Comments to posts has been an ongoing issue here at CU bLAWg. Frequent visitors know what I'm referring to. I recently came across a new program/company that offers a potential solution to the commenting problems that have cropped up in the past. Intense Debate allows anonymous comments, which is extremely important to many readers. It also allows people to create an account and for others to "grade" that person's comments, not just on this blog, but others.
In my mind, this would be ideal for this site. First, new users (1Ls?) would often be able to determine that a certain person (2L or 3L) knows - or doesn't know- what they're talking about. Second, it facilitates people to see what other blogs or other sites fellow CU bLAWg readers are visiting and commenting on. Finally, Intense Debate allows commenters to be notified when someone else responds to their comment. You can read more about Intense Debate here, and see what it looks like at Brad Feld's blog. He's a well-known venture capitalist in Boulder.
If others agree, I'd suggest Rice Eater or another current administrator install Intense Debate on this site. Although no one actually comments on my site, I recently incorporated it over at my blog. If y'all have problems installing it, please let me know and I'm happy to help out.
UPDATE: I've added a picture of how the comments are laid out with Intense Debate. As I wrote in my comment to this post, the program allows anon comments. It is a total non-issue. One additional point is that moving to Intense Debate facilitates more organization in comments. For example, if comment #1 is about X topic, and comment #2 is about Y topic, then comment #3 can be on X topic and shown as such (demonstrated by the pic above with the "Oh the drama" comment). This would eliminate all the confusion on which person was responding to what.
33 comments:
Sounds like Patriot Act-type surveillance to me. I don't want people keeping tabs on what websites I visit. Don't fix a system that ain't broke.
I am not sure about the proposed new system- but one thing is for sure- the existing one IS broken. So...anything that will improve it will be better than the status quo.
How can you say the current system is broken? There was no anon posting all summer, and virtually no interest in the blawg. No one wrote. Now, there's been two weeks of anon posting, and tons of interesting discussions with imput from all sorts of people, and no abuse. I don't know what's broken. Etiquette got bad last spring, no doubt, but even that wasn't horrible. If "one thing is for sure," it's that people need to stop worrying about potential abuse of the blawg, and about taking insults/disagreements too seriously, and accept the blawg for what it is: a forum for discussion, nothing more, nothing less.
Seriously? The anon posting is a 'problem?' Other than pure entertainment value this site serves no other purpose than for CU Law students to bitch. More than half the students at the school don't even know it exists. If someone doesn't like what is being posted they can either get over it or stop reading.
Are we really that delusional to think that the blog really means something?
Therein lies the "problem" that I see with the blog- that's what it is: a bitching outlet with no responsibility. Free speech is not dependent on anonymous comments on a blog. You can say whatever you want, but stand up by your statements and opinions. Anonymous postings are very important for some, but what RK is proposing will hardly take away from that. It would, however, add a little more accountability.
This conversation is old. Again, we have the irony of an annoymous poster (Anon 8:47) attacking annoymous posting--likely for the same reason that we all want to keep it: namely, because this anon wants to have his ideas judged on their merits, not on our opinion of his ideas based on his previous posts. It's simply amazing how people can't give up on the idea of controlling this blog--let people talk, and ignore them if you don't like what they're saying.
The answer to bad speech is more speech -- for the sake of the blog don't make anonymous blogging any less anonymous than it is now.
I wouldn't participate if it were, as I've had concerns about the quasi-anonymity and lack-of-transparency in how the blog has been managed in the past. I'll post when anon-comments are enabled, but won't go to the trouble/risk of creating an alias just for the sake of participating in CUbLAWg.
Intense Debate appears to inject onto blogs something akin to eBay buyer/seller or Amazon reviewer reputations, and I see some value in RK's suggestion to associate reputation-based user-rankings on contributions to blogs in general BUT think it is overkill for this blog because we are:
1) a relatively small blog that...
2) has a much larger real-world analog where a non-virtual reputation market thrives...
3) where -real- discussions of important day-to-day issues are already inhibited enough.
If a reader doesn't appreciate the bitching-niche that this blog seems to fill for some, then don't read those topics. Even better, contribute something at least as compelling to generate a relatively greater amount of non-bitching discussion.
If alternative topics don't gain the same traction as the bitching-topics, let's accept that bitching may be the primary value of this blog, or the blog has attracted more than its fair share of CU Law malcontents.
And if there are too many malcontents? Get more people to join -- it doesn't take much to throw up posters on the bulletin boards or slip small notices into mailboxes -- student groups do that all the time, and there is no good reason why it hasn't been done for the blog, if this is that much of a concern.
Keep in mind that it's relatively easy to add technology to a blog, but much harder to attract and retain people/ideas/discussion.
Anon 1:48 is exactly right. I have no idea who he/she is (practitioner? professor? student?), but this is precisely the quality of poster we don’t want to scare away by disabling anon comments, or by "grading" them.
All nine comments, including this one, are from the same person.
I dunno, anon 3:32. I, personally, prefer shorter posts. Enough with the essays. Just say something sassy or funny and be done with it.
I'm not trying to reignite the same tired debate on anonymous comments. There is clearly a demand for such a vehicle on this site. I thought my post was relatively clear on the issue: Intense Debate ALLOWS anon comments. As one anon commenter observed, it enables a reputation "grade" for users who sign up. It does NOT require anyone to sign up; you only do that if you want to. I've edited the post with an update.
Thanks for the comments and clarification, RK. I accept that anon posting is available under Intense Debate, but I still like the old system--both for rational reasons, and irrational. First, none of us really knows Intense Debate (except for you), and that makes me nervous, since I don’t know anything about its anon policy. As Anon 1:48 made clear, a lot of posters are skittish about posting anonymously, and trading a system we know for one we do not could scare away some of our best posters (like Anon 1:48, who I assume is either a professor or practitioner, and whose opinions we should be encouraging). To be honest, I don’t trust it, either, even if that is irrational. In addition--and although it may be similarly irrational--all the features of Intense Debate seem to me, at least, to make it less attractive; it’s a classic case of “feature creep,” and I think all the functionalities in-and-of themselves might scare away people; the current blog is easy to use and understand, and it has a certain sleek, clean simplicity that is very appealing--let’s not replace a straightforward Google for a suped-up AOL. Finally, Intense Debate appears to be in Beta, which is always potentially scary; let’s wait a few months, and see how it fares elsewhere, such as on your blog.
I would stop blogging under my real name if people were rating me. Sounds a bit too middle school for my taste. Because although I may think that what I have to say is important, someone may not agree leaving me feel ostracized. Instead I would fade into the wind and become yet another anon blogger. (not that i post that much anyhow)
Thats my two cents.
Show me one case of someone being blacklisted for voicing a reasonable opinion and I'll side with the anon posters.
Anon 11:04: All valid points. I certainly understand the hesitation, and completely agree with the observations by Anon 1:48, especially this blog filling the bitch-niche arena.
Based on RK's latest post and other comments, I suggest the admins add the Intense Debate feature for at least 1-2 weeks (just pull a command-decision - don't try to reach consensus on this one).
We current bloggers spend a week or two playing around on it, and try out the anon features to confirm they provide the same degree of quick/easy anonymity as the current blog. If not, the admins remove ID.
But if it does, one or more of us put up posters/mailbox notes around Wolf encouraging more people to join the blog. Assuming ID doesn't make initial participation too cumbersome, the newcomers won't be turned off by any changes ID brings to the interface we all know and love (they won't know better). We are the only ones who will see the difference, but remember, we are a small fraction of the potential audience this blog -could- engage...so let's just roll with it for a bit.
Adding people will help dilute any malcontents/etc who get on our nerves, and as the size of the group grows, we might all begin to appreciate the tools that ID would add.
Besides -- if this is a Boulder start-up, let's support the home team! They might employ one of us someday.
So I say, give ID a chance, and lets talk more about it after 2 weeks trial/error.
- anon 1:48
P.S. cadoner, I'm so sorry for the essay, but I save my shorter posts for toilet stalls. For sassy & funny material, see the far toilet in 2nd floor mens room. Also check the middle stall in 1st floor womens room.
I'm good with trying ID. (I have admin privileges, but since I wasn't the one 'left in charge' I hesitate to do it unilaterally.)
And in a note of synchronicity, my word verification tonight was Waggs...
Hey cadoner:
I am perpetually blacklisted on this blog because my opinions are not popular.
By the way, I really do enjoy the commonly held idea that I represent everything bad about law school. Despite allegations to the contrary, I share every outline and class note I have ever been asked to share. I am a top student (grade-wise) at the law-school, and I walk among you every day (meaning I see all the same bull shit you do). Lastly, just because I can condense my comments without repeating the same point over and over does not mean I have nothing to add to the blog - it means you have diarrhea of the mouth.
P.S. The comments idea is a good one - I vote yes.
Mush, I love you like a brother or sister. Whichever you are.
Didn't RK graduate? Isn't this blog for students? Doesn't he have a job? A life? I guess not.
"Boo" on the personal attacks
Second the boo on personal attacks!
Make this a third official BOO on the personal attacks. From the beginning of this blog (and I was here then, a 0L at the time) pre-students, students, and alumni, as well as faculty and staff and others concerned about CU Law, have been welcomed.
Bad form, Anon 12:51.
...yet somehow the king of personal attacks now has posting privileges. What's up with that?
For personal attacks, please see http://cubalwg.blogspot.com/
No more personal attacks, please . . . I don't want anon posting turned off again.
PLEASE don't force me to get a Google account and have yet *another* email address.
Anon 7:21: you stink.
Anyone feel like making some mushroom soup?
:)
Anon 9:08:
I don't know about Mushroom Soup, but I can tell you that your lady sure liked my Clam Chowder.
I can tell you that your lady sure liked my Clam Chowder.
Was it her snoring that gave it away?
No; it was her moaning.
Ohh...that sound. I hate to break it to you, but that was my Yellow Lab. I suspect you must have also been scratching that spot on her belly...as you now know, she really digs that too.
Anon: I would keep MS away from your dog. He/She/It impregnated my border collie last semester.
Post a Comment