07/02/2015
Some readers have noted we have recently become more aggressive in policing comments. The decision to install Disqus was to make it more convenient for people to join in the debate and to reduce overheads on comment administration. In that respect it has been successful. Long time readers will know we had a comments forum which we did not police as vigorously because, in the main, we didn't need to. The very act of signing up for an account was enough deterrence against drive-by commenting.
Because it is now more convenient we have had an upsurge in commenters depositing their opinions in the same way dogs pee up lamp posts which means our moderation policy has to be as much quality control as anything else. Our first test is "does this add value?", secondly "Is it original? Many are not. We've been in this blogging game for a decade or more and we have seen every variation of troll. More than anything, they're boring.
As much as this blog is a news and opinion site, it is also a reference database we often use to refer back to issues the last time they appeared in the news cycle. Quality comments stand the test of time and are a valued resource. Chatter and invective motivated by party agendas is merely clutter which detracts from what we have always tried to to do: - add to, and inform the debate.
While we have no particular love of
The Guardian, they show what a properly moderated debate platform can offer, and it is because quality moderation the standard of comment there is very often better than the content - and comments become part of its value. What we won't stand for is personal abuse directed at either us or our valued contributors, nor will be tolerate half-witted anonymous ogres and Ukip trolls. They add nothing to the debate and waste our time. Nor do we owe these people either a platform or an explanation. For the kind of garbage they post, there are plenty of unpoliced platforms where their chatter is welcome.
Those wishing to be insulated from views with which they may disagree have
Breitbart, where any opposing views are very rapidly dispensed with. If you want childish prattle,
The Commentator has made a bid to corner the market - where, evidently, moderators work without quality guidelines. Idle chatter suits their platform and matches their low grade material.
With that end of the market covered, we are keen to host a high quality debate - in fact, there wouldn't be much point writing a blog if we weren't interested in comments. Readers are free to disagree with us - and in fact some of the best comments over the years have opposed our views and have formed the basis of new content, stimulated debate of fresh territory. They have even on occasion changed our minds.
That said, quality is far more important than quantity. We see no value in quantity since, as far as we can see, there is no direct relationship between hits
and number of comments. They are very much independent variables.
As for Ukipist tolls, this blog really isn't for you. We have an interest in detail, nuance and technicality. Very rarely are there straightforward answers to difficult questions and Ukip's hostility to those seeking better answers is simply a distraction. To date, that we know of, we are the only blog which has ever received a direct ministerial reply in the comments. That is the standard we demand of ourselves and our commentators, and we seek to promote a comment environment where that level of debate is possible.
It would be nice to have a higher circulation but we have consistently proved we numbers don't shape the debate. We can do that without the echo-chamber efforts of tribalists. Consequently, their contributions are a matter of supreme indifference. We don't even understand what they gain from coming here, because they don't come here to be challenged or informed. All they do is waste their time and ours.
We are happy for them to waste their own time, but ours is valuable. We would prefer them to go elsewhere.
