News-Record.com

WIKI! WIKI! RAH RAH RAH!

Somewhat seriously, what a huge idea! More than news, it'd become an ever-growing history of local community. (Track changes; edit judiciously).

Now that I sucked up just a bit, can I ask a question? Would you consider (and I know it would require software) limiting commenters on the blogs (i.e. Letters) so that they could comment only "x" number of times to a single topic? My point is that some Letter comments are overrun with 2 or 3 commenters talking to each other and often not to the topic. If print letter writers are limited in frequency, would there be a big difference if that policy were carried in some fashion to the online edition?

Letters *used* to be one of my fav morning reads. Now it's more like a little club and from discussion (skewed group of "my friends") it seems that several others feel the same way and are reading the letters less often. The great comments are lost; the signal-to-noise ratio is getting very low.

Maybe this belongs in Allen's blog, but I landed here.

Welcome back from the abyss.

Interesting idea, Sue. I know exactly what you mean. I'll have to think about it, and I'd welcome hearing other comments. On this topic, of course. :)

Sue ... I couldn't agree more. the comments section in the letters is nothing more than a chat room for a half dozen people to talk amongst themselves, and often maliciously. You have to have a tough skin to send a letter to the editor these days.

I agree that there needs to some style of control however limitations are fuzzy to say the least.
Who gets limited? Those who are responding more than twice and making a contribution to the subject? Those who are just "jacking their jaws" in order to inflame or stir up trouble? Everyone?
If you attempt to limit those attempting to make a contribution then you loose the effectiveness and purpose of the blogs. If you limit those who sometimes change the subject in the middle of a blog because it has turned into a smear fest ,usually by those who contribute nothing and only attempt to bait those who wish to contribute or baiting or slamming the newbies, then you loose the "peer group" control factor. Several of the regular contributors do resort to this occassionaly to lower the tone and hopefully to distract those who have nothing to contribute. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
So where do you draw the line?
I suppose if freedom of expression is allowed then there can be no limites on the number of times one comments. If freedom of expression is allowed then can a real policy be developed to eliminate those who contribute nothing without destroying the freedom? Would you consider censorship of those contributing nothing except trash? Would they only appear only under another name and continue their garbage?
Lots of questions and I fear, few answers that all are going to agree with.

boo, when a camel turns it face from the street to the feed stall it can expect to have it's hindside slapped. (rough translation of old Turkish proverb)

boo, While I agree you have to have a tough skin to write a letter to the editor, you have to have an even tougher hide to make a post about that letter. I have been called everything but a child of God at one time or another, just for stating my opinion.

But as an adult I realize there will always be those who do not want to play by any rules. They will say anything and keep bludgeoning you till you feel bloody from the attack. At the same time some of these same folks will reveal something that shows you they really do have a heart. And sooner or later you find some common ground.

As Mr. P pointed out, we do a fairly good job of "calling to task" abusers. Often when someone is ferociously attacking another personally, one of the more reasonable posters will intervene.

I come to this forum to discuss, learn and connect. But more importantly, I come here voluntarily. If I can't stand the heat, I can leave the kitchen.

Sue, I do know where you are coming from. I just want you to know the arrogance of some is not a true reflection of all of us. I tried to send an email to a new poster to encourage her to hang in there and the experience would become more rewarding. It came back to me as undeliverable.

I can't agree with you about limiting posts but I can agree it does get boring to hear some say the same thing 99 different ways. I usually scroll past them if I see that is going to be the case.

It is my hope that you and some of the other females that have been dismissed by some of the "less than happy to have females join in serious discussions" will return to the letters forum and help balance things.

You are right on the money Yvonne.
Sue, you should really consider joining in on the letters section. I have read some of your post and have found them to be interesting, intelligent and well writen. I may not always agree with what is written just as I have not always agreed with Yvonne nor she with me but over time we have actually come to find out that we actually have more in common than we have differences. We both, just as I am sure you are, are concerned with the condition of our country in regards to debt, trade, morals etc. We can agree on that, how to change it may be different,but dang it we learn from each other. I really have seen many changes come over many of those who post on these blogs. I believe that most have become kinder, more accepting of others and their opinions even if we do disagree.
Go ahead, give it some serious consideration, come on back. Like Yvonne says, when you get attacked but usually some more level headed individual will come to your rescue and Lilly may even get out her shootin arns and light up the night with em. We would welcome another intelligent voice added to the mix.

Text is a funny thing; you don't "know" someone from their words. Help from attacks? Rescue? Heh heh. That isn't something I need, but thanks for the offer. My point was: the comments about the letters have been overtaken (it seems to me) by people who write back and forth to each other and less about what the writer originally wrote. Topics morph into rants, a poster's POV is established (so how many times can s/he write the same thing?), and my desire to wade through it in hip boots diminishes.

I visit the letters and post when something is interesting to me; I *rarely* feel intimidated there (or anywhere, ask JR :). It's just that less and less is interesting to me. The noise is high, the signal is low. The sensible, reasonable, and therefore interesting discussion is missing.

Maybe JR and the gang (who can shoot straight) might consider another forum where the venomous can congregate and the less-impassioned can discuss. Or the other way around.

As for the "women" comments above, and the "we" idea of the letters posters, that's a big part of my point. There is no "we" unless there's a letters cabal. It's not about women. It's about a vibrant forum that's become unhealthy for lots of people in that it's overrun by the same people every day. I asked about limiting one's responses per letter and I'd like an answer about that, please.

Sue: 1) JR's out of the office for a few days; 2) Allen Johnson oversees Letters, so I think the question probably is better directed to him, if you haven't already done so.

Well, I can wait (not going anywhere this week :) and thanks for the JR update, Lex!

Allen and I are talking about it. We agree with you philosophically, I think. But we can't figure out how to limit or how to allow fruitful discussions to continue between two, three or more people with limitations. For instance, if we limited comments on this post to three per person, you are now at your limit and wouldn't be able to respond to me here. But, because I've been out of the office so much lately, Allen and I haven't really been able to explore the idea beyond one conversation. We will, though