My post, Microsoft for Mac, is now nearing the 100 comments. Unfortunately only about a dozen remarks have anything to do with the subject! Sometime during December, the same thing happened - I passed the 100 mark, not because of the subject, but because of in-fighting.
As many will remember, there were frequent discussions on the Telegraph blogs, about 'blue pencilling' - readers/writers complained that some of their comments were struck off for no apparent reason - but as no-one else other than the writer of the post and the guards at the Telly saw the remark, it was impossible to comment on the rights or wrongs of having a posting censored.
I make no pretence to write a political, intellectual, cultural blog. I do not want to get involved in various arguments that can be too sensitive ... you have all seen that my blog is just snippets of my everyday life, and I would think that a large majority of women who do blog, write the same kind of thing, or so it would seem from the blogs I have read.
So I would like your opinion on a couple of things when the blog fills with in-fighting.
1. Should I not allow 'Anonymous' comments? (But the Anonymous in question can easily type in any old name...)
2. Should I strike off all comments that personally attack another blogger?
3. If doing so, should I explain why?
4. If you are an anonymous blogger, would you continue blogging if you had to use a name? Not necessarily your real name but 'another name'?
It would be interesting to have your feed-back, but try and keep it short and I will, in this particular case, strike off any personal attacks towards another blogger as the discussions on my Mac posting over the last couple of days have been getting rather heated, to say the least!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I'm pleased that you have raised this as a topic, Louise, and I hope you get plenty of useful responses.
Re the "anonymous" option, I take your earlier point regarding the shrinking violet, albeit a somewhat rare species in this day and age. And writing as "anonymous" can be prudent when dealing with dangerous topics, such as Islamic extremism. But why allow an "anonymous" onto your blog whose sole aim is to attack other bloggers ? That's just a poison pen letter, and should be zapped, inserting perhaps a brief editorial comment, eg " In the interests of preserving orderly debate, I have decided reluctantly to delete the previous comment. The author is invited to rephrase and re-submit, avoiding language that may give offence"
Speaking of reluctance, this comment is my last to a personal blog. I've made no secret in the past of my preference for the professionally-moderated MSM blog, eg the Telly's, in spite of all my well-publicized gripes ...
The kind of free-for-all that occurs on personal blogs, at least in their present state of evolution, is simply not for me. I blog essentially to discuss issues, and do not, as you know, take kindly to being made the subject of personal attacks, even if I am a tedious old windbag, given to expressing unfashionable views.
So its farewell to you all. It's time to end this chapter of my life and move on.
Adieu, mes amis.
Thank you for your comment, Colin.
I think your original standpoint (as an aside, it's Colin Randall's, too) remains the correct one, Louise -- only expunge a comment where it's either in breach of the libel laws or personally offensive to you.
The anonymice are also going to be with us. As you say, it's all too easy to use a pseudonym.
One of the beauties of a blog (for me, anyway) is that it can veer way off-topic and still remain interesting. I like following the prevailing winds and seeing where they blow.
Yes, infighting when it happens can get nasty. But, realistically, it doesn't happen all that often. We all used to complain about the Telegraph's sometimes arbitrary use of the blue pencil. I believe the same complaints would be leveled at you if you started censoring comments and that you would stand to lose more than you gained.
Chocolates and Cuckoos is a good, lively, interesting blog. I don't think of it as a "woman's blog;" it stands or falls by its own merits. And I believe it's strongest just the way it is.
Thanks. Bill.
I think you should leave the anonymous comments, Louise and only delete them if they are extremely offensive - pornographic or violent, for example, or insulting to me, Gigi.
Anyway, I enjoy reading all this banter...too much of a coward to join in, of course but it's teaching me a great deal about human nature :-)
Thanks for your comment, Gigi - the problem is that if I delete horrid messages addressed to you, the others will come down on me like a ton of bricks, won't they?! Join in and have a bitch every now and then - it doesn't happen often, and it seems to clear the blogger waves!
If you'll forgive the P.S., Louise, I think Gigi's attitude is entirely right: to regard it all as banter. Once you start taking it too seriously, you're sunk.
No, I have never taken blogging 'seriously' - for me it is a bit of fun, makes me waste loads of time, and keeps the few remaining grey cells vaguely active!
What 'worries' me is that others don't basically see blogging in the same way, and seem to get very upset, and I would just hate it that my blog made people unhappy.
Oh dear! I am wimpy, aren't I?
At risk of getting personal, Louise, it's really only one person who ever gets upset. And he appears to have withdrawn.
Ah, so that's why Colin has not been commenting on my blog lately. And there was me thinking it had something to do with me...
Phew!
I agree with Bill. Keep unless libellous or personally offensive to you.
No, no, Sarah - nothing to do with you! I understand that Colin avoids my blog as things were a little hairy, but I don't understand why he doesn't post anywhere else. Perhaps he has jst stopped blogging completely, or he has gone back to the Telly...
We shall never know, as he has gone!
Wanna bet?
Nope!
He cannot hold it! Quickly Louise, Get BT into diapers, the good mum that you are.
Isn't this where we came in?
Anonymous - enough...
We have already had this non-discussion and it's boring and very repetitive.
Bill does not need defending, but I would just like to say he is not the only one who 'dribbles' over the blog, as you call it. Personally I have comments on my blogs from the 'regulars' most days and I add, or try to, post on their blogs most days.
When I post early in the morning, invariably the first remark of the day comes/came from ColiB, Bill's remarks appear around 2or3 pm with the time difference. I assume the Anonymous that you know this too, and are sitting there at your computer waiting for his first remarks to hit the screen.
If you have a personal problem with Bill, then I suggest you take it up with him - his e-mail address is freely available. Of course you will no longer be anonymous unless you set up a hotmail account under a false name, and your splutterings will not be for all to read.
Difficult choice, isn't it?
Thanks, Louise! Personally, I prefer to think of myself as a compulsive communicator rather than a dribbler. But whatever.
If I do hear from anonymous (anonymously, or otherwise) by e-mail, I'll share the splutterings here so we can all have the benefit of his/her wisdom.
BT is not the only one who dribbles over this blog?
Then why let him dribble.
So...
I edit out Bill's comments.
I edit out your comments.
I edit out my comments.
I edit out all comments.
ATTENTION, THIS BLOG WILL AUTO-DESTRUCT IN THREE SECONDS
Post a Comment