Toward a more thoughtful conversation on stories
Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.
I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on Reuters.com and on other major news sites. On some stories, the “conversation” has been little more than partisans slinging invective at each other under the cloak of anonymity.
I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead Reuters.com are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.
The new process, which gives special status to readers whose comments have passed muster in the past, won’t address the anonymity issue, but I do think it is an important step toward a more civil and thoughtful conversation.
Let me introduce Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, to tell you about the new process:
——————————————————————————————
Like many major news publishers, we’ve agonized over how to balance our enthusiasm for reader comments on stories with our belief that few people would benefit from a free-for-all. Most of our readers respect our request for comments that “advance the story,” by submitting relevant anecdotes, links and data or by challenging our reporting when they think we’ve fallen short of our editorial standards. It’s rewarding, sometimes even exhilarating, to see the way our audience builds on our coverage.
Where we struggle is with comments that we believe contribute nothing useful to the conversation. I’m not talking about obscenities and spam — we have software that aims to block the publication of those — but something more subjective. Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly. We believe they want comments that are as rewarding to read as they are to write. The challenge is how we deliver that experience in a way that doesn’t delay the publication of good comments nor use up resources that might be better deployed on other parts of the site.
I’ll explain how we’re tackling that shortly. But first, here are some examples of the type of comments that fall foul of our moderators:— racism and other hate language that isn’t caught by our software filters— obscene words with letters substituted to get around the software filters— semi-literate spelling; we’re not looking for perfection, but people shouldn’t have to struggle to determine the meaning— uncivil behavior towards other commentators; debate is welcome, schoolyard taunts are not— incitement to violence— comments that have nothing to do with the story— comments that have been pasted across multiple stories— comments that are unusually long, unless they’re very well written— excessive use of capital letters
Some of the guidelines for our moderators are hard to define precisely. Mocking of public people can be fair sport, for example, but a moderator that has just approved 30 comments calling someone an idiot can rightly decide that there’s little incremental value in publishing the 31st. When we block comments of this nature, it’s because of issues of repetition, taste or legal risk, not political bias.
Until recently, our moderation process involved editors going through a basket of all incoming comments, publishing the ones that met our standards and blocking the others. (It’s a binary decision: we don’t have the resources to edit comments.)
This was unsatisfactory because it delayed the publication of good comments, especially overnight and at weekends when our staffing is lighter.
Our new process grants a kind of VIP status on people who have had comments approved previously. When you register to comment on Reuters.com, our moderation software tags you as a new user. Your comments go through the same moderation process as before, but every time we approve a comment, you score a point.
Once you’ve reached a certain number of points, you become a recognized user. Congratulations: your comments will be published instantly from now on. Our editors will still review your comments after they’ve been published and will remove them if they don’t meet our standards. When that happens, you’ll lose points. Lose enough points and you’ll revert to new user status.
The highest scoring commentators will be classified as expert users, earning additional privileges that we’ll implement in future. You can see approval statistics for each reader on public profile pages like this, accessed by clicking on the name next to a comment.
It’s not a perfect system, but we believe it’s a foundation for facilitating a civil and rewarding discussion that’s open to the widest range of people. Let me know what you think.
A Canadian company is being slammed over a 'sexist' receptionist job listing
Canadian company slammed over 'sexist' job listing which said 'female candidates are preferred' because the position involves the 'responsibilities of a receptionist'
A Toronto-based web development company is facing backlash for its 'sexist' job posting, which stated that 'female candidates are preferred' because the position requires secretarial duties.
Canadian company Vestra Inet shared a posting for its Content Writer/SEO specialist position on the professional social network LinkedIn. Although it looks like a standard job listing at first glance, many men and women found themselves outraged by the last line in the post that explains why the company would rather hire a female.
'Please note that the Position requires filling in the responsibilities of a receptionist, so female candidates are preferred [sic],' read the post, which has since been taken down.
Modern sexism: Toronto-based web development company Vestra Inet shared this job posting for a Content Writer/SEO specialist on its LinkedIn page 13 days ago
Going viral: Kristina Halvorson, from Minnesota, shared a link to the 'sexist' job posting on Twitter, noting that it made her 'jaw drop'
Completely shocked: Alice Smellie responded to Kristina's tweet by noting that the job listing is 'appalling'
After coming across the offensive job posting, which was shared 13 days ago, Kristina Halvorson, founder of content strategy consultancy company Brain Traffic, tweeted a link to the listing on Twitter.
'LOOK AT THE LAST LINE OF THIS JOB DESCRIPTION. Literal jaw drop [sic],' she wrote.
The Minnesota-based web strategist's tweet was shared more than 860 time, with both men and women commenting on how shocking it is to see such a 'sexist' job listing in 2015.
'Seems to be a lot of tech people from the 1800s visiting this week, did someone build a time machine? [sic]' Linda MacPhee-Cobb asked, while a Twitter user named Chris added: 'Is that a job advert from 1815 rather than 2015?
Not this day and age: This Twitter user named Chris questioned if it was actually a job ad from 1815
Unacceptable: Men and women were equally appalled by the posting, and Barry Hannah noted that the listing is 'truly despicable'
Bad publicity: Adam and James couldn't get over how the 'sexist' and 'demeaning' listing was created just a few weeks ago
'Unbelievable that someone in the company think[s] that and approved [that] ad.'
And Dave Fravel sarcastically added other requirements to the job posting, writing: 'Must answer to Doll, Toots, Sweetie and/or Babe... and yes, you will be paid up to 71% of man's salary [sic].'
And while Phillip Hunter noted that his jaw 'actually did drop', Emma Dixon pointed out that the company's job posting would be 'unlawful in the UK'.
Twitter user Phlip sarcastically responded to the posting by writing: 'We need a tech writer who doesn't min constant interruptions from horny old men off the street, while Adam French added: '...and must have a vagina because that's important, "rolls eyes."'
Alerting the authorities: Emma Dixon was one of many commenters who noted that the hiring based on gender is illegal
Back to the future: Linda MacPhee-Cobb asked if someone built a time machine to retrieve the offensive listing
Calling out the company: These Twitter users added more sexist 'requirements' to the job posting, including 'having a vagina' and being interrupted by 'horny old men' on the street
Meanwhile, Phlip noted that 'this thread has the male receptionists rolling their eyes alongside with the female tech writers'.
Many people also left angry comments on the company's LinkedIn page, explaining that the job listing is no only offensive to both men and women - it is illegal.
'Your company may be doing 21st century work, but your posting suggests a 19th century view of women. I suggest we all post about your posting to drive to the top of your SEO search results your blatant sexism,' Sarah Bezanson wrote.
Rishad Quazi revealed he 'filed a complaint with LinkedIn as well as with the Ontario Human Rights Commission', and Daniel Gerichter added: 'I applied and I was told that for my interview I have to wash the CEO's Ferrari in a bikini. I would much rather discuss my portfolio.'
And after the company deleted the posting, Rayner Lucas noted: 'Seem to be deleted now. Presumably they realized they'd posted it to the wrong century.'
Old-fashioned: After the listing was deleted from Vestra Inet's LinkedIn page, Rayner Lucas joked that the must have realized 'they'd posted it to the wrong century'
Sorry not sorry? Vestra Inet wrote an apology on its LinkedIn page on Monday, but some people noted that it never addressed the real issues at hand
On Monday afternoon, Vestra Inet took to its LinkedIn page to issue an apology, writing: 'We would like to address the attention and comments that we have been receiving after our company posted an advertisement on LinkedIn for the position of “Content Writer & SEO Specialist” with receptionist responsibilities.
'Several individuals have found the wording of the ad to be offensive, and we want to assure everyone that we did not mean to discriminate against any particular gender or group.
'Vestra Inet is a company that believes in promoting diversity. Our staff currently consists of employees of various genders and ethnicities. Above all, Vestra Inet values knowledge and talent.'
However, some commenters believed that the company's apology failed to focus the issues at hand.
'You should re-think this "apology,"' Celyeste Power wrote. 'It doesn't address the fact that you believe women solely should fill receptionist roles.'
And Alicia Frederick added: '"We are sorry you are offended at our sexism" - Vestra Damage Control [sic].'
Daily Mail Online has reached out to Vestra Inet for comment and is awaiting a response.
AdvertisementToward a more thoughtful conversation on stories
Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.
I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on Reuters.com and on other major news sites. On some stories, the “conversation” has been little more than partisans slinging invective at each other under the cloak of anonymity.
I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead Reuters.com are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.
The new process, which gives special status to readers whose comments have passed muster in the past, won’t address the anonymity issue, but I do think it is an important step toward a more civil and thoughtful conversation.
Let me introduce Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, to tell you about the new process:
——————————————————————————————
Like many major news publishers, we’ve agonized over how to balance our enthusiasm for reader comments on stories with our belief that few people would benefit from a free-for-all. Most of our readers respect our request for comments that “advance the story,” by submitting relevant anecdotes, links and data or by challenging our reporting when they think we’ve fallen short of our editorial standards. It’s rewarding, sometimes even exhilarating, to see the way our audience builds on our coverage.
Where we struggle is with comments that we believe contribute nothing useful to the conversation. I’m not talking about obscenities and spam — we have software that aims to block the publication of those — but something more subjective. Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly. We believe they want comments that are as rewarding to read as they are to write. The challenge is how we deliver that experience in a way that doesn’t delay the publication of good comments nor use up resources that might be better deployed on other parts of the site.
I’ll explain how we’re tackling that shortly. But first, here are some examples of the type of comments that fall foul of our moderators:— racism and other hate language that isn’t caught by our software filters— obscene words with letters substituted to get around the software filters— semi-literate spelling; we’re not looking for perfection, but people shouldn’t have to struggle to determine the meaning— uncivil behavior towards other commentators; debate is welcome, schoolyard taunts are not— incitement to violence— comments that have nothing to do with the story— comments that have been pasted across multiple stories— comments that are unusually long, unless they’re very well written— excessive use of capital letters
Some of the guidelines for our moderators are hard to define precisely. Mocking of public people can be fair sport, for example, but a moderator that has just approved 30 comments calling someone an idiot can rightly decide that there’s little incremental value in publishing the 31st. When we block comments of this nature, it’s because of issues of repetition, taste or legal risk, not political bias.
Until recently, our moderation process involved editors going through a basket of all incoming comments, publishing the ones that met our standards and blocking the others. (It’s a binary decision: we don’t have the resources to edit comments.)
This was unsatisfactory because it delayed the publication of good comments, especially overnight and at weekends when our staffing is lighter.
Our new process grants a kind of VIP status on people who have had comments approved previously. When you register to comment on Reuters.com, our moderation software tags you as a new user. Your comments go through the same moderation process as before, but every time we approve a comment, you score a point.
Once you’ve reached a certain number of points, you become a recognized user. Congratulations: your comments will be published instantly from now on. Our editors will still review your comments after they’ve been published and will remove them if they don’t meet our standards. When that happens, you’ll lose points. Lose enough points and you’ll revert to new user status.
The highest scoring commentators will be classified as expert users, earning additional privileges that we’ll implement in future. You can see approval statistics for each reader on public profile pages like this, accessed by clicking on the name next to a comment.
It’s not a perfect system, but we believe it’s a foundation for facilitating a civil and rewarding discussion that’s open to the widest range of people. Let me know what you think.
Comments
Post a Comment