the first copy of the NYT and been reading it ever since.Greg Whiteside of WOXR woke me up every morning.
I can not imagine a world without the NYT.
3
Kudos to the Times for being fair to both sides of an issue while maintaining a civil discourse. There are several values to a comment section not least of which is to commiserate with those of us of like mind. We certainly need to vent our frustrations with each other, in an objective way and with no vitriol, during a questionable time in our nation's history under the leadership of a president of undoubtedly questionable leadership, character, and stability.
But also I am glad to see that in more cases than not the Times gives equal space to those of different ideologies. It is important that we understand how those whom we disagree with think and perceive the events of the day. It certainly is the seed of respectful disagreement.
Finally, hope upon hope, I would wish our Congress and even Trump - if possible - to take the time to read their voters comments since they are elected to represent all of us not just the chosen elite.
But also I am glad to see that in more cases than not the Times gives equal space to those of different ideologies. It is important that we understand how those whom we disagree with think and perceive the events of the day. It certainly is the seed of respectful disagreement.
Finally, hope upon hope, I would wish our Congress and even Trump - if possible - to take the time to read their voters comments since they are elected to represent all of us not just the chosen elite.
9
I feel privileged to write the first comment on the article about comments. Overall, the comments on The New York Times are an interesting addition to the articles themselves, and sometimes there are truly excellent, insightful, knowledgeable comments. There are also comments that point out (hopefully to the reporters, too) some of the logical flaws in what is written (particularly in the health field, having to reiterate that correlation is not causation, for example). Thank you for all your efforts in providing a forum for civil discussion and an exposure to different views.
11
I wish the Times would also understand the difference between "average" and "median" when it comes to things like income.
I wish there were some technical improvements. If we had italics or boldface, then SHOUTING wouldn't be necessary. We got a "reply " option, but it is useless since it is not clear what is being replied to. A system that put replies, indented, under the reply they are replying to would do the trick.
I would love to be able to post tables and charts. One way to to this would be to limit by space rather than characters.
And the notification system is still buggy. I still fail to get notified sometimes. I still get notifications that just take me to the top of the comments sections. Also it would be nice it we could be notified if someone replies to our comments or replies.
I have learned a great deal from the comments section. In fact, my all my ideas about economics were changed by a comment. In spite of the above complaints and suggestions, I consider the comments to be one of the most useful and important parts of the NY Times.
Keep it up!
I would love to be able to post tables and charts. One way to to this would be to limit by space rather than characters.
And the notification system is still buggy. I still fail to get notified sometimes. I still get notifications that just take me to the top of the comments sections. Also it would be nice it we could be notified if someone replies to our comments or replies.
I have learned a great deal from the comments section. In fact, my all my ideas about economics were changed by a comment. In spite of the above complaints and suggestions, I consider the comments to be one of the most useful and important parts of the NY Times.
Keep it up!
11
Len, SHOUTING in the form of all caps is never necessary. If a writer is unable to construct a sentence telling the reader where the emphasis should be using standard caps and lower case, he/she should call in to talk radio instead of commenting in venues like this one.
When comments first became popular, I recall jumping in and enjoying the give and take. Gradually, it seemed, a few trolls took over every time and pretty much ruined it. It was hard not to swing back (I did) and much easier to log off and wait a day or two. Some newspapers even seemed to cultivate their own trolls (still do) because they agreed with them, and I always wondered whether they were hired hands. Now with Russians and mob trolls and teens in high school (et.al.), it is really nice to encounter moderation and civility. It works. So I add my thanks too.
4
Having a regulated comments section and so many accomplished/well versed readers is an education, interesting, and - in terms of health articles - often helpful. Thank you! I hope your writers, too, avail themselves of the extra bit of information the comments section often offers.
6
Excellent background - thanks. I always scan the NYT comments to try to understand the responses by Americans and others around our world to the current conditions of America, its Government, its policies, and its place around our world.
Especially in the NYT articles about our world outside the USA.
Especially in the NYT articles about our world outside the USA.
3
Hats off to those who do a truly difficult and thankless job.
I read many public forums, and the NYT's is simply the best.
Good work, all.
I read many public forums, and the NYT's is simply the best.
Good work, all.
7
I don't always agree with NYT editorial decisions. However, the comments section is still the best news related discussion forum out there. Keep up the good work.
I do have a question though. How is that some commentators are pre-approved and others are not? There doesn't appear to be any specific criteria in deciding. All the same, the digital conversation often gains out sized influence from a minority of contributors through their "pre-check" status. There's no labor savings here as the comment eventually gets read anyway when choosing featured comments. What's up with this?
I do have a question though. How is that some commentators are pre-approved and others are not? There doesn't appear to be any specific criteria in deciding. All the same, the digital conversation often gains out sized influence from a minority of contributors through their "pre-check" status. There's no labor savings here as the comment eventually gets read anyway when choosing featured comments. What's up with this?
2
I'd like to suggest an addition to the choices of "vulgar, inflammatory, personal attack, spam, off topic" that I think is not only necessary but vital in our current discourse -- that of "unsupported" or "factually erroneous" -- something that indicates the comment needs details which are either not provided or incorrect. I enjoy the discourse the Times comments provide and find that I often take away a view I hadn't considered in the original piece. However, often in reading them there are entries which are unsupported or plain wrong and I would like to be able to mark them for moderation. I know that the "facts" category could be labor intensive, but I believe it would add a vital component to this "modern" aspect of journalism.
1
Why not write a reply with a reference and data correcting the factually erroneous comment?
The Times is the only major media outlet with a functional and civil comments section. NPR abandoned theirs. The WaPo is a swamp of invective. I almost always find myself reading, and learning from, the comments of others. This is what the internet promised, and yet so infrequently delivers. My sincerest thanks to all of you who have to slog through our stuff every day. Trust me, your work is much appreciated.
258
I see uncivil comments on here all the time, especially about the president.
7
Vulcanalex,
The uncivil comments about the president have to do with how uncivil he is to all of us, all the time. It is difficult to find much good to say about him. We are treated well when we treat others well.
The uncivil comments about the president have to do with how uncivil he is to all of us, all the time. It is difficult to find much good to say about him. We are treated well when we treat others well.
31
It is called free speech, specifically in the sphere of politics. That is exactly what the Constitution protects.
To quote the Cincinnati Enquirer in their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Donal Trump "is a clear and present danger to our country."
Donnie the Dunce is totally unqualified for the job, and he proves that to be true every day.
To quote the Cincinnati Enquirer in their endorsement of Hillary Clinton, Donal Trump "is a clear and present danger to our country."
Donnie the Dunce is totally unqualified for the job, and he proves that to be true every day.
5
Uncivil perhaps but likely true.
4
I’d like to offer a small suggestion that could make a big difference:
Display replies to comments in the same order that the comments, themselves, appear, that is, with the latest at the top.
It's’ a small step, but one that could help dissenting voices be heard.
Display replies to comments in the same order that the comments, themselves, appear, that is, with the latest at the top.
It's’ a small step, but one that could help dissenting voices be heard.
81
I love The Times comment sections, and I contribute almost daily. That said, I have deep reservations about NYT Picks, and about some moderator standards.
• On any given day, the quality of NYTime picks seems to me no different than all the other comments—some good, some bad. So, their choice often seems arbitrary, leading me to feel that it’s Big Brother Times putting its corporate thumb on the scale to control the conversation, and nothing more, offering no real benefit to the readers.
And control it does. By default, all The Times' comments sections open on the NYT Picks. For any given article, the first 6 or 10 Readers’ Picks are often NYT Picks. All the other comments, those not graced by that gold ribbon, are lost in the crowd; they just don’t get the eyeballs.
• When it comes to vitriol, I feel there's a double standard employed by the moderators. If were to post a derogatory comment about Jews, Blacks, gays or women, my comment would be deleted immediately—as it should be. But if I were to make a derogatory comment about Trump voters, or the white working class in general, well, for that kind of vitriol, there’s open season.
What galls me the most is seeing a NYT Pick gold ribbon of approval awarded to a comment dissing the WWC. Such contempt for millions of fellow Americans who happen to have, not a different religion, skin color, or sexual preference, but a different worldview and political values, is wrong, and surely does not reflect the view of The Times.
• On any given day, the quality of NYTime picks seems to me no different than all the other comments—some good, some bad. So, their choice often seems arbitrary, leading me to feel that it’s Big Brother Times putting its corporate thumb on the scale to control the conversation, and nothing more, offering no real benefit to the readers.
And control it does. By default, all The Times' comments sections open on the NYT Picks. For any given article, the first 6 or 10 Readers’ Picks are often NYT Picks. All the other comments, those not graced by that gold ribbon, are lost in the crowd; they just don’t get the eyeballs.
• When it comes to vitriol, I feel there's a double standard employed by the moderators. If were to post a derogatory comment about Jews, Blacks, gays or women, my comment would be deleted immediately—as it should be. But if I were to make a derogatory comment about Trump voters, or the white working class in general, well, for that kind of vitriol, there’s open season.
What galls me the most is seeing a NYT Pick gold ribbon of approval awarded to a comment dissing the WWC. Such contempt for millions of fellow Americans who happen to have, not a different religion, skin color, or sexual preference, but a different worldview and political values, is wrong, and surely does not reflect the view of The Times.
49
Ron:
I share your sense of confusion about comments noted as Times picks; esp. for readers who expect Times Picks to be exceptional writing, high interest examples, or personal experiences with the story theme. Mainly, Times Picks highlight contrasting views--which sometimes leads to bad logic, disproven arguments, faulty cause and effect, misleading evidence and weak narrative construction. Many who disagree with Times opinion writers (sometimes, Times reporters!) often re-deploy talking points without adding anything new to the discussion. This stalls discussion! It is difficult to find original, non-group thought when looking for contrasts to positions many Times readers support. And this propensity to note the contrasts with a Times Pick often seems exasperating and illogical, but it does invoke lots of replies and discussion!
Because of the default of the comment section to display Times Picks, by selection and placement that have an advantage in being highly recommended. Over the years, my Times Pick comments have a three to one higher ratio recommendations than my unselected comments.
Lastly, after the first 50 to 100 comments, comments in the middle are read until they are buried by the next batched release (normally a 100 or more). In the broad middle, the chances of reading significantly decline. Hence, my advocacy for numbers, to give the broad middle quick identification, easy access and greater exposure!
I share your sense of confusion about comments noted as Times picks; esp. for readers who expect Times Picks to be exceptional writing, high interest examples, or personal experiences with the story theme. Mainly, Times Picks highlight contrasting views--which sometimes leads to bad logic, disproven arguments, faulty cause and effect, misleading evidence and weak narrative construction. Many who disagree with Times opinion writers (sometimes, Times reporters!) often re-deploy talking points without adding anything new to the discussion. This stalls discussion! It is difficult to find original, non-group thought when looking for contrasts to positions many Times readers support. And this propensity to note the contrasts with a Times Pick often seems exasperating and illogical, but it does invoke lots of replies and discussion!
Because of the default of the comment section to display Times Picks, by selection and placement that have an advantage in being highly recommended. Over the years, my Times Pick comments have a three to one higher ratio recommendations than my unselected comments.
Lastly, after the first 50 to 100 comments, comments in the middle are read until they are buried by the next batched release (normally a 100 or more). In the broad middle, the chances of reading significantly decline. Hence, my advocacy for numbers, to give the broad middle quick identification, easy access and greater exposure!
34
What galls me most is the green check-mark.
All roads lead to gall.
All roads lead to gall.
8
Neither a general Web search nor a visit to the Wikipedia page for "WWC" shed any light on what you might be referring to.
2
I noticed the change, about a month ago! My comments are published almost right away, I have been wondering if NYT would tell us why..
I enjoy the comment section and think you are doing a service by including it on articles. And it is actually fun to recognize some commenters over time, like the reliable long- winded conservative, and the limerick guy, who is very popular!
Thank you NYT.
I enjoy the comment section and think you are doing a service by including it on articles. And it is actually fun to recognize some commenters over time, like the reliable long- winded conservative, and the limerick guy, who is very popular!
Thank you NYT.
105
I think the rapid posting of comments is the result of the artificial intelligence algorithms being used to moderate the material. I've noticed it, too.
1
There was mention of artificial intelligence taking over at the nytimes perhaps 10 days back.
1
@Bill McG and Technic ally, your replies are the definition of 'mansplaining'.
If you read my comment, you would realize I was recognizing the computer model newly being used, as reported in the article, and thanking the NYT for telling us about it..
Your replies were pure Mansplaining.. And it does often take repetition to get a mansplainer to hear you.
If you read my comment, you would realize I was recognizing the computer model newly being used, as reported in the article, and thanking the NYT for telling us about it..
Your replies were pure Mansplaining.. And it does often take repetition to get a mansplainer to hear you.
2
Great work! Hard work: Moderators reading under time-pressure is the modern equivalent of the quality assurance process once common to factories: a visual review of comments/products to ensure a standard--but in the case of the Times, one that encourages wide variations.
However, please bring comment numbers back! Numbers will increase the metrics and quality of comment reads. Imagine visiting New York, looking for a residence that had no numbered address, only longitudinal/latitudinal coordinates. It would make finding a place infinitely more difficult.
The same holds true for the 12,000 daily comments received and published online: comments in the middle stack have no easy way of being found, referred to, or bookmarked. If I am reading comments, it's hard to find where I left off. If I want to make a water cooler (or text or email) reference, I am deprived of an easy shorthand; read #1287 or #642. If #1135 is a buried jewel of writing and clarity, I am forced to send the url link. Numbered comments would allow the return of a powerful verbal shorthand and promote greater discussion of comments online and in live conversations!
Finally, thanks to the team that makes the Times comment section the nation's best public forum. And an especially big thank you to the many Times readers who read, take note, and respond to the ideas and writing in the comments, including poetry, personal witness, story context, and sometimes criticism of the Times itself!
However, please bring comment numbers back! Numbers will increase the metrics and quality of comment reads. Imagine visiting New York, looking for a residence that had no numbered address, only longitudinal/latitudinal coordinates. It would make finding a place infinitely more difficult.
The same holds true for the 12,000 daily comments received and published online: comments in the middle stack have no easy way of being found, referred to, or bookmarked. If I am reading comments, it's hard to find where I left off. If I want to make a water cooler (or text or email) reference, I am deprived of an easy shorthand; read #1287 or #642. If #1135 is a buried jewel of writing and clarity, I am forced to send the url link. Numbered comments would allow the return of a powerful verbal shorthand and promote greater discussion of comments online and in live conversations!
Finally, thanks to the team that makes the Times comment section the nation's best public forum. And an especially big thank you to the many Times readers who read, take note, and respond to the ideas and writing in the comments, including poetry, personal witness, story context, and sometimes criticism of the Times itself!
217
Walter:
I join you in your praise but wonder why a comment number is more convenient than a URL link, which takes you directly to the referenced comment, where a comment number still requires that you page through them to get to it. To me, higher on the priority list is to support indentation of responses one more level, so that responses to responses are better organized -- people constantly respond to my responders without identifying them, so one is left to wonder whether the response is to some particular response or to the original comment.
But thanks to the team that makes this all possible.
I join you in your praise but wonder why a comment number is more convenient than a URL link, which takes you directly to the referenced comment, where a comment number still requires that you page through them to get to it. To me, higher on the priority list is to support indentation of responses one more level, so that responses to responses are better organized -- people constantly respond to my responders without identifying them, so one is left to wonder whether the response is to some particular response or to the original comment.
But thanks to the team that makes this all possible.
41
One reason is that, for me anyway, the links often don't work. I'd like to see the numbers in addition to the links, yielding more ways to find a given comment.
4
I would add, reverting back to stating the time a comment was made or posted would make for easier referral rather than using the current "so many hours ago" since that changes as the day goes on.
8