Should it be possible to restrict comments on your work? Either ban them altogether, ban certain users from commenting, restrict comments to friends only, delete any you don't like, or whatever?
It's not an academic question - you could see some or all of this very soon.
My feeling is - bad idea. It would change the culture of ABC beyond recognition. If someone just wants to display and store their work there's plenty of free web hosting available.
What do you think?
Ewan | April 30, 2009 - 06:43
My feelings are as yours: as someone who has - on occasion - received 'the Full Mac', I still believe that if you don't want comments warts-and-all, you should post somewhere else or set up your own web-page.
poetjude | April 30, 2009 - 06:45
I agree with FTSE. We had a rather heated discussion here a couple of years ago after someone was offended by critique of their work. It was pointed out that a person shouldn't publish online if they don't want comments or want to restrict them to friends and family who are going to massage the ego. If that's the aim then why not write in a notebook to show friends and family?
We are an online community and restricting comments and thus reducing the site to a store and show server reduces the interaction of the community.
jude
tcook | April 30, 2009 - 08:04
My feeling is that it should be possible for people to turn off the comment boxes. Not many will do it - and some may want to do it for a short time. Writers' egos are delicate things and sometimes we just want to go to a warm place for a bit and suck our thumbs.
I don't think that many will take the option - and if they do, then we'll put them back as compulsory.
How's that for a compromise?
FTSE100 | April 30, 2009 - 11:15
It looks as if the way of the future is for us all to be able to delete comments on our own work. Tony has spoken! For the moment you can't, the feature I put up last night was just a quick demo, but it will be back. We'll see how it works out.
bukharinwasmyfa... | April 30, 2009 - 12:22
I think it's fine for people to have the option disable comments - as in, not have comments at all.
I'd be concerned if people were able to go through deleting specific comments that they disliked while keeping all the others.
I hope that isn't an option that's going to be offered.
FTSE100 | April 30, 2009 - 14:05
I'm afraid that deleting any unwanted comment is now the favoured option. Petition Tony if you want it otherwise.
chuck | April 30, 2009 - 15:39
"I'm afraid that deleting any unwanted comment is now the favoured option."
Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion FTSE but I hope you're wrong. Deleting would only be useful for stupid personal attacks and vicious negative criticism and I don't see any of that here.
bukharinwasmyfa... | April 30, 2009 - 15:58
"I'm afraid that deleting any unwanted comment is now the favoured option. Petition Tony if you want it otherwise."
Well, the position Tony's stating (above):"My feeling is that it should be possible for people to turn off the comment boxes."
Seems fine.
Are you sure the position now to let people remove specific comments and keep others?
Who's that option favoured by? I don't see how it's in the interests of anyone other than batty egotists - who I don't really think need to be encouraged to post here.
People who are genuinely shy and lacking confidence could just turn comments off.
FTSE100 | April 30, 2009 - 16:18
You don't half love to argue, buk. Tony e-mailed me after posting here. He said, "I now think that the 'delete comment' bit being available to all is the sensible way forward." He has now written again and... well, whatever I say you won't believe me!
Tony has now re-thought and left the decision to me, and since I'm a democratic kinda guy I'll go with the majority. (So long as they agree with me, of course!) For my part I think comments are an essential part of ABC and I'd rather leave things as they are, but I would settle for the 'comments either on or off' option. Does anyone disagree?
chuck | April 30, 2009 - 16:40
Sorry FTSE if I misunderstood. I guess we're talking about two things 1) Deleting comments others have made that one doesn't like for some reason. 2) Choosing whether or not to let others make comments. I thought Tony favoured option 2. I only know of one poster here who doesn't want public comments so I guess it won't make much difference.
bukharinwasmyfa... | April 30, 2009 - 16:46
"He has now written again and... well, whatever I say you won't believe me!"
I wasn't suggesting you were lying, I was suggesting that the position - however arrived at - was both wrong and a change from the previously stated position.
Quite happy with your current suggestion.
FTSE100 | April 30, 2009 - 16:50
Absolutely. Tony originally wanted option 2 because of repeated requests from he-who-shall-not-be-named. Having seen the demo I put up last night, and after posting here, he changed his mind and went for option 1. Now he is undecided. I am proposing option 2 as the best compromise. It won't be done for a few days yet, none of the changes will be irrevocable, and all opinions count.
chuck | April 30, 2009 - 16:58
Option 1 will change the character of the site and not for the better IMO. Option 2 is clearly the most democratic solution. Eagerly awaiting word from tony.
2Lou | April 30, 2009 - 18:14
Would definitely vote for 'comments on or off' and not the 'delete the ones you don't like' option. I think the 'delete' option could become frustrating for those who take the time to offer constructive advice.
~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk
chuck | April 30, 2009 - 18:58
Frustrating indeed 2Lou. It would have an inhibiting effect. Let’s say for example I leave a comment on someone’s work and it gets deleted. That would annoy me. Not enough to cause any planetary realignments perhaps but I would certainly not be commenting again. I might even think that person was being oversensitive.
It would be nice to hear the arguments in favour of the 'delete the ones you don't like' option. Or would that mean more public exposure than the proponent(s) can handle?
lenchenelf | April 30, 2009 - 19:11
I agree, for those who read and make comment, it may add another dimension of hesitance before commiting themselves to the effort; but as I mentioned earlier today (since deleted) and Chuck has noted above, in the unfortunate eventuality (ee, ah've become Moffat-like :-) ) that intemperate personal bandinage should ensue, it might be a useful tool; however, tools may become weapons.
Hopefully, a simple on-off choice might satisfy whoever is unhappy with the present set-up?
andrea | April 30, 2009 - 21:32
Totally disagree with option 1 for reasons stated above. Option 2 is fine I think. But why not expand it even further, make a wider choice (we've had this on UKA for years): i.e.
Critique level for this piece:
Critique/comments welcome
No Critique/comments please
Advanced Critique Encouraged
Critique Discouraged
You can't turn comments off, but can state your preference (and then no-one can whinge :-))
Choice Is Good...
http://www.ukauthors.com
http://www.ukapress.com
FTSE100 | April 30, 2009 - 21:55
And maybe a No Skunking option?
2Lou | April 30, 2009 - 23:16
Following on from Andrea's suggestion... if it were possible (as in, not too much additional techie hassle) maybe an 'allow comments' with just two sub-selections of either 'feedback welcome' or 'feedback welcome but no literary critique required.' The latter would serve those who want feedback on their recorded experiences rather than their writing skills (and, of course, suitable for those who believe they're beyond literary criticism...)
It could stop a shit load of arguments whilst still supporting the varied reasons people post here. Some do post purely to express themselves without any aspirations to literary accomplishment - both aspects are valuable I think.
~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk
FTSE100 | April 30, 2009 - 23:37
Here's the rub - you can express your preferences all you like but, until computers become a lot brainier, there's no way to enforce them. The commenter has to voluntarily take them into account.
Perhaps there could be some icons representing acceptance of (say) crit, comments, skunking, and the same crossed through to represent the 'no thanks' option, if you see what I mean. I'm even confusing myself!
tcook | May 1, 2009 - 09:02
And me too! Another night's sleep on this and I think we should have 'comments on' or 'comments off' - and that's it. It all gets too ruddy complicated otherwise. Give people choice and they just run amok. Keep it simple!
Sean McNulty | May 6, 2009 - 04:28
As has already been said, this is a public forum on the internet, so one would have to be rather immature and misguided to consider it a haven for one's genius. Since I've been adding my writing to ABC, I've found that the most vital and stimulating aspect of the site is the 'commenting'. I'm drawn to ABC perhaps because it's more about reading than it is about writing. A comment, whether positive or not, is validation for any writer, for it's a reaction to one's work, hence an account of someone's reading. Why write at all if no-one will read? That's the magic of this website, in my opinion.
Also, if some lunatic came along and commented on one of my stories in such a way as 'You're shit, cocksucker!' a la youtube, I would simply laugh it off, knowing that I've confidently exposed myself to such idiocy in exchange for the manifold rewards.