99% of the anons were unpublishable. Those that were, our moderator found herself approving the same people over and over again. Facebook Connecters could get in without auditioning, with inevitable results. It's also not fair to make some people try hard to audition while other people get a free pass because they have a sexy API. Going forward, if you want to comment on Consumerist, you must register for an account.
Whether you're registering for the first time or a current commenter, you should also take this opportunity to add a valid email address to your profile for password recovery. When we leave Gawker's and go on to our own platform later this year, you'll only be able to keep your commenter name, profile, and history if you're able to respond to a re-registration email that we will have to send out. Go to "Profile" -> "edit my profile" to add yours.
I'm sure disabling anon and Facebook Connect will piss off and thrill in equal measure, but I think in the end that raising the bar for entry will improve the quality of the conversation inside.
(Photo: joguldi)
]]>
I'm sure disabling anon and Facebook Connect will piss off and thrill in equal measure...
Consider me the latter
]]>I actually had no idea that your regular users had to audition, though, and I totally agree that Connect was giving those visitors an unfair benefit. (And I certainly didn't know you supported anonymous comments; your moderators must have been busy!) So, here I am as a registered user, eager to share my wit and OUTRAGE where appropriate. *waves*
]]>@kyle4: Add me to the group that intensely dislikes the new gawker commenting system. It seems to expect that newbies are unlikely to contribute anything useful. (Of course, my grandmother thinks that doctors younger than her don't know what they're talking about....which brings some problems; she is old enough now that all doctors are younger than her and she refuses to see them.)
]]>But really, just like any other web community the posts with no value that aren't being outright disruptive should just be ignored.
Apparently I already had an account I forgot about, so It doesn't affect me but I still disagree with the removal of FBC.
]]>I have the options set up to show ALL comments, mostly because the funniest/best comments are always hidden. The new system is just a big ol' mess.
]]>It was convenient to not have to register at yet another site to make comments on articles. I think I'm registered at about 60 sites now. And to top it off, all the common names I use were taken here. Oh well, I'm here now.
]]>There were anonymous comments?
]]>I seriosuly smilied when I saw this in my RSS reader today. I love you Consumerist. :D
]]>@stranger than fiction: It seems Gawker's not using it anymore, so... maybe they'd be willing to part with it?
I would think so normally but I get the feeling that gawker maybe at least considering backpeddling despite the strong line they drew when they implamented the system.
If you look at any of the Gawker sites ad info you can see a huge dropoff in the number of visitors since the new commenting system started, with no sign of stablization.
It will take a very large number of people just to get back to the same pageviews and site visits they had before they changed things.
]]>@JulesNoctambule: Yes I had an abusive relationship with Jezebel. "I Cant quit you".
Gave up on trying to have any sort of commenting but it was entertaining to see newbies get eaten by the group think sharks, or someone in the group say something wrong then have to back peddle and apologize.
Now there is no hope of any sort of dissenting opinion or discussion, even if the commenting system didn't slow everything to a crawl, making the comments worthless.
]]>I'm sorry, I enjoy this site, but social networking has changed... people want share their experiences, and aren't afraid to use their real identities to do so. The reasons behind limiting the embrace of a currently popular site like facebook seems incredibly short sighted in my opinion.
I agree with remarks about content and focus. Many people disliked the 'facebookers' (which I only learned today because of this post) - but they still came here. Your moderator is swamped (cry me a river) - but there's so many other solutions. I didn't comment much, but I came for the content through RSS every day. Now I probably won't comment at all, because I care more about what my friends think about your article and my response than what any commenter here thinks.
Don't get me wrong, the comments are occasionally, at best, interesting... but this approach? Well, allow me to fill the role of black sheep juvenile I'm sure I'll be painted for these remarks: Fail.
]]>How does one audition? It would be nice to have that information on the signup confirmation page.
]]>Also, the dagger should only hide /that/ particular comment. So that we dont miss out on other good comments from that commenter.
]]>Surprisingly, I found it only after I became frustrated and I went into my Profile to seem my Comments. I clicked on this one and it actually took me here this time.
I am not sure if the problem was fixed, or it only happens when I reply to someone within a thread, like this post, since I am responding to you directly. I think this type of post becomes too nested, and ends up getting "lost"
And why no e-mail notification option?
]]>@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): A different forum I'm on has edit, but disappears after 15 minutes. I think it also leaves a little note that the comment has been edited. Seems to work okay.
]]>I was going to make a witty remark about how great this was a lot sooner, but I couldn't remember my user ID and password.
]]>It seems Gawker's not using it anymore, so... maybe they'd be willing to part with it? Then Consumerist could just tweak the interface rather than having to start from scratch.
]]>@madog:
facebook disabling facebook, on facebook?
My mind = BLOWN.
]]>Create a filter like these for each blog you read:
@@consumerist.com
@@lifehacker.com
@@gizmodo.com
But Consumerist? We coo'. /fistbump
]]>Well you don't have to register for it to read it. You just have to register to comment. I don't think that's discriminatory. Something Awful is an awesome forum that maintains its quality by requiring registration, and even requiring people to pay. It's not that hard to register for The Consumerist.
Although I really don't know what all the fuss about Facebookers is about. I certainly see why it's preferable to have commenters invested in your community, rather than fly-by-night. So I get it from the site's point of view. I just haven't seen this objectively awful posting that makes Consumerists hate Facebookers so much. I haven't been here that long though.
]]>I had to work for the privilege of being able to leave mediocre comments that nobody reads.
]]>@QuantumRiff: Now I know why that was happening.
]]>I am surprised that the FB API doesn't permit you to block access to a subset of users so that you can still control response quality.
]]>Bazing!
]]>And the MOST frustrating part... even after reading that crap, there is nothing you can do. You cannot give a 'thumbs down' and if you reply to them, they get automatically approved.
The only thing worse than someone shouting crap in your ears is not to be able to retaliate.
]]>@bitslammer: I'm a MySpacer but I am grateful there isn't an API for members on here...LOL (I just use MySpace for showing off my photos and my band's music and my daughter's artworks and to stay connected to other musicians in my not quite local area).
]]>anyway, thanks for all your great work! it's not an easy job & you do it exceedingly well. many times, i forget you're even around (which i mean to be a complement - the best mods are the ones you don't see).
]]>While I can see the need to curb anonymous posters I think perhaps you're going to far by removing Facebook Connect.
Just by reading the comments here it's pretty clear that there are bad posters on both sides. However that's not enough of a reason to punish everyone that prefers to use the convenience of Facebook to post here. That's just one less user/pass combo to remember among the hundreds we already deal with.
Your justification for removing FBC falls a bit flat too, IMO. If an individual has a track record of posting inane and pointless things. If they are offensive and disruptive then do what every other community on the web does. Ban their account individually. How many people are going to go as far as creating a whole new FB account just to post here and cause problems? That's a pretty sad thing to do and you can just ban them again. As mentioned above, the "proven posters" with accounts need some attention too.
This also brings me to the whole concept of auditioning. You're creating way too much work for yourselves. Just do away with the audition to begin with. This website is supposed to be about the CONSUMER. Well, the CONSUMER should be able to visit here and post a comment or statement (sometimes something as simple as a supportive turn of phrase even if there is no additional value to it) without having to prove themselves to some arbitrary community. That's not too consumer friendly is it? In fact it's pretty snobbish and elitist.
I can understand wanting to protect the site and stories from throngs upon throngs of 4chanesque behavior and commentary but perhaps a smaller step of just doing away with Anon posting might be sufficient. The issue can always be re-visited in the future.
Besides, whatever you did apparently malfunctioned because I'm still able to post and I'm logged in via FBC.
]]>I did the "used to be" facebooker, mainly because I myself was auditioning Consumerist.com to see if I liked it. Apparently I did, and got myself a right gen-oo-wine account! Yay!
]]>Though in all seriousness, she certainly does. No one should have to read all that sort of crap like she has to go through.
]]>@BigPapaCherry: Now with more Twitter!: The Gawker commenting system sucks. It is completely subject to whim and results in nothing short of a glorified popularity contest.
Not that I am bitter. Or anything. Or that there is any relationship between the change in commenting system and my complete cessation of reading or commenting on any Gawker sites.
]]>I got my Consumerist username back when it was (implicitly) recommended that we not provide an e-mail address for maximum anonymity.
Of course, that spirit has long since disappeared. So why not? I'd like my account intact on the new platform.
]]>Good for you! Now the cowards can't post their crap, and the FB Connect people don't have to worry about creepy people like me trying to view their FB profiles >=}
]]>Thank you
]]>@MaarekElets: I just stay logged in with my home computer and I recommend it if you have a personal computer.
]]>@Laura Northrup: Agreed!
]]>It's the one from Raymond Hamilton. It's been disemvoweled, so it's a little tough to decipher.
]]>(Using Firefox/Windows XP)
]]>It WAS starting to get a little thick in here!
]]>Great Success!
]]>Giving everyone with a Facebook account a voice on Consumerist comments was not something I was fond of...I can only imagine what it was like on the administrative end of things.
]]>Also, I can't get on Facebook from work. It defaults to the McDonald's career page. ;)
]]>That said, I am glad it's been disabled.
And I'm adding my voice to the choir for Gawker's new comment system blowing!
]]>@squinko:
Now if only there was a way to actuly disable facebook itself.
]]>@MostlyHarmless: Yeah, I never understood why someone would put their "REAL" name out on/with any website commentary. NYT's has this also for some people maybe who have subscriptions...
]]>@pecan 3.14159265 (100% more snark!): Yeah x2 on the email address update, I had two dots's at the dot com part for my address. Don't know how that happened but corrected it.
]]>@GuyBatterson: DO NOT FEED THE TROLL
]]>I was connecting with Facebook because I kept forgetting my other user/pass. But, over all I don't mind the switch back.
]]>@RandomHookup: I think he/she meant tips. Not all tips sent into Consumerist make it to the site.
]]>PS My real name is not razremytuxbuddy, and I don't use Facebook.
]]>@squinko: I guess the party is over. I always figured the only reason I wasn't banned from this site was that the Moderator had her hands full with Facebookers.
It's just a matter of time now.
Bring back Facebookers?
]]>I need to kill my facebook account -_-'
]]>@Raekwon: All articles make the front page.
]]>Dumbest Idea Ever.
]]>@martyf: Some of them didn't realize their names would be associated with their comments. One dude went on a long rant about a book that was going to change America and talked about the author in the 3rd person, not realizing his Facebook ID (with the same name) came over as well.
]]>there has been a constant and steady push toward making it exactly what I hate about CR it's self, a repository where you have to pay to get what should be freely given information.
How do you propose Consumer Reports should pay for itself? They don't accept ads by company policy, and according to you, their service should be free. Typical spoiled internet mentality - everything's about me, everything should be free.
]]>I'm one of those people who dualposted from Consumerist login and Facebook...I kind of liked having the cross-posting nature of my posts here upon my FB account, and it certainly did raise a few questions about things I had responded to.
A small source of free advertising has now been removed due to morons. Great.
]]>also, i'm at work and i have to keep things somewhat decent, even on my lunch break
]]>@martyf: I always just assumed people made dummy Facebook accounts. Thats crazy if all those things face book commenters said were with their actual profiles.
]]>Also, to whoever who "starred" me. Thanks a lot!
]]>@kyle4: Yes, Consumerist keep the current system or as close as you can to it.
Gawkers new system drove me away from visiting their sites, and I used to refresh three of their sites through out the day, everyday. Good for my productivity though!
]]>@BigPapaCherry: Now with more Twitter!: Yes, Consumerist keep the current system or as close as you can to it.
Gawkers new system drove me away from visiting their sites, and I used to refresh three of their sites through out the day, everyday. Good for my productivity though!
]]>Less complicated than it sounds, though.
]]>[I would plug the link, but its not been updated in a while :P
Also, it already is in my profile.]
]]>www.twitter.com/katstermonster
]]>Brent Woodle @ Facebook, reporting for duty.
]]>It seems like the easy way out of the issue to just disable Facebook Connect, rather than develop the method of approving the posts through audition. The content surely is stored locally to consumerist, so why can't the site still control what is displayed and what isn't after it was posted through FC?
]]>-Blarp
]]>But fortunately, we've disabled FB, so we won't have to listen to them piss & moan!
Thank you Ben et al. Thank you.
]]>Everything but the location of the tattoo.
]]>Clearly, you don't care. Nope, not at all.
]]>I would just like to add one big THANK YOU CONSUMERIST reply to this thread.
You have made a wise decision.
]]>@Biggbrother: The comment link thing happens to me, too. It's been months since it actually went to the comment. But actually I thought it was just me, so I didn't say anything about it.
]]>@katstermonster: I disagree with you AND the article writer on this!
::Makes fart noises::
ok so I blamed you and the OP and made an attempt to ignore propriety.
This has been a rendition from Facebook theatre, thank you, thank you!
]]>I wonder how many of the people who complained about their comments not showing up right away were anonymous posters who were auditioning?
]]>Once I submit below box, this comment will go into a black hole that takes me a long time to find sometimes, depending on how nested it becomes.
I've tried looking for a relevant comment link in my profile, but the comment links I have found only take me to the main story that I commented on.
]]>*cough* edit button now plzkthx! *cough*
]]>(Unless you disable editing after the comment has been replied to, but that limits your ability to catch your typos anyway.)
]]>Always was a kind consumerist, always will be. ;)
]]>Seriously? I might have to unfriend you now.
]]>What's the auditioning thing all about?
]]>Anyway, this isn't a news site, in the traditional sense. Just because something is designed to be informative, does not make it traditional news. Personally speaking, this isn't a site designed to be impartial. In fact, given that this is a site designed to cover unethical or inept behavior, the false neutrality many journalists give sickens me. Some people enjoy a little personality in their news, that's why people like Stewart/Colbert, or even people like Limbaugh and O'Reilly are on the air.
And anyway, they've done a few things to try and earn a little extra income. The tip jar sketches didn't interest me, so I followed my own advice and ignored them. And even if they did want you to pay money, I might or might not (I'm a notorious cheapskate, but Consumerist accounts for a large part of my worktime time-wasting), but I'll never begrudge someone for trying to make a living so long as they're not trying to mislead or extort anyone.
]]>I'm pretty sure the people who say awful stuff online do say it in real life.
]]>@MostlyHarmless:@katstermonster: Yeah I know, but I never ever see them. I tried hunting for some but I saw no posts with a full name or an F in the heading.
I guess I'm just Facebook Bilnd?
]]>@Consumerist-Moderator-Roz: Thanks for the good explanation, Roz. :)
]]>It always breaks my heart to see a repeat commenter who posts for months -- years, in some instances -- in audition status, because they're not up to snuff in some way, but I can't reach them unless they contact me.
]]>I've been a long time lurker on Consumerist. Even tried submitting a story one time about something that I can't remember, but I've never had the stones to sign up for an account. Maybe this "purge" of commentors will give me the "oomph" to start commenting a lot more.
]]>I won't promise that I will be everywhere, and I certainly still will greatly appreciate tips on moderation that's needed (my info's in the sidebar), this change will definitely help.
I'll give you an example. Under the audition system, a spammer creates one account and is banned. I deal with them once for about two seconds. As an anonymous commenter, they could go into thread after thread after thread posting spam comments -- each of which would have to be individually moderated by me, and there was no way to block them from continuing to do so.
As for Facebook commenters -- well, I felt that there were a few major issues. First and foremost, they were in general (with some exceptions) low-value commenters who had effectively bypassed audition. Since Facebook support had been implemented, nearly all of the really bad trolls had come from Facebook. Users clearly seemed to hate them and anti-Facebooker sentiment definitely caused distraction in threads. Further, there were back end issues with Facebook commenters that the Gawker system just doesn't support, such as people wanting to change their username so that it doesn't display their real name (which isn't possible). In short, there just doesn't seem to be a good reason to allow Facebook comments but require audition for others, and it just didn't seem to be a good fit for our site.
As for this being a part of a push for money: no, it isn't. I won't claim to know or have any role in CU's greater plans for the site, but this came out of discussions with Ben and myself about some recent downtime we experienced with our commenting tools. It's a change I pushed for and that I believe will make the site better.
]]>Although due to my short-sightedness in my teenage years (guh, livejournal), some simple sleuthing reveals my first, middle, and last names. And whatever godawful music I listened to as a teenager.
]]>There was a nasty little problem where it wouldn't finish loading the page if it couldn't talk to facebook, and it kept me from reading the comments, which is the best part for many stories. (rss feeds were the only way for me to read it!)
]]>@pecan 3.14159265 (100% more snark!): I agree, I had an email address in my profile but it wasn't an active one. Thanks!
]]>Finally... a website that get's it. I wish all Gawker sites did this.
]]>@I Love New Jersey: and the really bad gallery view they throw in on gawker sites now sucks a lot too. wish they'd leave it as 1 image per page, or gallery that opens separate windows.
]]>OMG XMAS CREEP ON CONSUMERIST
]]>@Michael Belisle: I am slightly annoyed at you for beating me to this.
Also, maybe I'm just out of the loop here but I don't see any facebook posters anywhere...ever. Someone mentioned that a FB poster shows their FB account name and such, and I just don't ee those. Maybe my work filter is filtering them out? I don't know. So basically what I'm saying is.
What's the big deal, guy?
]]>*loves*
I was so so tired of the fb'ers!
]]>I kind of liked Facebook Connect.... I suspect I was the rare consumerist commenter that hated having to change my login constantly. Oh well, it's not like I lost much.
]]>On the plus side, you get to not see all the unapproved comments. They are downright terrible. Just ask Roz.
So overall, its unfair to everyone.
]]>@MostlyHarmless: No, you do what we've talked about ten thousand times on this blog when the subject comes up. You lie, with or without the help of friendly services like Mailinator. :)
]]>And I'll also add that I'm a non-star commenter on the Gawker sites and I really don't care to comment if my comment has to be "promoted" or whatever BS they have for it to be seen.
]]>@Shoemaster: Hey, You. You call THAT a contribution? Contribution, my.....
]]>@Veeber: True. Doesn't work well for me, either.
]]>Can the new new commenting system have email notifications to the replies please? Especially when you move out of Gawker, my Bunedoggle mails wont work. That would be doubleplusuncool.
]]>We do have a hired moderator, but she never had time to do her job because it was taken up mostly by going through the anonymous comments.
]]>@Meg Marco: Hey, who runs things around here? :) Give the man a second star. Let him put two asterisks after his name, at least.
]]>@BigPapaCherry:: Agreed! The new Gawker comment system is horrendous.
]]>This is great news. The level of commentary had definitely gone down once the FB crowd started posting here. Let them audition like the rest of us.
]]>And regular consumerists cant be that bad, but I can only imagine what rest of the unapproved comments were like.
]]>@katstermonster: A/S/L?
]]>*crosses fingers*
]]>now that would be a scary crowd.
]]>But to get to the point of my post, I highly doubt it. Just take a look at the number of long time Gawker posters here or there who post utter crap.
Hell half the Facebook complainers where some of the WORST posters on the blog, and they got a free pass to complain about facebook posters!
All this really did was cut off a group of people who are now going to enmass flood your site with requests, get on, MAYBE make a few legit comments, then fuck around like before.
If you really want to ACTUALLY improve contents.
1) Drop the snide comments in the blog posts. The more you treat it like a NEWS site, the more likely people will be adult.
2) ACTIVELY moderate. If it means you need to pay someone to watch over who posts, then do it. Passive moderation NEVER works in the long run.
That being said, I think I am done here. While I was excited for the blog to be split away from Gawker, being under the CR banner worried me. I see since that time my worries where properly placed.
All I have come to see is instead of being a consumer site for all, there has been a constant and steady push toward making it exactly what I hate about CR it's self, a repository where you have to pay to get what should be freely given information.
I give it another 6 months to a year before you have to pay or be a subscriber before you are even allowed to comment here. Its too bad this was a good site when Gawker owned you.
]]>...which probably means Consumerist will now move to quickly adopt the new system ;-)
]]>I mean, it's not as if I don't use facebook as well, but it's just odd to me the caliber of comments coming from there.
No post auditioning is it, i suppose.
]]>As long as Consumerist doesn't switch over to that godawful voting system they have on Gawker sites now, I think I'll be fine.
]]>Now only if the Gawker sites would disable Anonymous comments and facebook connect!
]]>@SnatchTease: The Consumerist has an agreement with Gawker to stay on their network for a year IIRC. When that year's up, then they'll be moving to their own platform.
Just hoping the comment system stays similar to how it is now, and not like the new Gawker comments.
]]>Aw, the hell with it. STANDING OVATION AS BEN WAVES TO THE CROWD, tears roll down his cheeks, "luckiest man...on the face of the earth."
]]>I'm not complaining, though. I did notice the negative tone of some of the Facebookers.
]]>Naw, Consumerist viewers couldn't be that rabid... could they?
]]>Thanks for the update on adding a valid e-mail address. Mine wasn't even in my profile.
]]>bound to happen, I guess.
]]>Best news I've heard all day.
]]>