Hey all, I’d like to take a time out from the world of publishing to discuss a blog community matter. Town hall meeting! I’ll bring the gavel if you bring the crazy guy who wants to open up the park for deer hunting.
A few weeks back the Ethicist Blog discussed the issue of anonymous commenting.
Ever since I had to close anonymous comments myself a few weeks back due to a single anon (they’ve since been re-opened), I’ve been toying with the idea of permanently closing anonymous commenting.
Here’s the thing – there are absolutely people who use the anonymous function responsibly, whether because they don’t feel like signing in or because they are writing about something sensitive.
But at least 95% of the rude comments on the blog come come from people using the anonymity irresponsibly, saying things they probably wouldn’t say if they signed their actual name. And sometimes these comments can get an otherwise good discussion seriously off track.
I’m wondering what you think – do you like having the option of going anon if necessary? Do you think it adds to the discussion to have people politely registering their anonymous comments? Should we just ignore the few bad apples?
Or would you prefer that people sign their own name?
And if we do keep anonymous options open, what should be the criteria for comment deletion?
I’m not too worried about a few bad apples and definitely don’t take the anons personally, it comes with the territory, but at the same time, it’s important to me that the comments section be a place where good, respectful discussions can take place.
Thanks, everyone!
Serenity says
I'm risking an overgeneralization here, too, because I can't possibly know the best intentions of some who comment anonymously. But I have to heartily agree that signing your name requires that you measure your words, and I don't see how that restriction hurts anyone. If you're afraid to say it online without damaging your career or reputation, then why say it? On the other hand, if it desperately needs said, then own up to it and take the repercussions. You may actually feel better for it.
I think living rooms are still the best place for informal discussion. And as an agented writer, I just don't understand the problem with commenting respectfully on another agent's blog. I thought we were supposed to contribute to the writing community.
wickerman says
I think you might as well leave anon as an option – of course I post under my real name so what do I care? 🙂
Honestly though, if you post under the name Jennifer (no offense to any Jennifers, I just picked the name) that really doesn't identify you. You might as well be anonymous. Likewise you can post as Abe Lincoln and I have no clue if that is your name, your husband's name, you neighbor's name or heck, maybe even the president's name.
If I post as Barak Obama tomorrow, chances are you will all assume it's not really 'him'. Why then do we assume anyone here is who they say they are – more to the point what difference does it make?
OMG!!! What is Nathan isn't Nathan?
Maybe tomorrow's blog post can be about our conspiracy theories as to the identity of this 'Nathan Bransford' person.
Really, though, what is the difference between 'Anonymous' and 'Mickey Mouse'?
Anonymous says
I am not that tech savvy, but it seems to me there are some blogs where to comment, you have to put a real e-mail. It is Not published, but it keeps people in sight of the administrator anyway.
Just a thought.
Anonymous says
I've been reading & thinking about this anon issue.
1) you mention one person who made really obnoxious comments; if you go the non-anon route you are, in essence, allowing her/him to dictate the terms of your blog;
2) I read your blog regularly & "know" the regular posters/names but, really, I know nothing about them, nor do I care to; a photo, an i.d., it's a very illusory sort of accountability;
3) this maybe my perception but the regular posters comments tend to have a performative element .. they are trying to get NB's attention and, consequently, I tend to gloss over their comments. The flip side of obnoxiousness is being on "good" behavior which doesn't necessarily lead to an interesting comment thread.
4) I've read your blog long enough & rarely – once? – have seen something I thought, "Oh, no they didn't." But that's the thing about being human, we all have our weird little quircks that come out wherever.
5) philosophically, deleting the anon OPTION (and, many people here chose not to use it, as evidenced by the many i.d.'ed comments), tightens the discourse; what is, ideally, a forum for the exchange of ideas and thoughts trends towards yet another narrow, not very interesting destination.
It would be akin to – I know, having lived there for several years – living in S.F. and dealing with if not personally then at least observationally, people the world over might think weird or odd. In real life, I would never dream of asking them to "contain" themselves, smooth out the edges. And there's a bit of that in this 'delete the anon' option rhetoric I'm reading. Isn't the world boring enough without censoring every little thing?
I remain, proudly – and politely – anon.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@4:13-
That's a fair point, but I think it's pretty clear I'm biased. I really like and respect most of the anonymous comments, but I've just gotten to be wary of them.
Anonymous says
Whoever would all you out-and-proud blogger users bash if you didn't have the anons? You're always looking for someone or something to pounce on.
The blanket statements like "Anons are losers who can't stand by what they say" or "Anons are all trolls" are really astonishing. Bottle the rage, folks. Geez. Lynching is so retro…
Anonymous says
This is a bit off topic, so delete it you must, but when did "generalization" become a dirty word?
Generalizing is a highly useful skill.
One day, you are walking through the fores when a large cat drops from a tree and begins to circle you. You are not a big cat expert, and have no idea if it's a mountain lion, a leopard, or a siberian mountain cat. But you can safely deduce, from your *generalizations* about big cats–(they're predators, they eat meat, they can attack people, they are very fast and strong, etc.)–hat you best not mess with it and calmly put distance between yourself and the cat while monitoring its behavior.
So, generalizing is not always a dirty word.
Anonymous says
If having an opinion, any opinion, was always okay as long as it was expressed reasonably, then why do we vote anonymously in our national elections? There are outside pressures that try to influence people, and staying anonymous sometimes allows us to be honest without getting personally injured. Living in Los Angeles, I can tell you that a lot of Republicans don't feel like they can speak their mind. If they weren't allowed to vote anonymously, they probably wouldn't vote at all, and a portion of the country would be silenced. (I'm not Republican, BTW.)
Melissa Pearl says
Everyone has a right to their own opinion, you shouldn't have to be anonymous about it. If you're not willing to acknowledge what you've written, then maybe you shouldn't be writing it 🙂
Rhonda says
What I would really like is an option where a person can post as "anonymous" so many times and then must create an account and sign in. It makes sense to get one's feet wet with anon comments, or even to use them every once in a while for privacy, but the free range aspect of it can lead to abuse. Then again, in general, I'm not one to advocate for more governance, so what am I talking about??
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
Well, one thing I do know is that this blog definitely isn't a democracy.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
Fair enough. No, this isn't a democracy. That's okay. Then, you tell us. What do YOU want out of comments? What is useful to YOU?
Anonymous says
Thoreau said something like…"A friend is someone you can think out loud with."
It is a favorite quote of mine.
It is a reason why I comment and read comments here.I love to think out loud with friends.
The anonymous question, both for and against, therefore, may be:
Are we in the company of friends or foes?
On the internet, this is probably one of the best monitored sites out there, but still, an occasional foe lasts a few moments on the blog before Nathan removes their fifteen minutes of fame.
And the friends who faux pas, get to save face and say a little quiet whoops, grow from their mistake, and nod a thank you to Nathan for not embarrassing them in front of the world from behind that curtain.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@4:30
I want what's best for an open and positive discussion, so everyone can feel comfortable registering their opinion. I'm also mindful that preserving anonymity probably results in more open and free-ranging discussion, which is why I'll probably leave the option open for now.
But as I think is clear, I don't think anonymity is uniformly positive when it comes to fostering an open discussion, and so I'm trying to strike some sort of balance between allowing people to state their peace and drawing the line on bad behavior.
Jared Stein says
I would go ahead and deny anonymity. You won't lose this reader.
Nathan Bransford says
That should have said state their "piece" and I weep for my comma usage. Although people should feel free to speak their peace also if they feel so inclined.
Anonymous says
I didn't think Anon at 4pm was over the line either, which I wouldn't say if I couldn't post anonymously – given I now know your position.
Up until now, I never thought you were talking to me, but, if the Anon4:00’s tone was out of line, then I have been out of line, too. I guess I didn’t know where the line was drawn.
Based on this discovery, I promise not to comment as anonymous henceforth, and I apologize for misconstruing the dialog in the past as lively banter.
I definitely would appreciate a code of conduct posting. I hate to be dense, but I must be missing it.
Marilynn Byerly says
Before I could afford to upgrade my Mac OS software and, therefore, my browser, I could only use the anonymous feature if I wished to comment.
Also, there have been recent trade blogs where some editors and agents admit they troll the 'net to see what kind of person an author is before they sign up him/her up.
I'm suicidal enough to speak my mind under my real name, but most authors aren't.
Anonymous says
P.S. I get that you can't tell tone many times, and when people are posting anonymously, it's easy to assume they are being snarky.
I was not being snarky at 4:36.
Anonymous says
Anon 4:00 with "nation of sissies" is outta line?
Whoa, you guys should watch Glen Beck or basically any cable news talk show! Anon 4:00 is a snoozer compared to that stuff!
Anonymous says
This is very interesting. May I ask a question of Nathan and any others in favor getting rid of anonymous comments?
How do you feel about writers publishing under a pseudonym?
Nathan Bransford says
I may have been too quick on the trigger with anon@4:00. Still, I think partly this is a result of the anon thing. It's harder to read tone.
Nathan Bransford says
Although the day the comments section resembles cable news is the say I light myself on fire.
Anonymous says
Speaking of Glenn Beck, I read that he is 1 of a handful of authors to have hit the NYT #1 spot with both fiction and non-fic.
So, being offensive sells! Being conformist imps does nothing for you!
Winter Hansen says
I thinking banning anonymous comments is a good idea. If your idea/comment is important enough, then you should be willing to put your name to it. The anonymous tag, while possibly protecting our online integrity as writers, is ultimately a cowardly tool. If nothing else, a ban would (hopefully) make people think twice before they fire off a comment.
LCS249 says
How difficult can it be to make up an identity? At least your butt is in on the line if you have one that tracks back to you.
There's a crude old saying: (will this get me banned?) "opinions are like butt-holes … everybody's got one."
The thing is, have the courage to stand behind your comment. Anyone can be anon. Anyone. That's absolutely, positively one of the very worst things about the explosion of online blogging.
Anonymous says
Before anonymous comments are banned, as they might be, I will make one myself.
Why does this have to be a town hall meeting? It's your blog, Nathan, and you have your purposes and goals for it. Banning anonymous comments will probably reduce the number of industry professionals who make the few but insightful kind of comments that only they can make. If you want to keep that as part of the blog's purpose, then don't ban.
If that's not an important part, but a civil comment atmosphere is, then banning makes sense.
But of course you know this, and have your other reasons for or against, too. Like I said, it's up to you, not your readers.
Michael Pickett says
I vote for everyone using their name. When you are anonymous, you don't have to think about what you say. I am in favor of people thinking about what they say. That way, they can still say what they want to say, I have no problem with people having differing opinions, but they are more likely to form their statement in a way that contributes to the conversation.
LCS249 says
oh, yeah. forgot to mention that if I see a comment left by "anonymous," I skip it.
Lorel Clayton says
I prefer posting as myself (makes it feel more like real people chatting around the water cooler) but I don't mind the anons, whatever they say. It can be fascinating to see into the uncensored human psyche. If I really don't like it, I tune it out; I'm good at ignoring anything I don't like.
Anonymous says
The anonymati have spoken!
Lucy says
I've been watching an interesting scene unfold lately on another blog wherein an argumentative type who was probably anonymous previously has come out and started using a "real" name. I honestly can't say that it's an improvement. If anything, it only makes the argument and rudeness more personal.
Granted, you'd probably have fewer trolls by disabling anonymous comments, but I'm not sure how much you'd gain by it.
My suggestion: Officially disable anonymous comments for a month, and then take another poll. Hey, a blog is a social experiment, right?
Wordver: foongeno
I dunno, but it sounds sort of like a fungus humongous among-us. 😉
Anonymous says
Agree with several other anons that have commented (4.00, 4.23, 4.36 etc.)
Nathan, you said that 4.00's comment was inappropriate because their attitude was snide toward people who post un-anonymously, but don't you think the same could be said of un-anonymous posters too? A lot of the comments by them have been pretty condescending toward us, implying we're cowards and so forth. Not to mention by you, too, implying we're rude just because we have a different opinion. Personally I don't care what someone says about me on the internet, but I just don't understand how you can justify that it's okay for one side to do one thing and wrong for the other side to do the same.
BTW, someone said something about how writers should be able to deal with criticism and negativity before, and I agree. Have you ever read Amazon reviews? Some of them are pretty harsh and hurtful, and probably a bit uncalled for. But don't you think as an author you'd grow so much more if you accepted and gave thought to those nasty reviews rather than just soaking up praise all the time?
Anonymous says
Anon 4:36.
Me too. I thought the offenders were other people, but now, I'm not so sure. For example, I occasionally swear to make a point, and usually the point I am trying to make is that I am f***ing hilarious. Still, if I make people laugh (even if it's only my spouse) who gives a s***?
And no, I can't sign my name… because in this google age, I'll be burned at the stake.
Further, and this may sound crazy, but it's the god's honest … I feel 'anonymous' has more integrity than a made up name.
That said, I now only answer to Nikkita.
I'm just saying.
Lisa says
To name or not to name is neither here nor there. The reason I think this is because I’ve read rude(ish) comments from anon and named bloggers. Several months ago, I responded to a question on this blog. I thought I gave a thoughtful response to a guy who wanted book recommendations within a specific genre. Because I mentioned an author that I met (once upon a time), several mocking comments from one blogger (who I’ll keep anonymous) followed my comment. She posted under her name and URL. Quite ballsy (can I say that?). That experience left me gun shy to post further comments. It was the first time I felt something akin to schoolyard bullying. Anyway, point being: some folks will say what is on their minds no matter which name is attached to the comments. So, my vote goes to Nathan Bransford, THE CENSOR.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@5:15-
I hold anon commenters to a higher standard for a variety of reasons: 1) with less context is less easy to read tone, 2) the comments tend to be more extreme, and 3) I'm sorry, but anons' track record around the Internet isn't so great. So yeah, I may single out someone who is anon, whereas I might not with someone who is named who writes an equally questionable post.
I also don't really see how anons can feel particularly aggrieved or personally attacked when no one even has even the slightest idea who they are.
With great power goes great responsibility. I think the solution here is that I continue to allow anonymous comments, but I'm going to unabashedly hold them to a different standard.
Leigh KC says
My personal philosophy on life is to have courage in my convictions or be silent. One should have the confidence to express a view even when others will disagree with it. I am therefore disinclined towards anonymous postings. As Dorine, Lucinda and others say, we need to take responsibility for our words and actions and not hide behind a cloak of anonymity – if your words are so offensive, irresponsible, and/or defamatory that you cannot apply your name to them, then perhaps think twice before writing or speaking. On the other hand I appreciate that some people have legitimate reasons for needing to remain anonymous, and so I would suggest that the current policy of censoring those that abuse this privilege be removed so that others are not disenfranchised.
Herself says
I understand why some folks might choose anonymity responsibly for very good reasons.
Is there an option to force commenters to apply for an anonymous posting? That way, it will be more work to post anonymously and might deter the trolls.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@4:56-
I opened it up because I hadn't made up my mind and wanted feedback — it's been extremely helpful.
C.L. Moyer says
I comment under my real name unless I am commenting on one of my friends' websites and I don't feel like signing in… but then I say who I am! ha ha
Cynthia
http://www.clmoyer.com
Anonymous says
This is a very intriguing conversation. I have NO idea if there really is a right or wrong. But there is,at least, a learning curve on what is polite or impolite. Hopefully, we are all learning.
I will say that, even using a handle, it was upon being ripped to shreds by others about my entry during a contest here (using a handle even) that I decided that the safest way to continue would have to be completely anon and was the way for me to go.
Maybe I have a lot to learn as a writer, but I am just not willing to present myself for target practice either.
To his credit, Nathan did not tolerate the author dissing in that contest either. None the less, it still stung.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
Thanks for your honesty. I can understand where you're coming from now.
You're right, as an anonymous user 'attacks' don't have the same impact for me as they might for someone else. But as Robyn Campbell said, if someone says something against what the masses believe then they're going to end up targeted. In that situation, don't you think it's fairer for them to have the advantage of anonymity where they have the disadvantage of numbers?
If it ever got to the stage of anonymous people outweighing un-anonymous (or even equalling), that would be a problem. But on this blog at least, for every one anonymous commenter there's about 200 non-anonymous ones. I don't see how it could ever really be an issue.
Anonymous says
PS- I'm Anon 5.15.
Della Luna says
IMHO, people love making asses of themselves online & anonymity makes it that much easier. But if your post isn't worth signing even a fake name then maybe it doesn't need to be said at all.
Nathan, you've got a busy blog here I think you should make it easier on yourself and get rid of the anon feature. The trolls will just have to deal with it.
Julia Smith says
Congrats on winning the Best Publishing/Industry Blog at BBAW. I popped over immediately to see this Nathan Bransford fellow.
Although I realize many, many blog readers are even more anonymous than Anon – the dreaded Lurkers – I have steeled myself to the fact I may never 'meet' many of my blog readers. So I actually treasure the lurkers who de-lurk and comment as Anon.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@5:46-
Yeah, I'm fine if people want to espouse a point that might be unpopular anonymously as long as they do so respectfully.
I think what people confuse is that it's not the voicing of an unpopular opinion that I or others take issue with, it's the tone that opinion is raised with.
Just to take the anon@4:00 example, there's a difference between saying that people might be too sensitive vs. calling people sissies or whatever it was. I wouldn't have said a thing if anon said I or someone else was being too sensitive, but there's a way of expressing that opinion without being a jerk about it.
And the problem isn't so much personal attacks as much as the fact that when you're starting with a hostile comment, usually that discussion has nowhere to go but down.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
Really? I don't think the conversation always has to go down. I think it depends on how you handle it. For example, I started out quite annoyed with all this- probably came across as hostile in my first comment, too- but the more I've heard from you the more I can understand your point of view. If you take the time to debate with someone and do it well I think it's much more beneficial than just straight-out agreement.
As for the tone thing, as you said earlier I think that's just a problem in general with the internet- it's too hard to tell whether someone is joking or being plain nasty.
(anon 5.15/5.46)
Jemi Fraser says
I used anon signatures when I first started commenting on blogs. Pure nerves! I'm shy and find it difficult to put myself forward. It took me months of lurking to dredge up the courage to comment, even anonymously.
I therefore think anon serves an honest purpose. Unfortunately, there always seem to be a few who ruin things for everyone. There should always be an option for the powers who be on the blog to delete any comments he/she/they feel nasty or inappropriate. At least, in my opinion 🙂
Anonymous says
To be fair, the anon 4:00 comment, to me, anyway, was so broadly aimed as to be unoffensive to any one individual, since s/he said: "…a NATION of sissies…" which implies that there is some greater problem of hyper-sensitivity and/or extreme political correctness infecting society at large, not just this blog.
That's how I took it, anyway, but it offended you, and it's your blog, so…
Gordon Jerome says
I think you get so many readers and comments that you can do whatever you want and it won't really matter. If you keep anon, there are so many replies to your posts that no one holds you responsible for them. If you make everyone have a google account and a picture of themselves, you'll still have a hundred replies a post.
My vote is to make everyone have a google account and sign in that way. It won't stop your readers, and it ultimately won't matter to the amount of replies you get per post.