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!
Carolyn says
I completely understand why you'd disable anonymous comments, but you would lose comments from people (most likely working writers, editors and other agents) who don't want to leave comments on sensitive subjects (former agents, contract issues, rotten clients, etc) that might be of interest to blog readers.
One alternative would be for such comments to come directly to you for posting as a comment under your name, with content anonymized as appropriate. But maybe that would be a PITA for you.
It's a balancing act and probably you're the only person who should decide what works for you.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@6:15-
Well, like I said earlier in the chain I was probably too quick on the trigger on that one. But I still think it was a little haughty, and I don't think a post has to necessarily be aimed at a specific individual in order to raise my ire or be considered unproductive. But that one may not have deserved to be singled out.
Anonymous says
Anon 3:09 and 4:00 here, blogging away to the tune of Snoop Dogg (what's my m-f'n name?)…
nate Dogg, congrats on the best Blog award! I think it's well deserved. i spread my anonymati wisdom to all the agent blogs that get 1) get enough posts to make it worthwhile and 2) alalow anon comments (which aren't all that many), and yours consistently offers the most relevant content. Many of the others are caught up in the minutia of submissions and just aren't all that fun.
Anyway, I didn't intend my posts to be inciteful or controversial (I save the good stuff for the books, naturally), which just goes to show, it's all relative.
Kepp on keepin' on, my good man.
~butt
D. Michael Olive says
Nathan, as Vice President of a large research organization, I often get people coming in to complain about this or that person. One of the first questions I ask is if they've gone and talked directly with the subject of their complaint. Most times they have not. My next comment is don't say anything to me that you wouldn't say with them standing here. I don't want to hear character assassinations that border on the level of gossip.
Along those lines, if someone has something to say, but it's either rude, would make them look bad if you knew who they are, or if its personal, then it probably shouldn't be posted. If you can't sign your name, don't participate in the discussion, rather go chew on a nail until your frustrations dissipate or you get the chuzzpah up to tell us who you are.
A Paperback Writer says
Since I'm comment #256, no one will ever really read this, but I'd still like to say that I had to shut off anonymous comments (also known as "cowardly comments") due to one really nasty commentor on my own blog.
S. Melville says
I'm still confused as to why someone would comment about something SO sensitive on a writing blog that they'd need to hide their identity. If it's that sensitive, maybe you shouldn't be putting it online?
I'd say no anonymity. If you want to hide your identity, create an account with a fake name and do it that way.
Amy Cochran says
I don't think anonymous comments are necessary. If an individual doesn't want to use their real names they can use a handle and many do. Anonymous posts allow for people to say what they will and not be held accountable in anyway. If someone is using their real name they are at least accountable for what they write. If someone wishes to post something of a sensitive nature and not use their real name,there is the option of a handle. A handle also allows for anonymity while proving accountability.
Christine H says
Personally, I don't think you overreacted, Nathan. Skimming the comments now, I find anon 4:00 offensive and argumentative.
I am not a sissy, I just happen to prefer civil discourse. I have been in enough situations where one belligerent person made everyone else's lives miserable, that I'm sick and tired of it.
If you have to put other people down to make your point, chances are they won't listen to you anyway. All they are going to react to is the put-down.
I think that moderation of anonymous comments is not censorship; it is a public service. Of course people can be offensive under their own names, but it seems to happen more with the guise of anonymity.
Anonymous says
Please, PLEASE, blog about apostrophes. It drives me crazy when people use them to make plurals!
:)Ash says
Well, this is certainly eye-opening. I never realized that my comments are completely ignored simply because my name is typed in black text instead of blue. From reading the comments, though, it seems that's the case for many of you.
Personally, I don't really see the difference, but I guess I'll get a Blogger account.
It won't be used for anything other than comments, mind you, so you won't know anything more about me than before. But I guess I'll no longer be branded a coward.
Laurie says
I really don't like anonymous comments. I think it is cowardly and it does tend to make people behave in ways they wouldn't if their name was attached.
I've dealt with this issue personally. As a journalist, my stories end up both in print and online. If someone has a comment to the print version, they can write a letter to the editor but they have to include their name.
In the online version, they can post anonymously and I've gotten some pretty mean comments on restaurant reviews I've written (which could very well be written by the owner of the restaurant for all I know).
The loss of civility in our country is getting a pretty high coverage this week and I think you should delete comments that are cruel or off topic. There is nothing wrong with have a nice discussion without rants.
Anonymous says
Gotta tell ya, this would be one boring thread without all the anons. Me thinketh that would extend to the blog in general would Anon posts to be banned. Then it becomes a preaching to the converted experience, awash in a sanitized sea of agreement. Yeck!
Anonymous says
I do find it interesting that writers are generally thought of as anti-censorship folk, yet here the majority are in favor of it.
Why is that?
Sociology thesis, here I come…
Nathan Bransford says
This isn't banning HUCK FINN from the library, it's a moderated discussion on a blog.
Donna Hole says
To be fair to those who absolutely cannot post under their own name, and follow the eticate rules, I would have to say no, don't turn it off. There are some good reasons sometimes to post anonymously.
I would like to see some sort of signature at the bottom of an annon post. Something simple, like your initials, or even the screen name you prefer to post under so we can keep straight WHICH anon is saying what.
But if the anonymous is turned off, there's still the NAME/URL feature for those who do not want to comment as their real selves. As far as I can see, the NAME and anonymous features are basically the same anyway.
So yeah, shut off the anonymous and force commentors to take some responsibility for their posts. Even if it's only under a screen name.
………..dhole
lauren says
I commented on this blog anonymously, partly because I'm paranoid and partly because I didn't have a Google account at the time. So it follows that now that I have one I'm fine with removing the anonymous option. But a while ago I would have been against it. I gotta say either way is fine…(helpful, I know…)
đ
Susanne says
The truth is that even if you sign your posts with a name, it can be fake. But I'd argue for taking out the anonymous function and if people want to comment, they at least have to use a name.
Adam Heine says
The things is, it's free and easy to make a blogger/OpenID account that uses a false name. So you can still be anonymous, but that way if you're consistently rude, people notice. It protects identity while still encouraging politeness (to an extent).
I used to not care about anonymous comments, but lately I've been noticing the same thing as you, Nathan. 95% of rude comments are made anonymously. And it seems like (though I could be wrong) over 50% of anonymous comments are rude.
That said, this is your blog. If you allow anonymous, it won't bother me.
Anonymous says
You either have to ban the anon posts or delete ANY posts (not just those from anons)that are offensive. Well, now that I type that, you always have to delete the offensive posts anyway, even if anons were banned (some poeple I suspect would still post similar things under a name).
I'd say that having anons does increase the offensiveness factor overall, but it also ups the interesting factor as well as the total # of contributors. So it's a tough call. Depends what exactly your goals for the blog are.
Christine H says
:)Ash ~ Personally, I don't ignore comments written with a sig in black instead of blue. I just assume you don't have a webpage or don't want to share your profile with the whole planet. It took me a long time to take that risk, and I'm still not totally comfortable.
But at least I have a name to associate with you.
I've been thinking a little more about this whole "anonymous" thing, and why argumentative posts with no identifier are somehow more offensive than those with one.
I've come to the conclusion that it implies a lack of respect to the addressee(s). As in, "I don't have to identify myself to you. You aren't worth it." It seems like a mind game, to try to get the upper hand in the argument. It makes me feel like I'm in one of those movies where someone is trapped in a room, being taunted by disembodied voices.
However, the technique backfires because it actually implies that the poster isn't confident enough about what they have to say to identify themselves.
I have read quite a few comments here and on other blogs with which I strongly disagreed, but which were posted by people who identified themselves. I was willing to agree to disagree, or just ignore them, because I knew that they respected me – and themselves – enough to attach a name or profile to their words.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
No, I think I'm comfortable holding anons to a different standard than those with blog identities and don't feel the need to be perfectly consistent about it. If people want to post anonymously, and have a good reason for doing so, they'll be able to add to the discussion. But if people are using an anon identity to be rude I'll delete it, and my threshold will be lower than it would be if they were posting under a consistent identity.
LindaBudz says
My two cents: I'd hate to see the irresponsible Anons ruin it for those who use it for legitimate purposes. I vote to keep it.
Susan Quinn says
It amazes me when people think they are "censored" if they can't say anything they want in any venue they want.
First Amendment: Just because you're entitled to speak, doesn't mean I have to post your comments in my blog/newspaper/forum.
Vitriol and snark seem to have taken the place of reasoned arguments for some in the Blogging Wild West. If you can't make your argument without the personal attacks, then it's probably weak. We're writers after all – we should be able to do that much.
I'm glad Sheriff Bransford is willing to keep the peace so that we can have the constructive arguments that make this blog a great place to visit.
Anonymous says
Nathan,
OK, I see. Well, that's fair, I guess. I mean, it's YOUR blog, so you do't have to be fair, right? Any Anon is free to go start their own blog and write whatever they want…
Angie says
I vote to keep anonymous commenting. You can always turn it off if someone's abusing it, as you did before, but most of the time the bad stuff is a minor annoyance and the good stuff is worth having. And especially when the conversation is about something sensitive, I think it adds positively to the discussion when someone who has significant info but fears repercussions can post anonymously.
Angie
Jill Lynn says
My two cents: Anonymous comments are frequently the voice of descent. Without them, I do think the flavor of your blog would change. Respectful debate is healthy, and I doubt you'd want your blog to feel Stepford Wife-ish.
On the other hand, I'm all for deleting the anonymous commenters whose only purpose is to be rude. As for those on the edge, don't let them get a rise out of you. That's what they want. Just ignore them, and eventually they'll get bored and leave on their own. Or, at least,one can hope.
Anonymous says
I vote to allow people to keep their anonymity. I ALWAYS comment anonymously and I donât believe I have ever said anything untoward (at least not deliberately). Why then donât I sign my name? Well, to be honest I am a very private person (a rarity in an era where everyone is more interested in being known than in doing something worthy of being known about imo). Everything on the internet is there forever. I am not interested in people being able to google me and come up with a collection of images and information that allow them to profile me â to wit, to gain a false sense of familiarity. I am sure I am not alone â I think there are probably plenty of people who have interesting things to say and useful information to share who simply will not do so if the anonymous option is eliminated.
Anonymous says
I second anon 8:29. It's no one's business what I think about what. That is confidential information. I wouldn't post if I had to have it associates with my name.
Privacy is priceless.
Nathan Bransford says
anons-
As others pointed out, you don't have to post with your name. Lots of people here post with a handle/pseudonym. But having a consistent identifier provides a lot of context.
Anonymous says
Per the Nathan Bransford Blog Consistent Identifier Act of 2009, I will hereby sign all my anon posts.
Regards,
The Anonymizer
Nathan Bransford says
It's that easy, folks.
Donna Hole says
I know I've commented before, and I stand by that post, though it was before I read any of the comments. There was just so many.
Now, I'm better informed of the controversy.
I've read several comments from Anonymous posters about not deleting the anonymous feature because it is censorship, or because people are at work need to be able to comment without having their work place visible.
So, if you walked up to me at a conference, and I could see your face, you wouldn't say certain things to me (because I advertise my identify you know who I am at least) as you would if you were wearing a bag over your head? In that case, you would insult me because I could never identify you, and therefore it is ok for you to have your opinionated say no matter how hurtful it was?
Freedom of speech, you say, and I, as the victim of your abuse, must take it because I cannot identify you, and you are protected from any consequences of your actions. But if I could identify any feature of you, you would say only what you thought I wanted to hear?
There are several posters here who use the "name" feature but have no blog profile. Some of those persons I look for to see what their comments are. They are consistent with their voice, even if they do not publicly disclose their identity. There are also several commenters here in "blue" who have nothing on their blog profile. That doesn't change my opinion of them. I follow their voice – even (or especially) when it disagrees with mine – not the published profile. There are even people in here I look for and have never clicked on their profile.
But, the blog host can find these people if the need arises. I doubt the need arises often. But with the straight anonymous, it is harder to track them down and ask not to be "mean spirited" on the blog.
And when several "anonymous" posts show up in a row, who's to know that the anonymous poster is not just having a conversation with "itself" to seem even more anonymous. (Yeah, I followed that trail that Nathan wisely deleted, and I'm ashamed of myself for doing it. It's kinda like a traffic accident, you don't want to look, but can't help yourself.)
And if a person has to identify at least a psuedonym, at least the blog administrator doesn't have to block "all" such commenters, as there is a specific ID for the bad apple.
……….dhole
Anonymous says
"And when several "anonymous" posts show up in a row, who's to know that the anonymous poster is not just having a conversation with "itself" to seem even more anonymous."
So what if they are? Who's to say some posters are not really experimental AI bots?
The Anonymizer
Other Lisa says
PS- I'm Anon 5.15.
And this is my main problem with "Anonymous" commenters. It's impossible to have a real conversation. There are too damned many of them. A consistent pen name is fine. I just want to have some continuity in the discussion.
I agree with Christine H. – there's an element of disrespect with a lot of folks who refuse to identify themselves (and just to be absolutely clear – I am NOT asking for your real name – just a name!).
Tori says
Nathan-
Ignore the few bad apples. Honestly, I don't think getting rid of anon option would really help. People who are rude will be rude no matter what.
And, some people need the anonymous option. Maybe they are someone known to the public and don't want a whole bunch of stalkers. Maybe someone is addressing a delicate issue. Maybe…they just don't like giving out that kind of information. There are many reasons to sign anonymously and most people aren't doing it to attack anyone.
After all is said and done it's your decision and yours alone.
James says
Excellent question. I know it may seem a bit hokey, but why not put one of those 'thumbs up or down' or rating functions on your blog? Democracy in action, you could stipulate that '3 consecutive thumbs down in 3 minutes'-or whatever-warrant removal. The details are up to you, but honestly, not sure if I agree speech should ever be muzzled unless all other options have been exhausted.
Anonymous says
I have been going back through the past week's blogs trying to find the offensive postings that a couple posters mentioned earlier, and I have reached the following conclusion:
I did not find that the vast majority of the anonymous comments were rude or disrespectful in any way when I read them as an outsider – I knew they were not directed at me, personally. After all, I am Anonymous.
However, I think many of the posters forget that their postings appear to be directed at particular people, when that may not have been their intent at all. And others, perhaps like me, have stoked the fire in well intentioned fun.
I honestly thought that yours and mine back-and-forth was received in good humor on both sides. Unfortunately, I now realize that though I left the blog smiling, you may have been seething. After reviewing some of the comments you made after my posting, I realize you may have mistook what I thought was a fun discussion and perhaps took it far more personally than I intended. For that, I apologize.
I also can see where one or two of my comments were indeed rude. If you and I had been sitting down having a conversation together, I may have made the same points, but I would have said them more kindly. I certainly would have been more conscientious that we were talking in public, and I would have been more careful not to possibly embarrass you or put you in a difficult situation.
On the one hand, the internet gives us a false sense of familiarity with each other, and on the other hand, we sometimes forget we are talking to real, live people. We can also forget that we are not talking in private. That may not be an excuse for rudeness, but it is an explanation as to why we can sometimes forget that we are being rude. And yes, being anonymous made it easier for me to forget. I should log in.
In summary, I have made what I believe some people on this blog would consider inflammatory comments because I did not understand the culture of your blog, and I thought a wide range of debate about writing, publishing, and assorted issues was encouraged. I am not saying you donât want witty debate, I am saying that I was more gritty (for lack of a better word) than is probably appropriate for this site.
I also realize that though I used anonymouse to be more controversial, I should remember that I am also talking to real people. Lesson learned. Thank goodness, I learned it anonymously. ;0)
We get so few parades in our lives, and I am genuinely sorry if I have rained on your parade in any way.
T.Wolfe says
This is the internet and I feel you should use a name. Anonymous should be banned. Your user name does not even have to be your real name or your pen name. It is just your handle for that site you are commenting on.
I unfortunately have to use many different names due to the things I do. Yes, sadly I play computer games and I then have to join guild sites with whatever character name I joined the guild as.
So long story short here … banning Anonymous would be a good thing but I doubt it will get rid of the comments. They will find other ways I'm sure. There always has to be a bad apple in the mix.
Anonymous says
I guess this blog is only for delicate newb writers who can't stand to have their feelers hurt.
Literary Cowgirl says
The anon thing boggles my mind. I have commented before under the name/url option (sometimes with url, sometimes without) simply because I only had a blog profile for my children's writing and what I had to say was not appropriate for that blog. However, I always used the same name. Now I have an internet identity for my adult writing too. But, any trail you follow would lead to me without deception. I comment on EAs blog with my childrens' screen name and on the Shark's with my adult one. But, I have nothing to hide.
I think a major porblem with the world is society's unwillingness to take responsibility for itself. Once, people lived in tribes and depended on each other for survival. Then, they moved to towns, but everyone was still in the same boat. They shared fences and had to face each other in church. Then, travel became easy. If people really messed things up, they just moved, or went to the church or pub or whatever across town. Now, everyone spends more time on the internet than talking to their own families. They find like minded people and blow smoke up each other's rears. And, should they disagree, they just change profiles or sign anon. They harass each other and write scathing reviews (in some cases without even reading the work), and gossip, and well…
Not to say it's al of you by any stretch of the imagination. I just wish there were more accountability on the web.And, really, if you want to engage in a debate without compromising a web profile, you can pick name/ url and stick to one name. Kind of like letters to the editor are often signed.
Venus Vaughn says
It's your blog, you gotta do what you want.
As an infrequent commenter on your blog I would urge you to leave the anon option open.
It seems to me that this is a forum where you have placed a value on discussion, transparency and truth. Sometimes you can't have all of that in the same place unless people are allowed to speak freely – and being anonymous allows for free speaking.
Occasionally I visit a site where I need to make a contradictory or unpopular or sensitive statement, and I don't want it to be personal. I don't want the negativity to follow me back to my page. I don't want to seem disrespectful to an author I respect. So I choose to go anonymous. Not to bash, not to troll, but to put a statement out there that needs to be said, even if it doesn't fall on the happy side of nice.
In those situations, if I can't make the statement anonymously, I won't make it. And the discussion loses some depth or layering from which it would have benefited. Perhaps something that everyone was thinking but no one had the balls to say.
Then again, I've been on the net forever, and know better than to put my real name on anything. The Internet is forever, dudes. So this is a pen name, and none of my e-mail addresses have my full name on them. *shrug*
If someone wants to be nasty, they don't need an anon tag to hide behind. Creating a web persona is as easy as gmail.com.
Masonian says
I'd say close anonymous comments. If someone has something truly worthwhile to post but needs their anonymity to protect themselves they can always message you and you can repost it if you think it worthy.
If anyone has some troll drool they can be a man, er… grown-up troll, and stand by their own name.
(Like Hrorgath the Inimitable)
Anonymous says
I imagine many people will regret splashing their real names on the web in the future, when their thoughts and information are used against them in ways they could never foresee.
Be careful. Nothing is what it seems.
Eva Ulian says
Well, Nathan, if someone hasn't got the guts to own up to what he or she said, they have no right in saying it.
Gina says
It seems to me that overall today´s discussion was enriched by the anons.
Just so darn annoying, especially in a discussion as interesting as today´s, when there´s too many of them and you have a hard time following who´s who. That´s what´s not constructive.
Teri says
I agree with Rick. Many companies frown from having their employees access blogs. I think we should allow the anonymous to make comments. But they must do so with courtesy and respect.
Christine H says
Anonymous 2:21 ~ We are writers, for God's sake! We are putting – or hoping to put – our real names and thoughts into print for the world to not just see, but pay money for.
If you can't put your name on a simple comment, how can you put your name on a whole book?
I've gotten in trouble plenty of times for things I've said in various personal and professional situations, but that is how you learn to handle yourself. If you overreact or offend someone, you apologize. Even if you think your point was correct, you still respond to the person's feelings out of respect for them. Then you try not to make the same mistake again. Simple as that. Over time, you learn what to say and what not to say. And some people will persecute you no matter what you do, so you have to ignore them.
BTW, the whole "Freedom of Speech" thing in the constitution is meant to protect political speech. It means you can't be thrown in jail for criticizing the government. It has nothing to do with social niceties.
My vote is to keep doing what you have been doing, Nathan. Allow anonymous posts, but monitor them.
Anonymous says
"We are putting – or hoping to put – our real names and thoughts into print for the world to not just see, but pay money for.
If you can't put your name on a simple comment, how can you put your name on a whole book?"
This is precisely the point. Some of us will ONLY attach our names to writing we are paid for. I don't want blog posts cluttering up my author results on Google. The behind the scenes details of the industry are boring to most readers. I don't want them following my name to boring stuff.
Teri says
I agree with Rick. Many companies frown from having their employees access blogs. I think we should allow the anonymous to make comments. But they must do so with courtesy and respect.
Andrew says
Oddly enough itâs a problem that arises from everyone believing their comments in general carry that much more worth than they actually do (yes I do have a slice of irony pie at my elbow).
See it works like this. The act of messageboarding itself is an arrogant, audacious act in its purest form: why do YOU believe that your thoughts and opinions have such worth that they deserve to be broadcasted in a public forum? Well, unless, if Stephen Fry then I suppose youâre justified. If someone stood up on a bus and proclaimed their mortification of the current market climate, youâd think of 1 word to describe that person and it wouldnât be in a Christian phrasebook.
This inherent obscenity of this act is then tempered and watered down. Some people do it out of habit, some feel a guilty need to leave a note of thanks (these people will also, I presume, leave notes everywhere saying âwas here, did nothingâ), some leave humorous notes (humour is ALWAYS justified), some people leave messages in order to find likeminded people and build friends outside the message board (or leave âI loved this!â to which a friend relies âI loved this too!â and they both jump about and whoop like the worst sorority stereotype ever). But what remains is this sense of worth; you have taken the time to put your opinions on a page and that gives them value.
Wrong!
There are exceptions (like an expert correcting information or if you are, indeed, Stephen Fry) but they are very few. Honestly, how many training courses have you been to when youâre really not paying attention, just sifting through the same old drudge with half an ear just in case something juicy is said. Sound familiar? Writing on a message board is akin to leaving a note scrawled on a bus stop when no one is there. Itâs worthless to anyone other than the writer and a handful of the millions of people who MIGHT read it.
What you post is the minimal of throw away comments because you canât be sure if you even have an audience! You post because you feel a compulsion to, thatâs it. There is no higher calling, no greater good, no external NEED for your comments. It is for purely selfish reasons. This entire post is for me (and the odd person who laughs at it! Humour, remember, is always valid) especially when you consider it will appear around 300th on the list of comments â whoâs going to read down THAT FAR??
So why get so wound up when people say bad things, anonymous or otherwise. Their words have no more or less worth than everyone elseâs, which is to say none. By defending your opinions, however vociferous or banal they may be, by becoming upset about anotherâs comments you are in fact giving them a worth they didnât have before.
On the few occasions I cannot hold in the arrogance of broadcasting my thoughts, I always comment under my own name (Not that anyone does, or should, care), though I do try and keep it to jokes, scything or regular, rather than banal anecdotes or posts that begin âI thinkâŚâ
So think about what you are doing and enjoy it for what it is, a self indulgent act. Treat is as such and the vitriol of other people, abusing what is there as a function for a fraction of people, will wash right past you.
Unless youâre Stephen Fry, then anything you think goes frankly.