When we redesigned Signal vs. Noise last year, we tried to make commenting a bit more of a conscious process by placing the link to the comment form at the top of the post rather than the bottom, hiding existing comments by default, and removing the URL field to cut back on spamming. We continued to require an email address, as well as warn commenters that “We’d rather not moderate, but off-topic, blatantly inflammatory, inappropriate or vapid comments may be removed. Repeat offenders will be banned. Let’s add value. Thank you.”
“We want readers to focus on the article, spend some time thinking about it, and reflect,” says 37signals designer Mig Reyes, who championed the redesign. “… the way books and magazines let you do that, because there’s no comments section that allows you to spit knee-jerk reactions publicly. If you really, really want to share something, you’ll put in the effort to dig for our comments form.”
Comments on SvN are generally more civil compared to those on other blogs in its peer group, and certainly elsewhere on the Internet. But the vitriol about the redesign itself was so extreme we very nearly pulled them — but most of it boiled down to good old-fashioned fear of change, so we waited. Eventually most of the haters moved on.
Still, it remains a problem. We’ve talked about the possibility of preemptively disabling comments for specific posts, but it’s tricky to anticipate which posts are going to incite trolling, and we don’t want to punish the readers who would otherwise add insight. Some of us have (only half-jokingly) proposed making would-be commenters click an “agree” button promising their intention to add value, or forcing them to wait five minutes before being allowed to post — you’d arrive on the page and a timer would start, and you earn the right to comment by waiting it out.
Other forums have begun addressing the breakdown in civil discourse by making it more cumbersome to join the conversation. The Huffington Post announced it would no longer allow anonymous comments, and ESPN.com requires commenters to have a Facebook account to add a comment on certain sections of the site. To combat the trolliest of the trolls, YouTube is rolling out a new system that forces commenters to use their Google+ profiles, and also moves more relevant comments (i.e., those from the original poster, people you know and “popular personalities”) to the top. And Popular Science has shut down the conversation altogether, arguing that trolls are “bad for science.”
We ultimately retained comments because there’s no denying the value of a true dialogue. There’s a lot to be said for a post serving as the starting point of a fruitful discussion, and for connecting authors and readers. Plus, you told us you want them: We polled SvN readers in 2012, and learned folks appreciate having comments in general (although some complained, understandably, about their quality).
Another possibility is moving the conversation elsewhere — tools like Branch exist for that very purpose. Mig purposefully built Twitter into SvN’s redesign to encourage offsite dialogue — if you read an article and have something to say to the author, tweet her. Mat Honan’s Wired piece highlights some of alternatives to hosting a conversation right under the post itself — a convention it’s past time we reevaluate.
When comment sections are deliberately downplayed, moved elsewhere or abolished, they’re no longer the most accurate measure of “engagement,” although that’s a popular misconception. One SvN reader recently commented:
“I find it interesting how few comments any of these blog posts get on the topic of company spotlight on remote working.It must not interest anyone. Or at least, it doesn’t to me and frankly 37svn has jumped the shark long ago (as seen by the low engagement on all posts lately).”
(I tried to reach out to him to apologize for failing to meet his expectations and to ask what kind of posts he’d like to see more of, but he’d left a fake email address. I wrote to the next commenter, who’d agreed with him — no reply. So much for taking the conversation elsewhere.)
It’s true commenting is down since the makeover, but that’s by design — total comment volume has fallen by about 30 percent, while traffic has more or less held steady. Unique visitors to SvN have increased, as has the amount of time people spend on the site and the number of pages people visit. “Engagement” has less to do with the number of comments on a particular post, and more to do with page views, shares on Twitter and elsewhere, personal contact between authors and readers, and so on.
We’re not concerned about having jumped the shark, in other words — but we of course want to be conscious about the kinds of content readers want to see. That commenter was sort of right, in that we don’t get as many hits on profile posts like those in the “Bootstrapped, Profitable, & Proud” series — people like those stories, but they’re not as popular as the posts that highlight how 37signals works as a company, for instance, or posts that share our ideas on design and business.
For my part, I’m resolving to take those preferences more into account, and to do a better job engaging within the comments section, if that’s where people prefer to have a dialogue. The more present writers are post-publication, the more respectful the conversation tends to be, and the more value everyone gets out of the exchange.
I will say that writing more frequently for SvN has toughened my skin, and that’s not a bad thing. Trolling is never personal, for one. Rudeness says far more about the commenter’s character than about the author’s skill as a writer. Two, it helps to recognize that people are rarely inspired to leave a comment just to agree or say thanks. My coworker Jonas likes to think of comments as “The opposite of the thing you just read.” Since people generally only comment to disagree, “articles read like ‘Here’s a point.’ Comments -> ‘The opposite point.’” If you’re braced for it and accept that counterpoint as part of the anatomy of a blog post, it doesn’t sting — it’s expected behavior.
Don Schenck
on 21 Oct 13I think part of the issue is this: Ten years ago, 37signals was the underdog against Microsoft Project. People rallied behind Jason and company as they battled the bloat of Microsoft’s offering.
Today, having succeeded and having added features to the point that some consider bloat (not necessarily my opinion), 37signals has become the new target.
Just my opinion. And I’ve always used my real name and email address :)
Brian
on 21 Oct 13Great post, Emily.
Two thoughts: (1) Always loved the new design of SVN. (2) For me, the positive word-of-mouth comments I share with my friends and colleagues regarding SVN and 37signals far outweigh the random dismissive comment.
Todd
on 21 Oct 13I don’t think I have commented on SvN, largely due to the fact that I started following the site after the redesign. In fact, the comment section was hard enough to find that I didn’t know it existed until I needed to find it a few months back.
I would say SvN is one of my favorite blogs to read. The topics of the post vary greatly, but it’s pretty rare that I don’t find something interesting or thought-provoking. Whether it’s work on Basecamp, how 37Signals works or trends in IT, there’s a very high signal rate here.
Regardless of what you decide to do with the Comments section, know there’s a silent majority out there alive and appreciative of the posting. I certainly would be interested in a way to help ensure good posts are more prominent. Just please don’t tie it to Facebook! I’d rather post with my 37Signals account than use that.
On a more positive note, have a great Monday! Appreciate you guys.
Jed Sundwall
on 21 Oct 13There’s another equation here: engagement ≠ might not be the point in the first place.
That is, your goal as a publisher (or business) might not be to get people to engage with you. Your blog can serve to educate your readers, keep your brand top-of-mind, announce new features, or simply entertain. None of those things necessarily require engagement from readers.
I think it’s unfortunate that allowing comments is a default behavior online. Just because blogs can support comments doesn’t mean that they should. They add complexity to the interface, they’re a pain to maintain, and they create an affordance for trolling.
Unless your goal really is to engage with your readers, I don’t see any problem with turning them off.
Glenn Meder
on 21 Oct 13Great post. I appreciate how 37 Signals is so conscientious in making such decisions. I love hearing the sincere thought process about how you approach these matters. I deal with trolls in my business all the time. There are some people that are that way, no matter what you do. Since you are so transparent in what you do, I am able to learn from your experiences. Much appreciated.
I think the comments are important though. Not just for us to be able to provide feedback, or share in a conversation, but the authors need the feedback, both to be in sync with the audience and to be knocked down once and a while when the writer’s perspective is skewed. I love reading David’s articles and I respect him very much, but sometimes I think he’s deserved some of the comments that he’s received.
I think the back and forth benefits everyone. For the most part, you have thoughtful readers and commenters. It’s great to see the authors and other people at the company respond.
Jim Maher
on 21 Oct 13This is an interesting and, I fear, important topic: how to stimulate constructive online discourse while minimizing disruptive distractions. You’ve gotten me thinking.
There is much to say (and understand) about the behaviors observed on various social interaction venues. What do we see people doing? Can we speculate about what motivates these behaviors? What can we do to mitigate inflammatory reactions? But the more immediate issue is how best to support productive conversations in more “private” environments; for example, blog commentary.
I’m not sure that obfuscation is the best first step.
The mechanism that comes to mind is comment moderation. That’s a burden on the author, but perhaps a valid assignment of responsibility (i.e., s/he started it). I believe a disclaimer that “only constructive, pertinent comments which further the topical discussion will be considered for posting” is probably a first line of defense. In combination with the mere fact of moderation, this might dissuade the most casual trollers.
Perhaps the process could be enhanced by allowing each blogger to “white list” trusted (or at least “vetted”) commentators. Over time, that might make the process more manageable.
Amazing Rando
on 21 Oct 13Another method for managing trolls that doesn’t involve removing anonymity would be Slash Dot’s commenting system—http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml.
In a nutshell, it decentralizes moderation to prevent abuse and encourages interaction. Perhaps overkill of SvN, but worthy of being mentioned since it is on topic.
Des Traynor
on 21 Oct 13Back in “the day”, SvN used to publish “The Filter” which would pick out truly useful comments on the previous weeks posts. I honestly think this helped raise the bar.
Good commenters were linked up, and their comment was included. I think this encouraged people to write thoughtful comments. It might be worth bringing it back, especially today give than your average reader will definitely miss the comments.
Just a thought,
Des “Never Made The Filter” Traynor
Ben Lowery
on 21 Oct 13I love the design of your blog, it’s about the only one I frequent that I don’t need to use Readability on, I never will understand why people design a blog with 10pt type, horrible line length and tight line-height and then bury it in the top left of a bunch of distracting content.
I’m not a designer type (much too happy with my head in code) but I do appreciate it when I see it.
As for the quality of the comments, I tend to use Adblock to block comments on a lot of the sites I frequent as they are rarely relevant or useful though I don’t for SvN.
Jesper
on 21 Oct 13I am endlessly happy that you did not choose to remove comments. Des has a great point that a great way to effect the type of comments you get is by managing the expectation of what a comment is. In nine out of ten sites where comments go overboard, it’s because there’s no way to tell a good or interesting comment from a bad comment and eventually the author yells at the trash for not picking itself up.
The science community is great, but its members communicate by publishing papers at each other. Social networks are notoriously horrible at letting you follow a thread of discussion and I like not being required to have a Twitter presence to post my thoughts.
What can be said about commenting, like any effective mode of communication, is that it’s partially open to drive-by opinions. Deal with them. Let the good stuff through. Set examples.
Robert
on 21 Oct 13I say get rid of the comments, comments are terrible.
Glenn Street
on 21 Oct 13Along the line of Des’s comment, Dave Wimer at Scripting News mentioned a commenting system had been developed (at the dawn of blogging) for Harvard Law blogs. Comments would be published “x” days after a blog post. Then another round of comments occurred, again not posted for another x days. Comments were grouped as threads as common threads of thought were identified. As Dave characterized the process, very lawyer-like.
The downside was the system required a moderator to sift and sort comments. The benefit was ample time to think before responding. Not being published immediately, comments tended to be focused on issues being discussed, not knee-jerk reactions.
Ron Stauffer
on 22 Oct 13I’m all good with moderating or even turning off comments. Seth Godin has a pretty good post on why he’s never allowed comments on his blog, and I think of all the bloggers on the web, he’s certainly one to emulate.
It’s been an interesting adventure on my own personal blog, humble as it is: I’m constantly moderating comments that are either: 1) completely redundant (people who didn’t read comments above theirs and my responses earlier in the thread), 2) junk/spam, 3) people trying to start an argument by telling me that I’m completely off in everything I said or want to start a fight over semantics or one tiny typo.
Honestly, I’ve noticed that the best feedback I get is from people who send me a long, detailed and thoughtful email rather than leaving a blog comment. For two reasons: A) they want to tell me their thoughts without being needing to be quick and concise and B) they don’t want to disagree with me publicly because they’re too polite and don’t want to start a fight. And those kinds of comments are the ones that really get me thinking; they’re the ones I really appreciate.
Yes, I realize the irony of agreeing with you here… in a blog post comment. ;)
Mark
on 22 Oct 13Have you ever tried adding comments through IE9? Since your redesign it is real guesswork figuring out how to use your comments fields. Firstly the field borders are all but invisible. Then there are no labels so you have to guess Name first or Email first.
Maybe if you made it less of an initiative test you’d get more comments?
Michael
on 22 Oct 13Allowing comments is a sign of strength (a lot of writers are afraid of them) and provides a lot of useful practice learning to adapt a message. Those of us who have read SvN for years can tell that Jason, David and Ryan are much more articulate today because of their interactions with readers.
Twitter is where the writers prefer to hang out, and I bet that SvN wouldn’t exist if this company was started in the last few years. So, it makes sense that engagement is shunted in that direction. However, Twitter fragments the community of respondents and also does not give authors much practice articulating full ideas.
That said, perhaps the writers of 37signals consider their ideas to have fully matured and no longer desire feedback. And there is certainly no need for them to demonstrate the strength of the blog by allowing an independent community to exist on it.
Anon Coward
on 22 Oct 13‘jumped the shark’ lol, i’m not sure I agree, however much of the content is promotional.
Sarah
on 22 Oct 13@37signals
Just because a commenter doesn’t use their real email address, doesn’t make their comments any less real.
There’s a variety of reasons why people post anonymously online, including but not limited to, fear of their employer retaliating, concern their email address will be displayed publicly and then getting spam, etc
Shimon Schwartz
on 22 Oct 13My idea comes from handling a little bit different form of user feedback — reviews of businesses, but the core problems are the same. May be you would find it interesting to try here: instead of posting comment to an internal engine, have your post comment launch mail client, with body of email being the comment itself. This has some advantages: you get a real name, email and trolls can be easily marked as spam. You can also determine which email service the commenter is using and launch a Gmail post window, or Yahoo, or on mobile force a default email app, may be. There are also easy ways to protect from spam pretty easily, as well.
So this at first seems like a little inconvenience to the user, but we all use emails, not everyone has Facebook or Twitter account, and we all hate trolls. So in the end it’s a win-win.
Looking forward to hear back about this idea.
Kelli
on 22 Oct 13“Rudeness says far more about the commenter’s character than about the author’s skill as a writer.”
Best single sentence I’ve read in a long time.
Glenn Meder
on 22 Oct 13So Emily. Are you going to join in the conversation and engage? ;)
Emily
on 22 Oct 13Thanks for all the awesome feedback! It’s funny, all these insightful comments on a post about how comments are problematic. Y’all are so meta.
@Des: That’s a great idea to bring back The Filter—maybe not every week, but once a month or so it would be neat to see the best comments from SvN. And I think you’re right; it would encourage thoughtful feedback. I’ll talk to the team about it.
@Ron: Thanks for the links to Godin’s post. I totally agree with him that anticipating how commenters will react can change the way you write. It did for this post, in fact—draft #1 was a bit more whiny/incendiary. So that anticipation isn’t necessarily a bad thing; it can help tighten your argument. But it’s definitely there.
@Mark: I didn’t know our comment form is wonky in IE9. Switch to Chrome? Kidding, kidding! I just wanted to feel the thrill of trolling for a moment. I’ll talk to our QA team about that.
@Sarah: Solid point. We never share or publish email addresses, but those are valid concerns. Not every anonymous poster is a coward.
Emil
on 22 Oct 13Having comments is great. If you look at the “Nuts & Bolts” series on SvN a lot of value is shared trough the interaction between readers and the writer (example: https://37signals.com/svn/posts/1073-nuts-bolts-haproxy#all_comments).
I don’t think those discussions would have happened with a “Discuss this on Twitter” or with embedded Facebook comments.
Vlad
on 23 Oct 13I agree that Comments ≠ Engagement, and I will speak for myself now.
I’m closely following SvN and 37signal since a few years now, and my “workflow” is that I check my Feedly once a few days, and send the things that seem interesting to my Kindle, and then read them during the commute.
Then, if the thing that I have read offline, still seems good, I add my couple of cents and publish it to my Facebook and G+ streams. My point is that even if I don’t actually spend a lot of time on SvN itself (other than to savor it’s classy look ;)), let alone comment on the articles, I still pride myself of being an engaged reader of yours.
And if I think about it, it seems to me that posting the comment and the link on other resources tells even more about the level of engagement, and, is of a greater benefit to the blog’s SEO. So yeah, comments immediately on the article are not the only thing to measure. ;)
Thank you guys!
Ahmad
on 23 Oct 13Would you consider adding something like the Twitter Conversation design, I really love when one of you responds to a reader and keep a cool conversation going, it’s tiring to scroll down and look for a reply.
This discussion is closed.