You are here

Is It Time To Ban Comments On The Traveler?

Share

Has the time come to ban comments on the Traveler? That's not a philosophical question or a parlor game, but one driven by concerns among readers that constructive conversation is hard to come by on the site.

By and large, the volume of comments on the Traveler is dominated by a very, very small handful of individuals. And they can, at times, take things to extremes and give no quarter. More than a few times various commenters have accused others of being trolls, simply lurking out there, waiting to bait others into an argument, or made gratuitous comments, and worse.

And a handful of times a year we get private emails complaining about this behavior. Here's just the most recent example:

The NPT comments section has long been hijacked by conservative/libertarian trolls like ecbuck to the point that many of us who would *like* to engage in conversation and intelligent discourse regarding park issues are dissuaded from doing so by the truculent, confrontational, repetitive and axe-grinding nature of such ideologues. I am disappointed in your feckless moderation of the comments section because the parks are my passion and I would love to contribute, but I have come to the realization that I should take my participation -- and views of your ads -- elsewhere.

Now, whether Traveler's moderation of the comments queue is feckless is a matter of opinion. But we can tell you that we lack the manpower it takes to moderate on as strenuous a basis as some might hope.

What begs a question is whether there would be greater reader participation if the comments weren't seemingly monopolized by a handful of readers, some unafraid to wield an ax? With nearly 1.7 million readers a year, and less than a dozen regular commenters, you have to wonder.

Frankly, nothing would be more welcome to us than to see more reader involvement in the site.

The only lasting solution would be to bring an end to comments, which would be unfortunate, as we truly believe conversation is key to understanding, and possibly solving, some of the issues that the national parks face. Over the years we have reached out to those most criticized, have tried "no follow" buttons, and even banned folks, all to no avail.

So, how would you handle this situation?

While you ponder that question, let us repost our Code of Conduct for those who comment:

Code of Conduct

The blogosphere is a pretty free-wheeling place. As a result, it has developed a persona, right or wrong, of playing fast and loose with facts, with running roughshod over some posters, with allowing anonymity to serve as a shield for attackers. Some bloggers have called for a code of conduct for the blogosphere, and we at the Traveler support that movement.

As I mentioned recently, we view the Traveler as more of a web magazine than a blog. But that doesn't lessen the need for a code of conduct, both to guide the Traveler's writers and to let those who desire to comment on our articles to know there are limits as to what is appropriate.

For those who might immediately jump to the conclusion that we're implementing a measure of censorship, that's not the case at all. Rather, just as there are accepted norms for what can be broadcast and printed in mainstream media, there are accepted norms for the interchange of ideas on the Traveler. All we expect from you is a measure of civility. Here's how Colin Rule, director of the Center for Internet and Society, addresses the expectation of civil discourse:

So is it true that civility and politeness should go out the window when confronted with deep and intense feelings? Well, not to sound too much like "Mr. Manners," but I think it's at that point that civility and politeness come to matter more. When emotions get the better of someone, and that person uses language intended to incite and shock rather than reason, it creates an easy target for the other side; the most likely response becomes a similar provocative statement, and then the exchange becomes focused on the excesses of each statement rather than the issues at hand.

Beyond an expectation of civility there are times when, quite frankly, just as radio and television moderators feel a need to redirect their guests back to the subject at hand, it might be appropriate for us to steer the flurry of comments back to the topic at hand. And we won't hesitate to do that, as we have a very well specified mission statement that guides this patch of cyberspace.

With that said, here are some general guidelines that will guide the code of conduct for the Traveler (with the understanding that they could continue to evolve):

* The authors of posts take responsibility for their words.

* Abusive comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be deleted.

* Those behind abusive comments and personal attacks will be contacted privately and asked to be more constructive in their comments. If the comments and attacks persist, the author will be blocked from the site.

* Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.

* If a subject of a post feels they have been wronged or simply wishes to respond in a post as opposed to a comment, that will be allowed.

In general, we at the Traveler have been pretty tolerant of comments. That's been evidenced most recently by some made this past weekend that were allowed to stand. We do not want to sanitize this forum, nor do we want to create the impression that it tilts one way or the other politically or philosophically. Yet there is a line, one that should not be crossed, in the common decency of civil discourse. If all you can do is throw stones and slurs, take it elsewhere.

Anonymous comments will continue to be allowed because there obviously are times when whistleblowers want to shield their identity, when the topic is political dissent, and when the individual doesn't want his/her comments attached to the organization they work for. That said, we encourage those who do not fall under those situations to be up front with who they are and not rely on what's been termed "drive by anonymity" to attack someone.

Regardless of how you decide to identify yourself, you are expected to adhere to the points above.

Comments

I hate to say it, but I agree with parts of your email example.  I notice this in particular with what I call "hot button articles" on the Traveler.  I read those articles and then I immediately wonder just how long it will take for several  commenters I see regularly to begin the argument that ultimately evolves into absolutely nothing to do with the article itself but instead morphs into a mud-slinging to-and-fro.  I notice this same phenomenon occurring on other sites allowing comments.  What begins with comments pertaining to the post at large ultimately disintegrate into something totally different - usually along the lines of politics or religion.  I've read somewhere that even sites like NPR may dispense with the comments portion.

I also notice what you have mentioned about the same few regular commenters in each article.  I see that on my Facebook page and on other photographers' Facebook pages.  There may be thousands of "Likes" for a page as a whole, but only the same few people regularly like or comment on a photo posted.  

While I would be sorry to see the comments section go, I totally understand the reasoning for it and would not be surprised if you remove that aspect of this site.


Online comments are gradually being phased out among several top news sites, because so many are hijacked by the vocal few who have little real interest in a respectful, back-and-forth dialogue. One model is to let people comment on stories through social media, but on your own site go back to a "letters to the editor" model, where writers have to be reasoned and thoughtful in their arguments. Another question to consider is whether "greater reader participation" is really what you want, or "greater reader thoughtfulness and understanding." Sometimes less is more. 

You've probably seen this interview on the subject, but it's interesting: http://www.niemanlab.org/2015/09/what-happened-after-7-news-sites-got-ri...


I'd hate to see the comments section of Traveler go away because of the same issues that other publications have experienced from just a few commenters who seem to need to start a war of words.  Many times the comments end up not having a thing to do with the article in question.  I love National Park Traveler and all the valuable information I have gained from the many writers.  I feel as though I am right along with them on various hikes and campouts.  I have also gained a tremendous amount of good information about issues facing our National Park Service and the good folks that keep that engine running for all of us.  I understand completely if the comments section need to go away.  Frankly I won't miss any of those folks that like to post the same outlandish comments over and over and over.  This will leave more room for folks like Mr. Repanshek to share his amazing adventures and knowledge with people like me.  


I agree with Rebecca's comments.  That said, I'd hate to see commenting banned on The Traveler.  On the one hand, there has been contentious, yet nevertheless, interesting and productive discourse around issues such as land management and the philosophical mission of the parks.  (I've participated in some of this--sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, and sometimes finding my mind changed, in discussions with mountain bikers, Dr. Runte, etc.  In fact, I've occassionally been so impressed with the thoughtfulness of these dialogues that they themselves seem to really complement/complete the article itself.)   On the other hand, it's obvious that one or a few readers simply use articles as prextexts to taunt other readers and to hijack the discussion in order to register some completely unrelated political resentment.  I'm not quite sure where this latter situation is addressed in the Code of Conduct, but it clearly lowers the level of discourse at The Traveler.


Couldn't you just not read the comment section instead of limiting something others might find of value?


As the subject of your emailers' attack I feel compelled to comment.  It is noteworthy that he attributes the "hijacking" and "troll" activity only to conservative/libertarian posters even though there are even more on the liberal side that engage in equal or even greater confrontational banter. I suspect his objection is really the content rather than the nature of the comments themselves.  I am sorry if he objects to one asking for substantiation of idle conjecture, intentional slender or claimed fact.  I believe that statements, unless specifically identified as opinion, made in the article or the comments should be based on actual facts that can be substantiated and that challanging those that aren't is a service to the community. Managing the parks based on myths serves noone well.  I am also sorry he finds some comments repetitive.  But again that is because some comments themselves are repeated as truths but when challanged the challanges go unanswered.  And while the conversation may occasionally slip off topic (driven by both sides), the Parks don't exist in a vacuum.  Policies that effect the parks often eminate from policies on economics, weather, resource development ........  I believe many enjoy the comments and learn from them.  I do.  And I know that I will never convince "the other side" to change their opinion as they know they are unlikely to change mine.  But the millions that do read and don't post may not have as strong an opinion.  Getting them the facts - or at least a balanced discussion of the facts - may help them make-up or change their own minds.  But in the end there is a simple solution.  If you don't like the comments, don't read them.  The only rationale for a ban would be to block the opinions of those with whom you disagree, an activity that already occures far too often.  


A Code of Conduct is only worth something if it is enforced.

If (a) it is known that comments are regularly "hijacked" by a vocal few; (b) NPT lacks the resources to moderate said comments; and (c) because of (a) and (b), the comments actually contribute little value, then I see no point of having a comments section at all. Yes, comments can be valuable, but only if they provide information. If your signal-to-noise ratio is comprised almost purely of noise, what's the point?

 


I'd be sad to see reader comments ended on NPT.  This is one of the best national forums for criticism of National Park Service management, a cult-like group that sadly needs all the criticism and spin correction it can get.  Compared to many internet forums, NPT is actually quite civil.  Perhaps the more annoying, off-topic personal exchanges could be reduced by limiting user's comments per article or per day/week?


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.