I agree with the intention of the new policy, but hope that it is somewhat flexible. If applied too rigidly it could stifle honest disagreement and debate. I also find the part about noting typos odd. How about providing a readily available button to make such a comment more convenient.
At any rate, I much prefer this approach to that of CNN who just eliminated the comments section altogether rather than bother to curate out the garbage.
There is a readily available button to let us know about typos: Click on the author's name on the article page and send us an email. We appreciate the heads-up and will be quick to fix any errors.
I've noticed that the tone of the article often sets the tone for the comments section of said article. I can appreciate wanting to raise the level of dialogue in the comments section, so will the articles also reflect this heightened level of professionalism and courtesy. For example (and this is just one of many), you can't really expect an article full of references to sexual acts with barely legal teen boys (I can link the AI article if you'd like) to be filled with constructive and intellectual discussion.
Secondly, will the authors of the articles be held to the same standards in the comment section? There's at least one author here at AI who is particularly nasty and mean spirited to anyone who disagrees with him/her even when met with constructive feedback supported with evidence. When this happens it also brings the level of dialogue down a few notches and it sounds like these new rules are supposed to prevent this from happening.
I've noticed that the tone of the article often sets the tone for the comments section of said article. I can appreciate wanting to raise the level of dialogue in the comments section, so will the articles also reflect this heightened level of professionalism and courtesy. For example (and this is just one of many), you can't really expect an article full of references to sexual acts with barely legal teen boys (I can link the AI article if you'd like) to be filled with constructive and intellectual discussion.
You'll need to link to that article but forum comments should follow the guidelines no matter the content of the article. If you don't like the content of the article, you are free to ignore it or you can contact the author directly. I don't see why anyone would think that adding destructive (e.g off-topic, insulting, dismissive) commentary would somehow improve the situation.
Nobody is saying the forum dialog doesn't have to reflect the tone or content of an article but it should be able to do that within the above guidelines.
Secondly, will the authors of the articles be held to the same standards in the comment section? There's at least one author here at AI who is particularly nasty and mean spirited to anyone who disagrees with him/her even when met with constructive feedback supported with evidence. When this happens it also brings the level of dialogue down a few notches and it sounds like these new rules are supposed to prevent this from happening.
I don't recall much constructive feedback being sent in the direction of Daniel Dilger. It's normally either thinly veiled or outright abuse, which is responded to in kind. The very fact that people directly reference him by name is an indicator that the article content is not being discussed as it should be. Commenters don't do that with other authors. Daniel's articles have a more informal tone at times but they should be treated the same way as any other article and authors should be given at least the same respect as other forum members. If people try avoiding using terms like DED in their replies and actually give constructive feedback on the article content then I'm sure they'll see an improvement in the response.
You'll need to link to that article but forum comments should follow the guidelines no matter the content of the article. If you don't like the content of the article, you are free to ignore it or you can contact the author directly. I don't see why anyone would think that adding destructive (e.g off-topic, insulting, dismissive) commentary would somehow improve the situation.
Nobody is saying the forum dialog doesn't have to reflect the tone or content of an article but it should be able to do that within the above guidelines.
I don't recall much constructive feedback being sent in the direction of Daniel Dilger. It's normally either thinly veiled or outright abuse, which is responded to in kind. The very fact that people directly reference him by name is an indicator that the article content is not being discussed as it should be. Commenters don't do that with other authors. Daniel's articles have a more informal tone at times but they should be treated the same way as any other article and authors should be given at least the same respect as other forum members. If people try avoiding using terms like DED in their replies and actually give constructive feedback on the article content then I'm sure they'll see an improvement in the response.
Thanks for the response. I support the updated guidelines and they will be extremely easy and convenient for me to abide by. I hoped to hear that authors would be held to the same standard, but that's not what I'm hearing. That's sad, but doesn't come as a complete surprise either. In the end I don't envy the moderator position here at AI. Thanks for taking one (or a few hundred) for the team!
I hoped to hear that authors would be held to the same standard, but that's not what I'm hearing.
It's not as if they're going to be banned from their own site and it's pretty rare that authors break any of these guidelines. The only time I've seen an author taking issue with another member is if they have said something unreasonable or have a history of doing that.
I support the updated guidelines and they will be extremely easy and convenient for me to abide by.
You say that but just a few days ago you made the following comment:
"I don't think AI needs to worry about anyone mistaking them for a professional source of news or for a reader to miss DED's blatant bias in the topics that he writes about. AI is a trashy rumor mill site and I don't believe they pretend to be anything more then that. Sort of like the Maury Povich Show of rumor sites."
That's exactly the kind of comments the guidelines are talking about. These sort of comments have been removed for a while but the guidelines are making it clear to all members that they're not ok.
It's not as if they're going to be banned from their own site and it's pretty rare that authors break any of these guidelines. The only time I've seen an author taking issue with another member is if they have said something unreasonable or have a history of doing that.
You say that but just a few days ago you made the following comment:
"I don't think AI needs to worry about anyone mistaking them for a professional source of news or for a reader to miss DED's blatant bias in the topics that he writes about. AI is a trashy rumor mill site and I don't believe they pretend to be anything more then that. Sort of like the Maury Povich Show of rumor sites."
That's exactly the kind of comments the guidelines are talking about. These sort of comments have been removed for a while but the guidelines are making it clear to all members that they're not ok.
And I stand by the reality tv comment I made and I'm certainly not the first to make the comparison. Someone was suggesting that DED was trying to pump Apple stock as he's apparently a stock holder. I don't believe that to be the case at all. However, it appears that I was wrong in saying that AI doesn't pretend to be more then a trashy rumor mill site, akin to the Maury Povich Show, but that's another topic all together. That said, it really is easy enough to keep comments like that to myself. AI's content will speak for itself.
I've noticed that the tone of the article often sets the tone for the comments section of said article. I can appreciate wanting to raise the level of dialogue in the comments section, so will the articles also reflect this heightened level of professionalism and courtesy. For example (and this is just one of many), you can't really expect an article full of references to sexual acts with barely legal teen boys (I can link the AI article if you'd like) to be filled with constructive and intellectual discussion.
You'll need to link to that article but forum comments should follow the guidelines no matter the content of the article. If you don't like the content of the article, you are free to ignore it or you can contact the author directly. I don't see why anyone would think that adding destructive (e.g off-topic, insulting, dismissive) commentary would somehow improve the situation.
Nobody is saying the forum dialog doesn't have to reflect the tone or content of an article but it should be able to do that within the above guidelines.
Secondly, will the authors of the articles be held to the same standards in the comment section? There's at least one author here at AI who is particularly nasty and mean spirited to anyone who disagrees with him/her even when met with constructive feedback supported with evidence. When this happens it also brings the level of dialogue down a few notches and it sounds like these new rules are supposed to prevent this from happening.
I don't recall much constructive feedback being sent in the direction of Daniel Dilger. It's normally either thinly veiled or outright abuse, which is responded to in kind. The very fact that people directly reference him by name is an indicator that the article content is not being discussed as it should be. Commenters don't do that with other authors. Daniel's articles have a more informal tone at times but they should be treated the same way as any other article and authors should be given at least the same respect as other forum members. If people try avoiding using terms like DED in their replies and actually give constructive feedback on the article content then I'm sure they'll see an improvement in the response.
I hadn't realised that the shorthand DED was a problem, but I won't use it now; thanks for the heads-up.
You'll need to link to that article but forum comments should follow the guidelines no matter the content of the article. If you don't like the content of the article, you are free to ignore it or you can contact the author directly. I don't see why anyone would think that adding destructive (e.g off-topic, insulting, dismissive) commentary would somehow improve the situation.
Nobody is saying the forum dialog doesn't have to reflect the tone or content of an article but it should be able to do that within the above guidelines.
I don't recall much constructive feedback being sent in the direction of Daniel Dilger. It's normally either thinly veiled or outright abuse, which is responded to in kind. The very fact that people directly reference him by name is an indicator that the article content is not being discussed as it should be. Commenters don't do that with other authors. Daniel's articles have a more informal tone at times but they should be treated the same way as any other article and authors should be given at least the same respect as other forum members. If people try avoiding using terms like DED in their replies and actually give constructive feedback on the article content then I'm sure they'll see an improvement in the response.
Thanks for the response. I support the updated guidelines and they will be extremely easy and convenient for me to abide by. I hoped to hear that authors would be held to the same standard, but that's not what I'm hearing. That's sad, but doesn't come as a complete surprise either. In the end I don't envy the moderator position here at AI. Thanks for taking one (or a few hundred) for the team!
Pah.
You're one of the worst culprits when it comes to gratuitously abusing the authors of articles. You should be thankful that the fine moderators here have the good grace to allow you to still comment.
I hadn't realised that the shorthand DED was a problem, but I won't use it now; thanks for the heads-up.
In general, it's not good to make the discussion personal. People have personalities that contribute to their writing style so there's always some association made but if you Google for:
site:appleinsider.com ded
you can see the tone of all the comments. If it's used politely then ok but it encourages others to reply with derogatory comments in the same personal way so it's best to stick to discussing topics. At the end of the day, it's his job and I'm sure nobody else would like someone coming into their work making comments about how they are doing their job.
Thanks for reminding me to check out DroidFTW's posting history. Hardly any of his posts had been flagged but that's to be expected if people block them. I think he was a returning banned user too but it didn't show a direct match.
If AI thinks they have a problem with useless, off-topic, inflammatory, or blatant foolishness in commenting they should take a look at Yahoo, CNN, or similar new sites. It's a total waste of time to look at reader comments there. < 5% is thoughtful.
If AI thinks they have a problem with useless, off-topic, inflammatory, or blatant foolishness in commenting they should take a look at Yahoo, CNN, or similar new sites. It's a total waste of time to look at reader comments there. < 5% is thoughtful.
CNN solved that problem by eliminating comments altogether.
If AI thinks they have a problem with useless, off-topic, inflammatory, or blatant foolishness in commenting they should take a look at Yahoo, CNN, or similar new sites. It's a total waste of time to look at reader comments there. < 5% is thoughtful.
The comments on the forum are of a higher standard than most comment sections on websites, there had just been more comments recently about the quality of the site, articles etc, see the quote I referenced earlier as an example. The guidelines are just to guide people into maintaining a higher standard of commentary so that it doesn't get worse. There wasn't really a formal set of guidelines before either, they'd just been randomly posted and some were incomplete. They're pretty standard guidelines.
This would be an example of a post we all should avoid making. There's seldom a reason to belittle other members. Comments of a personal nature don't add anything.
This would be an example of a post we all should avoid making. There's seldom a reason to belittle other members. Comments of a personal nature don't add anything.
Considering that this is a thread talking about posting guidelines, it is definitely the right place to make said comment rather than in a thread about a story on the front page. I only made the comment because it seems particularly suited to the type of commentary that comes from said member.
It's very deflating to enter a thread, make a legitimate comment, and then get called a stupid idiot over and over. And then to see other members, who aren't attempting to troll, be called stupid or idiotic is rather disheartening. If these posting guidelines stop this type of behavior, then I'm all for it.
This would be an example of a post we all should avoid making. There's seldom a reason to belittle other members. Comments of a personal nature don't add anything.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. We can surely joke with one another without it being a outright insult, or attack especially amongst the regulars.
This would be an example of a post we all should avoid making. There's seldom a reason to belittle other members. Comments of a personal nature don't add anything.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. We can surely joke with one another without it being a outright insult, or attack especially amongst the regulars.
Definitely. If the board goes so PC that humor is outlawed then we have been defeated by the trolls.
Definitely. If the board goes so PC that humor is outlawed then we have been defeated by the trolls.
I've no issue with humor. Heck I've tossed a few one-liners at Soli, Island Hermit and probably even you at some point. Even TS. GTR and I use it in criss-crossing posts between us all the time. Because it keeps things from taking too much of a serious tone humor can be a great tool.
The problem occurs when a comment that might otherwise be written in jest is directed at another member you constantly butt heads with, someone you have a history of trading insults with. Then it's not necessarily perceived as humor, nor might that be the intent to begin with. It becomes just another dig intended to get a response.
But humor between regulars with no serious bone to pick, or used to keep things from becoming personal is always welcome. Just my take. No biggie.
Definitely. If the board goes so PC that humor is outlawed then we have been defeated by the trolls.
I've no issue with humor. Heck I've tossed a few one-liners at Soli, Island Hermit and probably even you at some point. Even TS. GTR and I use it in criss-crossing posts between us all the time. Because it keeps things from taking too much of a serious tone humor can be a great tool.
The problem occurs when a comment that might otherwise be written in jest is directed at another member you constantly butt heads with, someone you have a history of trading insults with. Then it's not necessarily perceived as humor, nor might that be the intent to begin with. It becomes just another dig intended to get a response.
But humor between regulars with no serious bone to pick, or used to keep things from becoming personal is always welcome. Just my take. No biggie.
Point taken. I happen to really enjoy reading TS, even when I completely disagree with him, so that probably skewed my interpretation of the comment too.
Comments
I agree with the intention of the new policy, but hope that it is somewhat flexible. If applied too rigidly it could stifle honest disagreement and debate. I also find the part about noting typos odd. How about providing a readily available button to make such a comment more convenient.
At any rate, I much prefer this approach to that of CNN who just eliminated the comments section altogether rather than bother to curate out the garbage.
There is a readily available button to let us know about typos: Click on the author's name on the article page and send us an email. We appreciate the heads-up and will be quick to fix any errors.
A few questions for the mods:
I've noticed that the tone of the article often sets the tone for the comments section of said article. I can appreciate wanting to raise the level of dialogue in the comments section, so will the articles also reflect this heightened level of professionalism and courtesy. For example (and this is just one of many), you can't really expect an article full of references to sexual acts with barely legal teen boys (I can link the AI article if you'd like) to be filled with constructive and intellectual discussion.
Secondly, will the authors of the articles be held to the same standards in the comment section? There's at least one author here at AI who is particularly nasty and mean spirited to anyone who disagrees with him/her even when met with constructive feedback supported with evidence. When this happens it also brings the level of dialogue down a few notches and it sounds like these new rules are supposed to prevent this from happening.
You'll need to link to that article but forum comments should follow the guidelines no matter the content of the article. If you don't like the content of the article, you are free to ignore it or you can contact the author directly. I don't see why anyone would think that adding destructive (e.g off-topic, insulting, dismissive) commentary would somehow improve the situation.
Nobody is saying the forum dialog doesn't have to reflect the tone or content of an article but it should be able to do that within the above guidelines.
I don't recall much constructive feedback being sent in the direction of Daniel Dilger. It's normally either thinly veiled or outright abuse, which is responded to in kind. The very fact that people directly reference him by name is an indicator that the article content is not being discussed as it should be. Commenters don't do that with other authors. Daniel's articles have a more informal tone at times but they should be treated the same way as any other article and authors should be given at least the same respect as other forum members. If people try avoiding using terms like DED in their replies and actually give constructive feedback on the article content then I'm sure they'll see an improvement in the response.
You'll need to link to that article but forum comments should follow the guidelines no matter the content of the article. If you don't like the content of the article, you are free to ignore it or you can contact the author directly. I don't see why anyone would think that adding destructive (e.g off-topic, insulting, dismissive) commentary would somehow improve the situation.
Nobody is saying the forum dialog doesn't have to reflect the tone or content of an article but it should be able to do that within the above guidelines.
I don't recall much constructive feedback being sent in the direction of Daniel Dilger. It's normally either thinly veiled or outright abuse, which is responded to in kind. The very fact that people directly reference him by name is an indicator that the article content is not being discussed as it should be. Commenters don't do that with other authors. Daniel's articles have a more informal tone at times but they should be treated the same way as any other article and authors should be given at least the same respect as other forum members. If people try avoiding using terms like DED in their replies and actually give constructive feedback on the article content then I'm sure they'll see an improvement in the response.
Thanks for the response. I support the updated guidelines and they will be extremely easy and convenient for me to abide by. I hoped to hear that authors would be held to the same standard, but that's not what I'm hearing. That's sad, but doesn't come as a complete surprise either. In the end I don't envy the moderator position here at AI. Thanks for taking one (or a few hundred) for the team!
It's not as if they're going to be banned from their own site and it's pretty rare that authors break any of these guidelines. The only time I've seen an author taking issue with another member is if they have said something unreasonable or have a history of doing that.
You say that but just a few days ago you made the following comment:
"I don't think AI needs to worry about anyone mistaking them for a professional source of news or for a reader to miss DED's blatant bias in the topics that he writes about. AI is a trashy rumor mill site and I don't believe they pretend to be anything more then that. Sort of like the Maury Povich Show of rumor sites."
That's exactly the kind of comments the guidelines are talking about. These sort of comments have been removed for a while but the guidelines are making it clear to all members that they're not ok.
It's not as if they're going to be banned from their own site and it's pretty rare that authors break any of these guidelines. The only time I've seen an author taking issue with another member is if they have said something unreasonable or have a history of doing that.
You say that but just a few days ago you made the following comment:
"I don't think AI needs to worry about anyone mistaking them for a professional source of news or for a reader to miss DED's blatant bias in the topics that he writes about. AI is a trashy rumor mill site and I don't believe they pretend to be anything more then that. Sort of like the Maury Povich Show of rumor sites."
That's exactly the kind of comments the guidelines are talking about. These sort of comments have been removed for a while but the guidelines are making it clear to all members that they're not ok.
And I stand by the reality tv comment I made and I'm certainly not the first to make the comparison. Someone was suggesting that DED was trying to pump Apple stock as he's apparently a stock holder. I don't believe that to be the case at all. However, it appears that I was wrong in saying that AI doesn't pretend to be more then a trashy rumor mill site, akin to the Maury Povich Show, but that's another topic all together. That said, it really is easy enough to keep comments like that to myself. AI's content will speak for itself.
I hadn't realised that the shorthand DED was a problem, but I won't use it now; thanks for the heads-up.
Pah.
You're one of the worst culprits when it comes to gratuitously abusing the authors of articles. You should be thankful that the fine moderators here have the good grace to allow you to still comment.
[inappropriate and uninstigated post]
Moderators, is this the type of post that this thread is saying will not be allowed now? I believe it falls under the category mentioned in the OP as:
In general, it's not good to make the discussion personal. People have personalities that contribute to their writing style so there's always some association made but if you Google for:
site:appleinsider.com ded
you can see the tone of all the comments. If it's used politely then ok but it encourages others to reply with derogatory comments in the same personal way so it's best to stick to discussing topics. At the end of the day, it's his job and I'm sure nobody else would like someone coming into their work making comments about how they are doing their job.
Thanks for reminding me to check out DroidFTW's posting history. Hardly any of his posts had been flagged but that's to be expected if people block them. I think he was a returning banned user too but it didn't show a direct match.
If AI thinks they have a problem with useless, off-topic, inflammatory, or blatant foolishness in commenting they should take a look at Yahoo, CNN, or similar new sites. It's a total waste of time to look at reader comments there. < 5% is thoughtful.
The comments on the forum are of a higher standard than most comment sections on websites, there had just been more comments recently about the quality of the site, articles etc, see the quote I referenced earlier as an example. The guidelines are just to guide people into maintaining a higher standard of commentary so that it doesn't get worse. There wasn't really a formal set of guidelines before either, they'd just been randomly posted and some were incomplete. They're pretty standard guidelines.
Is this the Tallest Skill clause?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Considering that this is a thread talking about posting guidelines, it is definitely the right place to make said comment rather than in a thread about a story on the front page. I only made the comment because it seems particularly suited to the type of commentary that comes from said member.
It's very deflating to enter a thread, make a legitimate comment, and then get called a stupid idiot over and over. And then to see other members, who aren't attempting to troll, be called stupid or idiotic is rather disheartening. If these posting guidelines stop this type of behavior, then I'm all for it.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. We can surely joke with one another without it being a outright insult, or attack especially amongst the regulars.
This would be an example of a post we all should avoid making. There's seldom a reason to belittle other members. Comments of a personal nature don't add anything.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. We can surely joke with one another without it being a outright insult, or attack especially amongst the regulars.
Definitely. If the board goes so PC that humor is outlawed then we have been defeated by the trolls.
The problem occurs when a comment that might otherwise be written in jest is directed at another member you constantly butt heads with, someone you have a history of trading insults with. Then it's not necessarily perceived as humor, nor might that be the intent to begin with. It becomes just another dig intended to get a response.
But humor between regulars with no serious bone to pick, or used to keep things from becoming personal is always welcome. Just my take. No biggie.
Definitely. If the board goes so PC that humor is outlawed then we have been defeated by the trolls.
I've no issue with humor. Heck I've tossed a few one-liners at Soli, Island Hermit and probably even you at some point. Even TS. GTR and I use it in criss-crossing posts between us all the time. Because it keeps things from taking too much of a serious tone humor can be a great tool.
The problem occurs when a comment that might otherwise be written in jest is directed at another member you constantly butt heads with, someone you have a history of trading insults with. Then it's not necessarily perceived as humor, nor might that be the intent to begin with. It becomes just another dig intended to get a response.
But humor between regulars with no serious bone to pick, or used to keep things from becoming personal is always welcome. Just my take. No biggie.
Point taken. I happen to really enjoy reading TS, even when I completely disagree with him, so that probably skewed my interpretation of the comment too.