More of your say
If you visit the message boards this week you may notice a few changes. They are all there as a result of feedback from our users who, back in November, took part in a website questionnaire and a number of focus groups to tell us how they wanted the site to develop.
Their message was we want more clarity about just how many comments each debate receives, what is done with them, and the status of their own individual comment or complaint. They also want to see their messages published, but not necessarily ones from other people which they don’t think are as good or pertinent! They also want the pages to be a good read.
So, from this week on the right hand side of any debate, we now have a box with the total number of comments received, those published, those rejected and those in the moderation queue. At times this moderation queue will seem excessively large – today the Virginia shooting debate had over 6,000 in the queue, built up since last night when the moderator left at 11pm. When the debate is closed, the queue of messages is incorporated into the total as no further comments can be added by the team.
Members can see at a glance the number of comments they have had published, and how many complaints they have made in the last week. They will also see the status of all of the comments they have sent in. The four options are; a comment was published, it was unpublished (as the debate is closed and it didn’t get on), it is waiting to be moderated, or rejected, where a moderator decided it broke the House Rules.
All of these terms plus the House Rules are explained on the right hand side. There is also a page for complaints made in the last seven days – and the status of those; upheld, or not, or awaiting a decision.
We have also decided to highlight the messages made by the 91Èȱ¬ moderators in a different colour so they stand out and are noticed. Usually these are requests from us to keep debates on topic and avoid having a dialogue between two users to the detriment of anyone else reading or contributing!
The statistics from our Have Your Say debates continues to rise - and we hope these changes will encourage more people to take part.
In January the number of page views to the Have Your Say part of the site peaked at over 12 million and we now have just under 200,000 registered users.
We now publish 49% of messages received – up from around 25% from a couple of years ago. Of course as soon as something momentous happens that people want to tell us about, that can rise to over 30,000 e-mails for any one topic and the percentage published will not be as high.
Please let us know what you think of the changes, and if you have any more suggestions to make. We really do want you to have your say!
Comments
It works, but there is a problem where the links on the right on some pages show "Unnamed Page" 5 time etc.
Keep up the excellent work.
If only 49% of comments are published, and yet a vast number of those are petty squabbling or clearly ill-informed, it makes me wonder how many genuinely interesting contributions are being blocked. How does the moderator choose which ones are published, because at the moment it doesn't seem to be a decision based on relevance or intellect.
There also seems to be slightly fewer "stating-the-bleeding-obvious" debates in recent weeks as well, which is a relief. It was getting to the point where I was expecting one called "Do you think nuclear holocaust is a good idea?".
I think that the notion of "Have Your Say" on the 91Èȱ¬ is absolutely fantastic, and I'm really glad that you continue to invest and improve upon it.
(of course, there's a 'but')
.. however, with such vast numbers of people commenting, it's getting to the stage now where the 91Èȱ¬ needs to introduce some kind of filtering system so that people can read the most interesting comments and skip those that reiterate an already-written point - I find it very difficult to judge the tone of a debate on Have Your Say because it's simply impossible to read all of the responses.
(I realize that this is a hard problem to solve, but it's one that, in my mind, has to be solved to make the Have Your Say debates readable and relevant now that they are so well-used. Other big news-aggregator sites have made a stab at this (eg. Slashdot's karma), it's time the 91Èȱ¬ began to consider how to offer a way of usefully accessing all of the data being offered)
The main problem seems to be that the 91Èȱ¬ want people to 'have your say' but in reality they want to filter those comments down to a few that represent the wide spread of opinion, so you don't have to read 10 pages of stuff to see what the general response is.
So why bother? Why not just have a 91Èȱ¬ editorial section that represents a summary of all the views, and create a new HYS that is just a reactively moderated discussion board like the Guardian's CommentIsFree, where every comment is included, whether the 91Èȱ¬ agree with it or not.
Have Your Say is disgusting. Look at the Virgina Shooting discussion. A bunch of uninformed people sharing their stereotypes and hate. I'm not even sure half these people read the article before hopping into HYS. That seems to be the state of other HYS discussions I've seen.
Just stick to the news 91Èȱ¬.
I agree with Kendric, above. Your next, best step is to allow proper user logins (as opposed to a cookie based approach), and a moderation system, like slashdot, or similar. These systems allow your thousands of users the job of removing generally useless comments, and let you moderaters look at the "better" comments only - the opposite of the current system. Your moderaters can then remove, or restructure the debate at its highest level.
I think the changes that have been made are generally good. In particular I find it useful to see what proportion of contributions to a debate have been published. Of course we all want our own included, and perhaps tend to think those we disagree with should be left out! Common sense tells most of us that this will not always be the case. One thing that has bugged me, and I wonder whether it has been addressed: debates seems to go into a "pre-read-only" mode for a day or two before being closed. During this period comments are still being accepted, but no more are published. The dates of the latest entries make this obvious. Overall, though, good job.
I have been contributing for some time almost 6 years but many issues now dont get published and i could claim credit for new statistics of comments received,published and rejected since i raise the point about some comments between certain period completely deleted and i for one dont like wasting time if it is not taken into account not necesarily published.
I like the recent changes to the Have Your Say site. As with many websites, this one is evolving as both membership and readership grow.
Relevance in posting comments is very important; some published comments do not appear to directly answer the question! I wonder that another possible evolution for this site could be to introduce a 'Category', a main header for a given subject, proposing more than one question within it. Using that method, the relevance factor may improve. Good work so far and long may it thrive as an example of open democracy.
I very much like having the "recommend" button.
I also think it's good if lots of different views are let through rather than simply the PC views we may hear anyway in the media. If non-PC views are bad, generally some people should be able to challenge them and little "harm" may be done. I'm only newish to HYS but there seems to have been an improvement in this aspect (allowing a variety of ideas and opinions) over recent months.
If there is felt a need to be a change to HYS given the numbers, perhaps some sort of more sophisticated marking scheme could be invented: I'm particularly interested in newish (to me) points that are made or facts that are referred to. Not sure how this would be done e.g.
Agree with comment: V. Strongly/Strongly/Neither agree nor disagree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree
plus
Very thought-provoking/Thought-provoking/Agree but not particuarly thought-provoking/Disagree but not particularly though-provoking/thoughtless.
Those were very long! But just throwing out ideas late at night.
I have to say I agree with comment #10, at the moment it seems that all the most recommended entries all represent the same opinion, and I'm sure that the whole country isn't made up of complaining, miserable and forever grumbling individuals. Having a "stepped" system might mean that all comments are graded seperately, so that a wider range of opinions can be seen (although it might be hard to implement such a system).
I'm liking the new statistics section though! Keep up the good work!
In reply to Kendrick Curtis who suggests a filtering system to help him get more of a sense of how a debate is moving - we have the recommended section for just that reason. Here registered members recommend the comments they agree with most or think are the most well put. We feel it is more relevant for the users to recommend rather than the "Editor's pick" as it comes directly from you the audience. We know too that more and more people are registering just to recommend a comment, not necessarily to leave one of their own.
Delighted to see the individual comment status link - it makes the moderation process far more transparent.
I see we have figures for published, rejected and so on but none for "disappeared", for me these tend to be anything that doesn't break the rules but doesn't fit in with the 91Èȱ¬s politically correct self censorship. It's no great surprise "have you say" is known on other sites as "watch your mouth"
The changes you have recently made are definitely improvements but only having a "recommend" button very frequently leads to a large number of very similar views appearing at the top of the charts, generally with (by definition) populist and largely majoritarian opinions. While the 91Èȱ¬ sometimes is criticised for its editorial policy of deliberately seeking to present a number of different viewpoints on subjective issues, some of which will necessarily be minority ones, people will tend to "game" the system and promote opinions like their own, which tends to lead to strict majority domination.
Perhaps a system which presented a wide number of different viewpoints but rewarded individuals' well-considered expressions of their viewpoints would be ideal middle ground; however, this is difficult to obtain and a problem that forums all over the Web struggle with. As a proactive suggestion rather than a mere reflection, would it be worthwhile explicitly stating an instruction, every time people have the chance to recommend comments, that people should recommend comments that they think are well-expressed rather than ones with which they happen to agree?
I agree with comment 2.
Many of the comments posted on the HYS moderated topics are argumentative and petty, plus I often get the impression there is a biased opinion being displayed from the moderators given the tone of the published comments. Sure this is not the way a fair discussion should be?
I love the new features, which I think are a huge improvement. One suggestion for a little change that would make it even better is to have individual user stats so that I can see at a glance how many of my own comments have been rejected or unpublished.
Whilst this may seem a small point, it is in fact quite significant. The standard of English of many published comments is deplorable, and some are so bad that I can't even work out what they really mean.
HYS should insist on reasonable standards of English grammar and punctuation. Someone once said to me, "What does it matter, so long as you get your meaning across?" My response was, "How do you know that you ARE getting your meaning across?"
Any Game is defined by its rules - ignore the rules and the game crumbles into chaos. In this sense, language is entirely equivalent to a "game" - one whose rules are those of grammar and punctuation. A "meaning" can be reliably "got across" only if the player abides by the common rules. HYS commentators who don't should be shown the "red card", or, if possible, at least be given the opportunity to re-draft their comments.
I notice that with the changes, postings are left for days until the debate has closed. Thsi saves actually rejecting them, or that seems the opinion of several participants.
I'd like to know what I have ever done or written to deserve a red sign when I send in a Retroactively Moderated posting. It appears next to comments, and despite many enquiries you never let me know. I may not be a politically correct leftie, but I have seen far more extreme views than mine appear, and I never swear, curse, insult racially etc etc.
I notice that with the changes, postings are left for days until the debate has closed. Thsi saves actually rejecting them, or that seems the opinion of several participants.
I'd like to know what I have ever done or written to deserve a red sign when I send in a Retroactively Moderated posting. It appears next to comments, and despite many enquiries you never let me know. I may not be a politically correct leftie, but I have seen far more extreme views than mine appear, and I never swear, curse, insult racially etc etc.
I like the changes to HYS.
But recently one of my comments - which had been recommended by 46 people and was one of the top comments - was then rejected.
It was on topic, neither a rant nor a rude riposte - it didn't mention immigrants, the government or any of the other personal gripes that plague boards on all subjects.
I was really disappointed, because clearly the comment had struck a chord with the readership but the 91Èȱ¬ saw fit to strike it some days after it had been posted.
I hope the moderators in future will concentrate on removing only posts that break the rules.
I think you need to decide what HYS is supposed to be. Currently it's trying to be both a debate/discussion thread and a summary of views, and ends up being pretty bad for both.
The half-way house censorship is the problem - either take all the comments and get someone at the 91Èȱ¬ to write an article based on them, so it's clear that it is the 91Èȱ¬'s opinion, or publish them all uncensored, in which case it is clear that there has been no 91Èȱ¬ editorial input. Currently it might as well be called 'Have you say (as long as we agree with it)'
Dear Vicky,
I was a contributor at one of the sessions in Charing Cross and I am pleased that our views have been listened to. A big thank you for that!
However, I have in the past complained about what I perceive as rather heavy moderation bordering, in fact, on censorship.
I am aware that 'our' politicians are sensitive to criticism but that definitely comes with the turf.
In my particular case I have been a regular contributor to the Talk Radio genre and in recent times have noticed an increasing difficulty in being able to make ones point if it is liable to fly in the face of what the government would consider acceptable- this is unfair and contrary to the tenets and principles enshrined in Magna Carta. LBC have in fact effectively banned me.
If the 91Èȱ¬ is to be seen to be independent of government influence then it is essential that on a public views forum the hard hitting remarks are included.
Please note that I never use opprobrious language and in my opinion am never slanderous or libelous.
Thanks again and keep on improving.
Bob Thompson
Generally speaking, I agree that overall the changes to the HYS system have greatly improved the experience. In particular, it's much easier to review your own comments (and more importantly, those of other posters!) compared to the the cumbersome and unreliable keyword-based search previously used.
I also applaud the new complaints system, which makes it much easier to flag up offensive posts, although the object seems to be largely defeated by the delay (4 days in my case) between clicking the 'Report' button and actually seeing the post removed. It doesn't inspire confidence that those who post words of hate to post-modded debates will have their posts visible for extended periods of time regardless o whether other contributors consider them grossly offensive.
As other contributors have pointed out there is still significant scope for improvement to what I am guessing is one of the most popular features of the entire 91Èȱ¬ site.
As mentioned, many of the debates are at best poorly phrased and at worst openly leading in terms of the actual question, and too high a priority is given to tabloid chit-chat subjects, an issue which many have argued is pervading the entire culture of the 91Èȱ¬. There's something very hypocritical to my mind about a debate questioning whether mass media intrusion is responsible for the separation of a royal 'couple', and questions about the Oscars or a new Kylie exhibition belong on the Sun's website, not that of the world's most respected broadcaster.
The lack of transparency in post moderation remains and has not been addressed by the inclusion of statistics in the sidebar. The fact that popular debates often have a backlog queue of several thousand debates suggests that more moderators are needed! Decisions on which posts merit publication and rejection remain completely arbitrary, and who decides when a debate is moved from reactive to full moderation, or for that matter when it is closed down altogether? Many of my posts remain 'unpublished' after the debate has been closed - this seems to be a convenient way of preventing messages from being displayed without needing to give an explanation.
And whilst I believe that expecting every comment to be perfectly argued and accurately spelled is probably unrealistic, I would like to see an end to the publication of posts written in so-called 'txt spk' without a capital letter or even a rudimentary attempt at punctuation in sight.
Finally, I would question some of the choices when deciding how a debate is moderated. In particular I am deeply annoyed that the (all too frequent) debates regarding so-called obesity and fat people are ALWAYS initally reactively moderated, despite the fact that this subject seems to repeatedly attract a massive proportion of spiteful, unpleasant and frequently irrelevant diatribes from the majority of contributors. I have accused the 91Èȱ¬ Mods of displaying a seriously biased position on this subject before, and I maintain this position - interestingly I have never seen the HYS population trusted to post to a thread which is related to race or immigration, and quite rightly, because the 91Èȱ¬ are more than aeware of the kind of views these topics seem to generate. Why then is a blind eye frequently turned to the inevitable morass of unnecessarily hateful and prejudiced comments about this one particular section of society?
To be honest I think HYS has long since ceased to be a meaningful indicator of public opinion and now serves only as an expensive and highly addictive form of lunch hour procrastination for office monkeys such as myself...
Just a note to say thanks for making these changes and that I think HYS is an excellent feature of the 91Èȱ¬ website. My main gripe about HYS previously was that frequently the early posts in a debate weren't able to be accessed once the debate developed - I'm hoping this has been sorted out in the new format, but I think if space is a problem it's a good idea to close forums earlier rather than later and get on with new business. I'd also like to observe that HYS should be regarded as a genuine historical resource and sampler of the public's views on topical subjects, and with this in mind I'd rather the 91Èȱ¬ insisted on a displayed "full name" in their usernames; it's annoying to read a debate where people are saying they're in favour of ID cards and not worried about giving up their civil liberties, say, when they're calling themselves such pseudonyms as "asif".
May I query why, above all the comments on various topics, you have
‘All comments as they come in’ when it is obvious that you neither post all comments nor post comments as they come in.
I've contributed posts that were not posted at all for whatever reason, and I've contributed posts late at night that have taken until later the next to day to be posted.
Indeed, you yourselves even say, after one has submitted a comment, under the notice reading
'Thank-you for your comments' - ‘Your comment will be read by a Have Your Say moderator before it is published. Please note that due to the volume of comments that we receive, we cannot guarantee that all comments will be published.’
So what's with the ‘All comments as they come in’ statement? It's just not true.
Yep, pretty lame of you to publish only half of submitted comments.
So you decide who hears our comments-what difference is their between you and a Tyrant? Information should be free and without strings. DO NOT CALL IT A DEBATE OR ALLOW COMMENTS! You are giving those who actually PRACTICE the flow of free speech a bad name. What are you scared of when you censor comments?
Does the BB in 91Èȱ¬ stand for Broke Back?
My 2 suggestions:
Currently we can recommend comments we like. What about marking comments we feel are wrong/innacurate/irrelevant?
e.g, underneath the message:
Recommended by 13 people
23 people disagree with this message
Marked as inaccurate 8 people
Marked as irrelevant by 10 people
Then the "recommended" tab could sort messages by calculating some kind of score based on those criteria.
Secondly, often there can be 100 replies to one individual message that somebody posted. This can be quite confusing, and when I come across a reply I usually want to see what the original message was, in context. So perhaps there could be a link under each message entitled "reply to this message" and another link called "see replies to this message". Then, replies to individual messages would be separated from the main comments.
Avoid counting postings.
Seek informed, different or unique views.
Screen out more- the number of postings published is too high to be read.
There is a terrible tendency in journalism these days to assume that a high count indicates validity.
A mass of individuals getting their opinions from manipulative media become a "hyperdemocratic" mass.
Counting the response measures only the spinner's marketing success.
This week, a pathetic 91Èȱ¬ "debate" spent all of five minutes discussing the effect of television on children.
Does this give anyone any creative ideas?
I'd expect an explanation if my comment was rejected.
As a Chinese, who read both Chinese and English versions of 91Èȱ¬ news website on daily basis, I appreciate the balanced, objective and impartial reports produced by 91Èȱ¬.
The Chinese version of HYS is good too.
But I'm amazed by the stark contrast between HYS (English version) and other parts of 91Èȱ¬ website where it makes any China related (directily or indirectly) discussions a feast of China bashing by silencing commments defending China.
So what's the big deal of showing those comments that have nothing to do with abusive languges but only non-91Èȱ¬-HYS opinions?