State Of The Site, Late 2013 Comment Count

Brian

keyboard_bash[1]This is obviously meta.

I may or may not do something like this again, but UMHoops does 'em and they seem like a good idea. Since I've mentioned my general dissatisfaction with the way things have been going around here in a couple of different formats, I figure a fuller explanation is due to everyone who doesn't listen to the podcast or care about Twitter, and Twitter was about six sentences anyway.

I've gotten a lot of emails and tweets in support and while I appreciate them a great deal, I feel like it's not really all that bad and perhaps I haven't expressed any of this clearly enough. So here's an attempt.

THE BAD THING

one-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest-11[1]

We moved servers just before the season, and for some reason this imploded the Drupal module we were using that did the voting/comment-graying. Don't get me started on that unless you want the animated gif above to be my fate.

The new server is a champ, and was direly needed. We only blew up during the Hand commitment aftermath, and I guarantee you that the blog would have been crushed four or five other times during the year if we had not moved. At times this has been a mixed blessing—it probably would have been nice to be down after Penn State—but having your internet site on the internet is a goal.

The cost was steep, as without the obvious disapproval provided by your comment shrinking into a gray box, dumb comments multiplied and fights about those comments multiplied since there was not an obvious indicator that other people had already dismissed it. I felt this would happen but had very little time to do anything about it since this event happened smack-dab in the middle of me pounding out the 50k-word season preview.

Flaming went up, signal got obscured, and things veritably roiled.

THE BLOWUP

We brought Brandon on board to be a recruiting reporter and he posted an interview with a 2016 kid; he gave us a picture in which he looked pretty young. I thought nothing of it because I follow hockey closely and there kids who don't have to shave commit all the time. (A kid born in 1998(!) just committed. The OHL speeds up their timelines.) Michigan just took a 2016 commit in football, and has a half-dozen offers out. But this resulted in a comment thread in which a lot of people made jokes about the kid not having to shave; others put on their Serious Issue faces and wondered if this was ethical. Then the prospect posted a screenshot of people making fun of him on twitter. SMH, man.

By this point we'd had a lot of crap on the board and this was a seeing-red moment. I posted a thread about how this was unacceptable, etc., whereupon there was a huge comment thread in which concern trolling featured heavily. The ethics of talking to high school kids about where they might go to college was frequent topic.

This was and is ridiculous. We're not about to Rosenberg these kids, both because we're not [REDACTED] 5'2" [REDACTED] goobers who'll do someone dirty to get ahead in the world and that going Rosenberg on someone would completely crush us with our readers, deservedly.

We're going to ask them softball questions and publish them after correcting any spelling mistakes, and you, the reader, are going to post comments like "Good luck wherever you go!" because that's the social contract we have here. That's how this works. You are going to assume that high school kids are going to read anything they can about themselves online, and we're going to throw Charmin at them in slow motion. This is not hard-hitting journalism here.

Anyway. The primary concern troll was a guy who'd been around since the very beginning of the site, chitownblue. He quit in a huff once, then came back as chitownblue2, and almost never appeared except to chide someone about something. At some point virtually everyone who writes for the site complained to me about him. The rest of the people who had posted things that broke the social contract in that thread quickly apologized; he dug in to fight the battle of the Somme. Another complaint about him happened in the midst of that thread, during which my dander was up and finger already hovering over the button. So I banned him, and various compatriots. And I've had an itchy trigger finger since.

They'd been around forever. I regret nothing, except that I waited so long. I hated that guy.

THE ISSUE

A friend sent me this post from 4chan's founder in response to similar issues he'd had, in which he cites another post from Steve Pavlina about why he shut his popular forums down. Pavlina talks a lot about entitlement of longtime users and standards that he felt weren't being met, both of which I kind of feel. But moot's thing is the thing:

Something that’s always surprised me is how often people seem to forget how large the overall 4chan community is outside of their own respective interaction with it. Some simply don’t care, but I think others plain don’t realize they’re just one of millions of people who post and browse 4chan on a monthly basis. …

My view is that it simply isn’t possible nor prudent to attempt to please everyone, and so I don’t. This can be misinterpreted as not caring, but it’s far from it—it’s just a reflection of my belief that the needs of the community outweigh the needs of individuals. Which is an ideal I think most would agree with, but when emotions run wild and tensions run high, we often lose sight of it.

The general rule of thumb is that 10% of your readers will read the comments/forums and 1% will leave most of them. I believe our numbers are quite a bit higher than that, but even so that the the primary thing that happens in the comments is lurkers reading them. From the perspective of the commenters these people do not exist. From my perspective, they're the majority of the readerbase.

Most of these people seem to like the site. They visit it. That majority has not been reflected in the comments. Of late when people recognize me I wince a bit, because I'm not sure how this interaction is going to go. I'm kind of waiting for someone to unload on me. This never happens.

As the season's gone along this disconnect has become apparent. And I'm finding the complaints harder to deal with because with the demise of voting so many of them have become personal attacks hardly sheathed in anything resembling logic. Brandon just took a lot of crap for posting that usually when recruits are open with him that means they're excited about Michigan and Malik McDowell was tight-lipped, which may not bode well. This exploded into controversy for some reason: that reason is there are a bunch of people who just complain about everything about the site.

IT'S NOT YOU, IT'S ME

Why these people can't let go and do something else, I don't know. They're locked in a prison of their own devising, being miserable about the state of the blog while they make it worse by constantly complaining about it.

I am going to help both these folks and myself escape from purgatory by hitting the eject button on them. Like this guy who has 41,000 points, most of which seem to be accumulated complaining about the site. And this guy. Great news for everyone: they're banned. Now they are free to explore the rest of the internet, perhaps to find something they don't hate.

This represents a policy change. In short, that is: if the people who write for this site hate you we will ban you. That is the upshot of the twitter burst and the podcast thing. This is not really a change for most people since we did that for anyone with a few points who came in guns blazing. This mostly applies to folks like guy I just banned who'd accumulated the third-most points on the site. I hated that guy! For three years! And out of some idea about respecting the community I let him fart all over it.

To respect the community, we should ban jerks, even if they've been around so long that it seems that there must be some redeeming value in having them around.

If you don't like the way the comments are laid out, or you think there should be more jumps, or fewer jumps, or have a substantive disagreement with what I think, or even have argument-free opinions I roll my eyes at every six months or so, fine. I have to get to know you to loathe you. All you people are good. In fact, here are protips to not get banned under this new regime:

  1. Don't have an avatar. You're less likely to get noticed.
  2. Don't be a jerk to people who write for the site. Much more difficult that #1, but still doable if you try.
  3. Don't constantly complain about the people I hire. If you want to send me an email, fine. Publicly crapping on the other guys who write for us is filed under jerk.
  4. Don't get mad at me for having a particular emotional state. This happened constantly throughout the season, as if the internet tough guys who were taking the bullets the season threw at them could somehow improve my mood by berating me.

I can understand how the last few years have put people in a place where they find me irritating after once enjoying the site, but all the comments in the world aren't going to be able to change what is primarily a sports blog about what it feels like to be a Michigan fan. If you feel differently, okay! I accept that you feel differently. If you want me to feel like you, that is an argument you are welcome to have anywhere else.

It's been a trying year for everyone, and I'm about to go figure out how to get the damned voting back on comments, so hopefully things will recede from this, their irritating zenith. Thank you to everyone who did not expect me to be an emotional clone of themselves this year, which is like 99% of you. I enjoy you.

-Brian

Comments

ChicagoGoBlue

December 6th, 2013 at 5:06 PM ^

to mod LSA2k in exchange for some bonus mgopoints. I let him pick my avatar in exchange for a small bump in points. I have never actually seen an episode of MLP.

I actually went back to lurking for much of this season because the comments on the board had gotten so awful it was better just staying away. Brian- I'm glad you're doing this!

Sopwith

December 6th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^

Rosenberg is only 5'2"?   Hah!  

As for people who incessantly complain about the site, I'd like to complain about them, and also the people who complain about them.

 

Tater

December 6th, 2013 at 1:49 PM ^

I am glad to see chronic complainers who don't appreciate the amount of work that goes into a blog like MGoBlog be jettisoned. 

I don't think it should be all that difficult for any of us here to remember that we are guests on a blog that is really the best of its kind anywhere.  We aren't the people who are creating regular, high-quality content under deadlines, nor did any of us put together the massive infrastructure necessary to make this blog work.  

I hope the changes and Brian's meta post result in more civility toward those who are actually doing the work here. 

Thanks to all on the staff for providing a free outlet that is better than the paid ones and better than any other website I have seen focusing on one school or one team.  

 

CR7

December 6th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^

I understand that being a teenager myself but it seems, to me at least, that majority of the user base are adults. Doesn't much matter, in all honesty. There comes a time where you just have to know how to act and stop the incessant whining. That makes the site look a whole lot worse than any of the content supposedly does.

ish

December 6th, 2013 at 2:08 PM ^

i don't have any personal knowledge, but i always figured the most important thing nebanging provided was a easy way for the mods to find and delete bad posts.  then you create a record of who is making the bad posts and if it is the same user over and over, you've found a jerk.  without voting, it's harder to spot bad comments.

WolvinLA2

December 6th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^

In the old system it was even better.  In the previous system, you got a -1 if simply more people negged you than pos'ed you.  Big deal.  

But before that, you saw the real score.  Some people would get to -5 simply for having a controversial point, which is not a bad thing, or simply disagreeing with the majority opinion (like defending Borges or saying you like the big sign on Stadium).  The actual bad posts, however, would get like -50 or more, which made things a lot clearer.

TenThousandThings

December 8th, 2013 at 3:34 AM ^

In my experience back then people would always upvote me to counteract the "disagree" downvotes -- and I would do the same if I thought someone was being unjustly downvoted, whether or not I agreed with whatever it was.

Note that I'm talking about back when you could get negged to oblivion or upvoted to respectability with just a few good or bad comments. There was a real sense that if you had something good to say, you'd be rewarded for it -- there were plenty of examples around, people with exponentially rising point totals because they were interesting, authoritative, funny, and the like. People tried to emulate them if they could.

Without a meaningful point system, you don't have that effect.

StateStreetBlue

December 6th, 2013 at 3:07 PM ^

The one thing to be careful about with neg's is that it can definitely lead to group thinking.  I've seen plenty of valid counter arguments (respectful disagreements) that get completely hidden because the majority doesn't agree. The arguments are what make for great debates.  Brian and Space Cowboy's back and forth views were great (although I still disagree with Brian completely calling him out, but hey - it's his site).

Neg's should only be used for personal attacks, useless replies, or harmful information posted.

Monocle Smile

December 6th, 2013 at 3:15 PM ^

Mess with your settings and you can view ALL comments regardless of score. There's no censorship involved here. Also, disagreement from the majority is not "groupthink." It could just mean that you have an unpopular and/or stupid opinion.

There's also an element of irony and/or hypocrisy with your decree about how negs "should" be used.

CooperLily21

December 6th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^

I personally always though the 5 point scale system was bad.  In that system it was too hard to distinguish between posts that were truly trolling and those that were made by people that are just unpopular in general.  We still had to weed through all the greyed out posts.  With the true accumulating point system, the trolls were much easier to spot, IMO.

Jon06

December 6th, 2013 at 8:36 PM ^

It would really improve my ability to monitor how much of a dick I'm being if I could distinguish easily between levels of -1.

Also, every time Brian announces the ban of some obnoxious longtime member, I'm kind of surprised it isn't me. Then I do a little cheer while feeling slightly chastened.

StateStreetBlue

December 6th, 2013 at 5:02 PM ^

Concerned about my posts being hidden or missing out here because of this, my general point was that when the voting comes back it should be made apparent that you shouldn't down vote something just because you don't agree with the viewpoint. The point system should be used more so to hide the useless trash.

CompleteLunacy

December 6th, 2013 at 4:55 PM ^

While the previous voting system promoted lots of groupthink, in my mind there has been just as much of it without the voting. Folks get braver to yell at the one guy going against the "group think" because they know they don't have a fear of getting negged, and so long as they don't go too far out of line they're not getting banned. It's kind of a catch-22. I think a blog like this is going to naturally have groupthink regardless of what you do.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 6th, 2013 at 2:24 PM ^

Here's the other thing the negbangs did: people could express their displeasure of a post without actually having to write about it, and when people write about it, they do so with a distinct lack of civility.  I'm as guilty as anyone.  I'd much rather click a little arrow.  Does that sometimes result in groupthink and undeserved negbangs?  Yeah.  Is that still better than when every time Gnarly Face posts, five posts pop up underneath calling him a jackass?  Yes.  If we could somehow have a combination of the up-and-down arrows and the graying out of posts that'd be faboo.

CooperLily21

December 6th, 2013 at 2:29 PM ^

THIS!  Because the old "if you don't like it why'd you take the time to comment" response actually applied - there was no reason to comment.  You could simply downvote and people could look and see that you were one of the negbangers.  Now, people feel compelled to comment because that is the only way to be heard/seen.

tenerson

December 6th, 2013 at 2:49 PM ^

That's exactly what it is. The only way to moderate in any form has been to comment. I'm not a fan of negging just because you disagree with a simple opinion but at least with that, threads don't degrade to a pissing match between people, suck in more people, and become some sort of internet brawl with 50 useless comments. It was just a much cleaner way of saying either that you disagreed or that the comment was out of line. 

GoWings2008

December 6th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^

people didn't down-vote to say that the comment was out of line, which is what it should be in my opinion.  If someone disagreed with me, I'd rather read a comment why instead of getting a negbang, but that's just me.

But I agree with this whole thread...you guys really have narrowed down on the heart of the matter.

michgoblue

December 6th, 2013 at 1:53 PM ^

Preface - despite being under 40, I am completely uninformed about most things tech. 

My question:  If Brian drops the banhammer on someone, what is to prevent that same person from just opening a new account? 

Also, totally agree with Brian on the problems with this site.  Even during the RR tenure / coaching change, etc., while there were vehement arguments - many repetitive - those arguments were at least specific to a topic, mostly well reasoned on both sides, and generally interesting to read.  The tenor of the comments this season have shifted from that to general griping about everything in life, in particular this site, Brian's mood, contributors to this site, etc.  I personally don't even mind the million "Fire Borges / Don't Fire Borges" threads - at least those can be topical, even if repetitive - it's the general non-relevant griping within those threads that is ruining this place.

BiSB

December 6th, 2013 at 1:59 PM ^

Nothing stops banned folks from creating new accounts. And most banned folks probably do. The reason being banned sucks is that Established Reputation Guy will usually get more attention/respect/credence than Just Created A New Account Guy. Plus, for people who just join to troll, it gets old creating new email addresses to register new accounts just to see them nuked.

michgoblue

December 6th, 2013 at 2:02 PM ^

That was kind of what I thought.  I usually read Chitown and M-Wolverine's posts just because they were so well established on this site that I almost thought of them on the level of moderators or part of the blog, despite their contrary views.  Posts by people with under 100 points generally get skimmed over by me. 

Hello_Heisman

December 6th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^

I'll just buy a few from you - you've got plenty to spare! 

Sadly, I've accumulated a ton more points on 11W though it's not an apples to apples comparison.  Over there, your posts can theoretically be upvoted or downvoted as many times as possible, which can radically swing your point totals.  By generally avoiding being a douche on that site, I've amassed 1,550 helmet stickers in roughly the same time it took me to accumulate 169 points on MGoBlog. 

Question for the mods:  Can we get a points brokerage/exchange going where I can swap out some of my 11W helmet stickers for MGoBlog points?  And if so, what's the appropriate conversion rate?  Clearly the MGoBlog points are more valuable, but by how much?

Hello_Heisman

December 6th, 2013 at 4:25 PM ^

Come on man.....give me 25 cents and a time machine back to 1988 and I can at least squeeze out 5-10 minutes of awesomeness at the arcade playing Double Dragon!

Side note:  totally excited to see that Double Dragon is now available to download for $2.99 for both iOS and Android.  Best $3 I spent all month.