It just got a helluva lot easier to navigate Gawker.com and Jezebel.com. All I did today was skim the headlines and skip the comments. It took me ten minutes. Usually I spend at least an hour or two if the topics and debates are particularly interesting or heated.
But now I feel excluded.
Under their new system, if my opinion doesn't matter as much as a "starred" commenter's does, what's the point in posting it? And if I'm not going to participate - or at least feel welcomed to participate - what's the point reading anyone else's comments? To glean whatever witticism and insight they may proffer with no chance of my voice being heard in response?
No thank you.
Since the people who read and administer Gawker and Jezebel now get to decide who's promoted to a place of prominence in the commenting structure, where does that leave me? Or anyone else for that matter who doesn't have a star but may have something funny or intelligent to say?
Ignored, that's where.
Also, I never understood how the administrators decided who got a star or not - it all seemed so arbitrary and juvenile. If it was solely based on a commenter's number of followers and the quality of their comments, then plenty of people were passed over in favour of lesser, more mediocre participants.
And then there's this: What we're not looking for: snark for snark's sake...
Huh?
Well there goes what little fun there was to be had. I thought the whole point of Gawker was to snark. I mean, they're certainly not a legitimate news site. Why pretend to be anything but a high-minded gossip rag?
I think Gawker is confused - and now with the new commenting system - confusing. Seriously, it's a mess over there.
Discourse between intelligent people should never be that hard.
Oh well...when they introduced the star system I thought that would be the end of my commenting history, but I stuck around in a feeble attempt to bring bodies over to my site. Now that that's over, I carry on anyway because I simply have to feed my soul with something other than what pop culture offers to the masses.
Somehow though, I consider this the end of an era for me at Gawker and Jezebel. It's been close to 2 years, I think, and while it became more and more tiresome to weed through the ever-increasing amount of inanity, banality and sloppiness, I did manage to walk away enriched by the few nuggets of wisdom and insight people dispersed now and then. There are some wonderfully opinionated people out there and sadly, I won't be engaged by their thoughts on anything anymore.
Sucks.
Welcome to the hierarchy of preference!
It's just too bad the preferences of Gawker and Jezebel aren't mine.
__________________________________________
[Jul.21-09]
Jezebel addressed concerns over their new commenting system. I'd link to the post but they're still experiencing programming glitches. To search for it, the title is 15 Questions - and Answers - About the New Comments.
Here are a some illuminating responses:
Gardenia says:
I agree the editors are probably called onto defending a commenting system they had no part in shaping - but in my opinion you can do that more respectfully.
'We run the site' is a rich thing to say, considering that the whole endeavour relies on pageviews just as a magazine relies on readers.
Of course you can publish anything you want in any way you want, but if you alienate your readership you will soon have NO product.
One can refute almost every single argument made in favour of the new system.
'But we DO read all / will promote thoughtful comments' is not a logical or helpful response to the argument: 'I do not want and should not have to appeal to a group of chosen few to partake in a community.' Most people jump through this type of hoops enough at work and in school - a leisure activity is supposed to be a reprieve from the competition (unless you actively choose it, i.e. in team-sports).
The problem of many 'greys'* on this site is that they neither chose this format, nor did they perceive Jezebel to be the place where this type of activity was necessary - whether you choose to call it 'bringing your A-game' or 'sucking up to the cool kids'.
Just as an observation: I can count the times I saw an unstarred comment go promoted this past week on the fingers of my hands. Most (although not all) starred people engaged in their own discussions, often punning away and inside-joking - while many worthwile discussions went on completely in gray.
There were positive exceptions, but this was the tendency.
This is the first thread where some of that changed, I will have to see if that is a trend or not.
I could go on, but seeing as my comment is already incredibly verbose, incredibly late and probably greyed out anyway, I will stop for now.
[*Promoted comments are in black type, unpromoted ones in grey.]
****************************************
aloysius says:
The new commenting system violates Jezebel's ethos of equality and of not squelching (any) woman's voice (or at least of not systematically privileging any given one over any other to this extent).
Because of that off-putting "class system"/Heathers aspect, and because it's simply unwieldy, of course it has a chilling effect on the MAJORITY of would-be commenters.
So I hate it.
aloysius says:
@Gardenia: Right back atcha!
Surely a major reason people are reacting so strongly is that this was one of the depressingly few places that we felt "equally heard" (as everyone else). So a lot of people may feel all that more keenly a sense of betrayal.
**************************************
femibot says:
I'm not angry about the new system - but it has made commenting so pointlessly complicated and just... not fun. This will be my last comment here. No anger, it's just not worth the effort anymore.
****************************************
nora charles says:
I think some of the editors (and commenters) are missing the point when it comes to the "This is like high school" comparison. The point is that "popularity" in high school was rarely determined by the number of people that actually liked you--instead, it was decided by a small group of like-minded but fairly arbitrarily chosen people who were then given the ability to make your presence either relevant or irrelevant. In that sense, the new commenting system is exactly like high school--much more than the old commenting system, which was based on the number of people who legitimately liked you and gave no one power over anyone else.
I can see how the new commenting system makes sense for some of the other Gawker sites (I'm thinking, specifically, of Deadspin, where the average commenter seems to be someone posting irrelevant, stupid, or mean commentary just for the hell of it), but it seems like applying it to Jezebel is a mistake. The commenters here, on the whole, are insightful and interesting and relevant most of the time, and thus the division between starred and non-starred commenters seems much more arbitrary than it does elsewhere in the Gawker world. I don't think there would be nearly as much uproar if the starred commenters here were a small group of people that inevitably posted thoughtful, discussion-provoking commentary, but they're not. In fact--and this thread is a perfect example--I often find that the unstarred commenters are the ones posting the thoughtful, discussion-provoking commentary, but it's largely being overlooked because it's buried on Tier 2. The Tier 1 posters seem to post a lot of jokes, puns, silly stuff and "Awww, wish I could heart you all over again!"s, and while there's nothing wrong with that in moderation, and their sense of humor is likely what made them well-liked and earned them their stars in the first place . . . clearly you're going to lose posters if that's the stuff under the featured commentary, and those who spend the time to put together an insightful, interesting comment just get ignored. On the whole, I've found that, instead of doing what it's purported to be aiming for--shedding a light on the best discussions--the new commenting system actually buries them.
Hopefully the new group of mini-mods* will be able to address that imbalance. I have no issues with spotlighting the best discussions, but that's hardly what's been happening so far.
[*A group of 5 commenters chosen to help moderate the comment section (promote comments etc.).]
****************************************
chancentrate says:
@nora charles: i totally agree with you. The new system doesn't anger me, i just think it's sorta a shame. I used to love the comments section on jezebel and now that, in my view, they're gone I find myself visiting the site less and less (this is also because of the endless tech problems as a result of the new comments). I now know for a fact that comments I make (unless replies) will basically never be read.
****************************************
ZemarSea Urchin:
@nora charles: At this point I just click "show all comments" and then wade through to find a discussion that interests me or a comment that I find fun or interesting...I think the concept that the jezzie editors are trying to promote is legit its just unfourtunate that the message is muddled and comes across as "starred people are more intelligent than greys and much funnier so they get top billing. Now you greys step up your game and impress (that is the kicker having to impress somebody that may not impress you) a star or stay in the nosebleed section".
*****************************************
lolobentley says:
@nora charles: Before people were friended or followed truly based on what they were saying too. Unless someone came out and said it you had no idea what their race, gender, religion, body type, socio-economic status, etc. was. People were liked truly based on their ways of thinking and how they voiced their opinions. The people who commented a lot were never the ones I found had something truly great to add to a conversation...Now even though "a lot" of people will still check out the grey comments it just isn't the same. I went to a high school where we sat at "harkness" tables and everyone was on an equal plane, including my teachers. It sort of sucks this feels like a step back.
******************************************
CriminalConversation:
@nora charles: More substantively, I know starred commenters who are afraid to promote the "wrong" comment because they don't want to lose their stars and have their comments sent to the vast abyss of grayness.
Jezebel has never been all that open to dissenting opinions and this system only makes it worse.
"Arbitrary" is the operative word. "High School" is a very apt comparison.
******************************************
1.1.1. says:
@ZemarSea Urchin: The claim that this system promotes meritocracy is complete and utter bullshit.
******************************************
ZemarSea Urchin says:
@1.1.1.: I for one am glad to see you on the grey list with the rest of us as I now only read the grey comments and (with a few exceptions) skip the black. Glad to be in your company.
******************************************
mayfly says:
I am very late to this discussion, and I doubt that anyone will get to this 700-somethingth comment. But in case the powers that be are paying attention, I'd like to raise my hand and say I am not a fan of the new system. My main issues are:
1) The gray is really, really hard to read. The fact that this issue is not going to be fixed just adds to the feeling that second-tier comments are not encouraged or welcome.
2) When I click read all, I honestly don't see much of a difference between the gray and black comments. I can understand the desire to up the quality of the comments that are displayed, but I really don't see that happening here. It just makes it cumbersome and irritating to read.
In conclusion, I find myself spending much less time on this site and enjoying it less since the new system was introduced. Oh well, I have become more productive at work!
(Also, I had to come back and edit my comment to say that (horror of horrors) I've found myself over at XX more than Jezebel in the past few days. Sign of the times, I guess.)
*****************************************
Tmoney02 says:Hmmm...I thought the new system was supposed to encourage more visitors and page views? (and peoples enjoyment of the sites?)
If that is the case Looking at Gawkers own metrics for Jezebel I would say it is a big failure. As in a 40% decline or so in visits and page views since the new comment system was implemented. Its funny to see how the graph was trending up nicely with new highs just before the system was implemented. (But of course we must print the "Official Party View": the old system was bad!)
And considering the decline doesn't look to be stabilizing I wonder how low and for how long this can go before they realize hey maybe those gray people were right, this new commenting system stinks and is driving far more people away than gaining.
*********************************
NicoleItchy says:
It still feels like the unstarred commenters have to get to the back of the bus blog...Thanks! It was good while it lasted.
**********************************
mariamariamaria says:
GRAY (GREY?) COMMENTERS: PLEASE KEEP COMMENTING! Without new blood we will all develop hideous underbites and bad hips. We need you!
***********************************
BytheSea says:
Except the featured comments aren't the best ones. It would be a full time job for all the starred commenters to go through and fairly promote/demote the best/worst comments. Most people don't care about 150 comments and weeding through them, and they shouldn't. That's psychotic. With the old system, readers could read the comments THEY FIND most interesting and relevant.
A lot is getting censored now out of laziness. Your idea is as practical as communism.
************************************
NoWhereGirl says:
Just to throw my opinion out there, I think that the new commenting system would be ideal if everyone had been unstarred and we'd all started out on equal ground. It just feels like everything I type is being judged before it's even read. I know that a lot of people have said that they scroll down and hit the read all comments button before reading them, but that seems so much more complicated. Also, there are starred commenters here who got there stars not because what they say is particularly interesting, but because they comment over and over several times on each thread. It may just be me, but it seems like bad business to do something that makes your readers feel alienated.
*************************************
BytheSea says:
@NoWhereGirl: Notice how commenting has gone way down? I don't think I'm the only person who feels like every time I post I'm auditioning for some in-crowd.
*************************************
Ms. Stewbert is tired says:
I like to go back to previous posts and see if anyone has responded to my comment or if there are additional threads in which I might be interested. Since I am now grey I have a hard time finding myself. I used to do CNTL+F and find my name but since I am collapsed the find function doesn't work.
For reals, even past the whole popularity thing, this new system is ridiculously unwieldy.
***************************************
gwaste says:
I'm sorry, but I dislike the new system. I'm a fairly new commenter on the site but I feel like I normally provide valid insight into arguments - or at least used to, until the new system began discouraging me from participating on this forum. I guess it's all for the best, since I'll soon have better things to do on here - but it's really discouraged me from not only COMMENTING on entries but also from reading this blog period.
I think any system that discourages new members from participating is flawed - and sorry, having to get someone else to "promote" my comments isn't really an incentive to continue commenting. Things get boring without fresh blood - things already seem pretty homogenous around here anyways sometimes. Anyways, just my 2 cents, thanks for making it really easy to cut the cord from this blog.
****************************************
emily.jane says:
The problem is that commenting when you're gray is like putting your thoughts out for evaluation. If you say something that you find interesting, and you come back a few hours later and it's still gray, it's kind of sad. I think that's the aspect that people are referring to when they say that the new system feels like high school. You're always being judged, trying to impress the starred people, etc...
****************************************
serreca says:
@emily.jane: I can definitely understand that and agree with you. It's easy for me to sit back and say the system is great b/c I have a star.
*************************************
cait98 says:
@emily.jane: It's especially frustrating when you say something kind of interesting, get no responses, then see the exact same thing later posted by someone with a star and heavily replied to. I've definitely had that experience.
*************************************
BytheSea says:
I'm not starred but I used to get regular replies, daily. Now I almost never do. i know people aren't bothering to read the greys.
*************************************
Dodgergirl says:
I have a lot of problems with the concept of the system in general, but I'm going to go ahead and guess Nick Denton [head of Gawker Media] doesn't give a shit what I think, so I'll skip that.
I think often that while the rules for commenting/what makes a good comment here (different then say, what makes a good comment on gawker or deadspin) are understandable in theory, they are often very difficult to understand in practice. How someone gets starred and unstarred is even more confusing, and occasionally contradictory. I'm thinking specifically about how, in a previous thread, it was suggested that while it was theoretically possible to lose one's star for promoting too many comments, it wasn't something to worry about. And then people were destarred for that very reason less than a week later, without any clarifying of this point. And frankly, this has made me think twice about promoting comments I find funny and interesting, because what if the things I find funny and interesting aren't good enough?
It may seem obvious to the editors why these things are done, but it is not obvious to me, nor, I suspect, to many people. And I really wish these things were clearer. It makes it hard to follow the rules when you can't quite pin them down. I have no doubt this is causing a lot of people-- interesting, funny, and intelligent people-- to psych themselves out of commenting. And I'm afraid it is having an effect on the quality of the discussions that go on here.
I didn't particularly want to post this because a) I really do like it here, and I realize that the system is itself coming from above and b) I am basically a chicken and I don't want to lose my star, but I've been turning this stuff over in my head for a few days, and I feel like I should just put it out there.
Aaaand... this really wasn't supposed to be a novel.
*************************************
Nick Denton says:
@Dodgergirl: I do read the criticism here. And you're right that the criteria for designation as a star commenter are confusing -- or subjective at the very least. Star quality is whatever the site's editors and moderators deem it is. And I can see how that seems arbitrary compared with the old system, which conferred stars on those commenters with the most followers.
But here's the thing. We do want to shape the discussion here. And we want to encourage comments from the smartest contributors, even if they're only occasional visitors.
The old system -- by giving priority to commenters who hung around the site all day, made friends, and jumped quickly into each discussion -- encouraged a clique. The goal in these changes is to open up the site to new voices -- interviewees, the subjects of stories, other journalists, authors themselves who might have been deterred before. Mixing up the crowd should be to everybody's benefit.
**************************************
Dodgergirl says:
@Nick Denton: Thank you for your response, and I didn't mean to suggest that you were unaware of the criticisms. I simply meant that my individual hatred for the new system wasn't really going to have an effect on your choice to keep using it.
My problem with the concept of "star quality" is not with its subjectiveness but with the arbitrary way those standards are sometimes applied. I have seen consistently funny and interesting commenters destarred for saying the "wrong thing" once and I've seen starred comments keep their stars despite being repetitive and unnecessarily condescending and mean.
I value this place because of the level of discussion and exchange of new ideas, but the new system is already difficult to follow for longer discussions, and as different voices are occasionally bullied out by "starred" commenters, it becomes even more frustrating. And though the goal may be to avoid cliquishness, I'm not sure that is the effect it is actually having.
****************************************
Total # of Comments: 655
_________________________________________
To reeeeach the unreeechaaaabbbllle...staaaaarrr!
