For most web-surfers, one’s inbox is the focal point for spam, but let’s be honest: the internet itself is one giant hodge-podge of spam. The very ease of setting up accounts at most every portal and site out there makes for both convenience and interconnectivity, though it just as easily creates a spawning pool for the unsavory word-vomit that literally covers the cyberspace landscape. This is the very reason that e-mail services have incorporated spam filters, and why notable blogging suites have done same. Arguably, the lack of this feature-set is one more reason that services like Blogspot foster what is now commonly referred to as splogs.
We’ve never used Blogspot as a blogging outlet – we’ve merely experimented with its feature-set. From our understanding, we gauge that for a Google-owned service, Blogspot is rather weak in features compared to its competition, begging the question as to why so many individuals capable of using a hosted-blogging package like WordPress rely on Blogspot instead. This is particularly notable when Blogspot users decide that they cannot keep up with comment spam, which really means that they prefer to delete comments before the comments are posted, instead of afterward. Preferential aside, the real problem with comment moderation is not only that it’s slow (thereby artificially slowing community growth), but because it’s easily abused.
While comment moderation may keep spam out, it’s a tool often used to keep out differences of opinion as well. If blogs are the new journalism (or at least, the new op-ed), then it should follow that comments are ideal for fact-checking, followup, and opposing view-points. If blog authors conveniently abuse a comment moderation mechanism to silence opposing opinions, they’re effectively clumping these view-points into the same category as spam. With that mind-set, why should a commenter (who cares enough about the blog to weigh-in) ever comment again?
Comment moderation is a sinister mistress – it’s significantly subjective when employed against gray-area spam, but moreso when used against non-spam. Sinister is comment moderation’s invisibility – blog authors can simply refuse to publish comments, thereby giving the appearance that no opposing viewpoints among a readership exist. But when this does become apparent, our position is simple: either ignore the author’s inaccuracies or arguments entirely, else comment about them elsewhere. Anything else is simply exposing oneself to an unfair argument: if a blog author can selectively refuse to post a comment, especially in an ongoing discussion, then the author has the advantage of always being heard when the commenter does not.
Not only is comment moderation unfair to the audience, but it’s disrespectful to them as well. This is particularly true in the case of an ongoing discussion thread which, moderation initially appearing objective, suddenly morphs into the opposite, when a commenter is suddenly silenced. If a blog author feels she does not want to invest the time in continuing an argument, she could just as easily bow out of the discussion herself. Silencing the opposition, especially without noting such publicly, is simply poor etiquette, and sends the message that readers should either not comment at all, else stop reading the blog entirely, because their opinions, dare they not agree with the author, will be forcibly unheard.
To bloggers across cyberspace, we ask that comment moderation be deactivated. If no suitable anti-spam mechanism exists to fight comment spam thereafter, then you should move on to a blogging package does. In truth, if you’re capable of setting up a blog on Blogspot, then you’re capable of setting one up at WordPress; comment moderation is not an excuse for Blogspot’s lack of features – better solutions exist. If you believe this transition to be too time-consuming, then we argue that you simply don’t care enough about the quality of your blog, else don’t respect your readers enough to foster a thriving community around them.
Similar Posts:
- Why we removed on-site comments. – We’ve thrown this around in our head for some time now, and we finally decided to pull the trigger a…
- More on blogger’s fora. – When I brought up the trend of World of Warcraft (WoW) bloggers adding fora to their sites, I commen…
- Hunter blogs: welcome to 2004. – A few days ago, Xizang became another World of Warcraft (WoW) blogger to point out the proliferation…
{ 3 comments }
You were moderated not to silence your opinion, but because you continued to bring my personal and private life into an argument. You seem to not understand, despite repeated attempts by me, that when you use a friend’s (in this case my) life, house, lifestyle, as an example of what is wrong or what not to do, you insult them. Again, I did not moderate you to silence your opinion, I moderated you for being personally insulting and disrespectful to me. I guess the good news is that if you continue to use a friend as a negative example, quite quickly you will likely find yourself without friends and therefore have no one to insult. Problem solved.
Personally insulting because we disagree with you, apparently. Not for an ad hominem attack, which is pretty much the only good justification for comment moderation.
Why did you bother identifying yourself as the subject anyway if not simply to create confrontation? Besides, how about a little less hypocrisy, considering you referenced a friend in a similar manner just last week?
MODERATE THIS, SINNER!
Comments on this entry are closed.