Given the recent variety of, shall we say, diverse comments I regularly receive for moderation, I thought it best to tighten up my rather loose comment policy. I first looked around at what others blogging websites do. Some are pretty tight, some unmoderated and some don't do comments (they let social media websites host the comments).
My thinking now runs along the lines of keeping comments on the topic of the post. If a comment diverges too far from the original subject of the post, then it will not be posted
For example, if a post appears on a folkloric aspect of the monster and a comment arrives about a Loch Ness Monster photograph, it is not likely to get approved - unless the comment argues a link between the two to the moderator's satisfaction.
Comments on subjects which have been discussed amply in previous articles and comments are likely to be rejected unless they can prove a new angle.
Comments which are general thanks and praise will be approved. We like those!
Comments which disagree with an article without giving a specific reason will be rejected. Note that generic reasons such as "I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster" are not good enough.
Comments which are part acceptable but violate in others areas may be rejected.
Comments which make no sense, semantically or grammatically will be rejected.
Comments which the moderator deems weak, divisive, pedantic, libellous or trolling will be rejected.
Comments judged too large will be rejected.
Comments may not be approved immediately - I reserve the right of first refusal on replying to some comments which may involve a delay.
Comments may not be approved immediately - I may be on holiday, ill or involved in more important tasks.
Comments about conspiracy theories will be rejected.
Users who begin to hog and clutter the comments section of an article will be rejected - unless the subject is deemed important by the moderator.
If a comment wishes to alert the moderator to a news item or piece of information which he is not aware of, these may not be published but may be acknowledged. It is better to contact the moderator at lochnesskelpie@gmail.com.
Likewise, if you have a genuine question, email is preferred to a comment.
If you think your comment was rejected for the wrong reasons, you can email but ultimately it's not your blog and the Internet has plenty of other spaces for you to publish your thoughts!
This blog article will be included in the "ABOUT THIS BLOG" link on the right.
Have a nice day.
Dont blame ya GB, it was getting bit ridiculous and childish!!! Some people cant respect others opinions! Lets get back to exploring the mystery.
ReplyDeleteI fully expect this comment to be rejected, but I'll waste a few seconds typing anyway.
ReplyDeleteRoland, I'm sure you're aware that cryptozoologists aren't exactly taken seriously, nor are their pursuits. Fine. Whatever. Rage against the machine and all that. In fact, as a former avowed believer, I raise a pint to you.
But with that said: are you so sensitive that you'll allow your militant quest to control the arguments of Nessie detractors make you look like the sort of "weirdo" Nessie believers are typically seen as being...? Because, honestly, all this gust and bluster about how I SHALL ONLY APPROVE THE COMMENTS I LIKE is honestly serving only to justify the opinion that guys like you are close-minded and only hear what you choose to hear.
In other words, stop being so petulant, and take advantage of what you have here: (some) knowledgable people on either side of the debate, arguing passionately. Once you chase away the folks who actually know what they're talking about, you're left with anonymous posters who literally have nothing to contribute.
Your blog, your call. I'd just hate to see this page become what it's becoming.
I have about a dozen rules on commenting posted here. Which ones do you disagree with and which ones do you agree with?
DeleteShall I only approve comments YOU like? Or should I conduct a doodle poll on every submitted comment to make it as democratic as possible?
Your "Ten Commandments" are one thing; dropping repeated comments elsewhere about how you've elected to post this response and reject that one, or telling readers to revise their comments and then re-send, is, frankly, embarassing.
DeleteA lot of people, I'm sure, read this blog for the entertainment and informative value and not just for arguments sake and couldn't give a fig about posting a comment. Skeptics will never change a believers mind and vise versa, so what's the point of argument. All to often there is a confrontational tone from both factions. The purpose of this blog, as I see it, is to disseminate all known facts and knowledge of the Nessie experience so that one can make up his or her own mind and to share and commiserate with fellow Nessie enthusiasts. If skeptics wish to turn a believer, don't try to hard, it won't work. After all this is a pro LNM blog!
DeleteA Real skeptic does not spend all day posting on a subject he doesnt believe in.
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree with you GB. Folks should stick to the subject and context at hand. I also get put off when comments diverge from the topic. It's about time you put your foot down. It's finally driving you bonkers. And, you were considering a forum format! I warned you about that!
ReplyDeleteYes, you did!
DeleteI Think GB is doing the right thing. One point not mentioned yet is how it will save readers time, by not having to read through long ranting pointless posts. The only people that need to worry about the moderation are the one posting nonsense or snipping remarks because they can't be bothered to form an argument. People are already misinterpreting what GB has said, just for the sake of argument. No one is obliged to follow the blog so if you don't like it you don't need to follow it.
ReplyDeleteHere's my opinion on this, for what it's worth... I think GB's blog is high on the results when you Google the subject of Loch Ness. Agreed, itis GB's blog and no one else's. Also agreed is GB's right to post pro-Nessie articles week after week. It's his blog and his absolute right to promote the idea of Nessie existing in his articles.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with his power definitely comes a degree of responsibility. And I believe the responsibility includes allowing a balanced conversation in the comments section under each article. Otherwise the debate is being misrepresented, and the reader is not being given the full story.
To that end, I cannot see how it is fine for a believer to post repetitive comments and for those to be uploaded, yet when GB detects repetition from a sceptic a buzzer goes off and he doesn't upload it. GB states that he feels compelked to answer sceptical posts in order to prevent it looking like he doesn't have an answer. Then he will post an anti sceptical comment, I and others will reply but our comments don't appear. So GB is therefore happy to falsely make it look like we don't have answers. Is this right, considering sites about anomolies like Loch Ness should surely be all about freedom of speech and open minded research? It's extremely disappointing in this enlightened age.
As for the above rules, will they really be applied evenly? The only pro-Nessie comments I've seen GB censor are those crazy ones about people being paid to doubt the monster theory. I've not seen him alude to anything else. Certainly no weary sigh when someone keeps bringing up the "A diver saw. ." story, even when it's totally irrelevant to the article on the page. If believers can meander, why can't sceptics?
A solution could be a blog with no comments and an associaated forum which adheres to the principles of free speech and democracy. What we have now is a strongly agenda-controlled website masquerading as an open conversation.
Well, you'll just have to wait and see. Keep your comments on-topic.
DeleteI dont blame you GB, hopefully it will get rid of the trolls now.
ReplyDelete^
DeleteI
I
I
How about enforcing a registration policy? Some of us skeptics are happy to be forthright and consistent in our posts -- what about your supporters?
Pseudonyms are one thing; hiding in anonymity is another.
It is more important to post relevant comments than reveal your identity.
DeleteI would agree if it weren't for the fact that you have a number of shady individuals posting here (who, incidentally, have preyed on your enthusiasm and fed you faked photos); and this/these individuals post in such a way that one can't determine who you're debating with. Doesn't this strike you as odd?
DeleteWell, I suggest you don't debate with them. It's a comment section, not a debating forum.
DeleteIf you peruse the comments history over the past year, I think you might notice that neither GS and I attack specific individuals -- we argue against the blog posts. The anonymous lurker are the ones initiate the attacks, make them personal, and then spin wildly off-course about unrelated incidents, photos posted in pamphlets, or government conspiracies against Nessie. Have a read (or don't, since they're your target audience, as you continue to remind us!).
ReplyDeleteReviewing the past year's comments.
DeleteAre you obsessed or something?
Do you not have anything better to do with your time?
Is there not enough sceptics in the world that you feel the need to recruit more?
Should everyone in the world think like you?
I think you have a propensity to over-comment and clog up articles. I won't allow this to happen any longer.
EKM, I have rejected the rest of your comments. There is no point in replying to someone who appears to want to reply for the sake of replying.
DeleteSpot on Roland: spot on. Im baffled by the amount of time he spends in nessie sites though he says there is no such thing as nessie. He must have very little to do with his time:
DeleteDeary me, are we not all in danger of taking ourselves a bit too seriously here? It's a Loch Ness Monster site after all.
ReplyDeleteTrevorthecat yes i agree: if people want to think there is a monster let them : im baffled as 2 why any1 who who thinks there is no monster wastes their time writing in these forums: Baffling
ReplyDeleteBecause, as difficult as it may be for Nessie believers to grasp, some of us enjoy discovering alternate theories to these photos/films/sightings than "lake monsters."
DeleteYou might consider asking Richard Dawkins why he spends so much time writing about religion since he's an atheist. I'm sure you'll get a similar response.
No more comments, you two are shaping up for a prolonged series of blows.
DeleteIf everyone acted civilly and didn't feel the need to one up each other or get the last word in none of this would even be necessary.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is Roland's blog and he can do what he wants. People making a point saying that and then still complaining how he is wrong in how he wants to have his own website flow are just being their usual selves and are just continuing the behavior that made Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner feel the need to crack down on his rules.
Just cut the shit and stop acting like you are entitled to act however you want to act regardless if people are bothered. Some of the people here must be a real joy to be around in real life. God forbid a conversation with a real human doesn't go their way...
I might be more inclined to take you seriously if you didn't feel the need to post anonymously, whilst my career and personal life can be discovered with a Goigle search.
ReplyDeleteI started reading this anonymous post and through the first paragraph thought uh huh i kinda like this guy, he's making a lot of sense. Let's be civil, it's the way forward. Then I read the last paragraph and I'm like AAAAH. ... posts like that are part of the problem we have here, not the solution.
ReplyDeleteif we want civil chat we've all got to take responsibility. From persistent sceptics to over protective plesiosaur fans. We all have a role.