Bit of a navel-gazing post today. I’ve been musing about a couple of things in the past few days: forums and the tone of our sustainable coverage. In the first instance we’re now got the Building forum, launched some months ago, to something of a critical mass. There’s upwards of 350 people on it. I’m sure that we are now experiencing something common for such sites - there are the beginnings of a little discontent on it. I’ve been subject to some rather snide comments myself (which is fine - I am a journalist) and one fellow blogger was not best pleased after a heated debate on the emotive issue of cars Vs bicycles.
It’s a difficult balance to strike this one. Healthy debate and a bit of banter is clearly no bad thing on a forum. It keeps the interest going and inspires responses. However a couple of members have stepped over the mark on some occasions and we will need to keep close tabs on this. It does worry me a little also when you have a mixture of anonymous and named members on the site - it’s clearly understandable that many will keep their identities hidden so as not to be shackled by their employers but this does give some on the site free rein to have a pop at us who are named. Not that I’m at all bitter at all for the stick I’ve received for allegedly living in Notting Hill and being responsible for the slaughter of rain forests due to my coffee drinking.
The other thought/worry I have with regard to the forum and our coverage of sustainability in general is a blurring of journalistic roles somewhat. I have been blundering in to the Building forums as a participant to get debate and discussion going but wonder whether to keep this up. Perhaps I need to just remain there more as a moderator than an active member.
The other difficult balance one has to strike as a journalist is to be a reporter first, a participant second. This is difficult the more passionate you become about a particular subject matter. For example we have had one complaint about an article recently claiming that we were being overtly negative about a project. As a journalist I would argue that we were reporting the facts but part of me could understand the point being made - selecting certain bits of information is what reporters do, but this does not always reflect a rounded discussion, event or interview fully. And if the piece leads to negative results (puting people off sustainability or talking about it) that’s obviously unfortunate.
There, my soul is bared. Any thoughts or feedback appreciated.
Related posts:
- Forum - not fun More growing pains on the Building forum. Having decided as...
- Socrates Giacomo and me Here’s a latest update from the unusual domain that is...
- Forum rules I’ve come up with some for the Building site. Some...
- Forum fun ...
- Is offsetting bollocks? ...
on Oct 21st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Great post!
I think the role of a neutral moderator is difficult, because 1. to start a group, the founder is passionate about the subject and 2. to foster discussion and participation is usually a large part of the moderator’s voice, at least, initially.
Sadly, forcing people to register would lessen the number of responses to a subject- for example, I’m posting but don’t have an account here- and probably wouldn’t post my thoughts if I had to go through a tedious registration form.
But when people begin bullying under the protection of “Anonymous” - then maybe that cloak needs to be removed.
Does journalism really suffer when crafting a post with an opinion? Don’t we see it daily in politics? Then maybe it should be billed as op/ed. I mean, are you really going to, as a journalist, write an article arguing in favor of “clean coal?” ; ) I don’t think so, because your fact gathering has convinced you otherwise.
Any-hoo, great food for thought…
on Oct 21st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
On the ‘to post or not’ issue, I think you should continue as fewer people are inclined to start the ball rolling. You do this well and your ‘day job’ seems to be offering topical issues. Blogging is well enough established for people to appreciate that opinions / angles are being offered up to stimulate debate, rather than traditional journalism.
As to the abuse, tricky to resolve. There have been a few posts in Building that have annoyed me and in the end I decided to bite my lip rather than react. From other forums I’m aware that when moderated these people reincarnate in increasingly poisonous guises - probably most effective to remove the comments without comment?
So all in all, not wanting to blow sunshine into dark places, keep up the good work ……..
on Oct 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
I think it’s important for the moderator to post regularly, share opinions and generate discussion. Regulars will look to the moderator to set the tone. I’ve moderated an 11,000 member forum for about 10 years. I used to let just about anything go. The group and the quality of discussion suffered as a result. One or two disruptive members could send the whole forum into chaos for weeks at a time, and as Nick said, even if you ban the troublemakers, they tend to keep reincarnating.
I did two things that really improved the quality of discussion. I made personal attacks completely off limits and I moderated everyone’s first post.
People are welcome to disagree and debate. Lively discussion and differing opinions are encouraged, but if you tear into a person’s character (or their mother
you’re out and the offending post is deleted. Because all first posts are moderated, a banned member can’t come back under a new user name and create havoc, and anonymous trolls can’t jump into the fray when things get dicey. And yet anybody can post (anonymously if they choose) and any post that’s not a crazy personal attack will be immediately approved. Regulars who have posted a time or two aren’t moderated at all.
The end result is that you have an on-topic forum where people feel comfortable sharing their opinions. More people are willing to participate because they know they can do so without being attacked.
I had a real problem with the idea of moderating first posts. I’m sure as a journalist, that would be a tough call for you and maybe not even an option. But it made a world of difference in the quality and longevity of my forum, so I thought I’d put it out there.
on Oct 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Thanks for those kind and very helpful words. Especially useful for the meeting I will have on forums with the team tomorrow.
One expert I heard talk about forums some months ago likened them to gardens - you need to tend to them or weeds spread very quickly. That seems pretty accurate and we’ll need to keep a close watch, as well as offering plenty of encouragement to create a comfortable yet relevant and illuminating discussion.
on Oct 21st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
You should try moderating the 12,700+ members at Home Inspector Forum (HIF) !
With the delayed and haphazard launch of EPCs last year, many DEAs got terribly burnt; understandably, feelings ran very high and the forum - being the one place where similarly afflicted unemployed DEAs could share experiences - became one loud vent-spleening venue.
I have moderated a couple of forums but this one has been the most challenging, stretching the limits of diplomacy, patience and the durability of modern LCD monitors.
I spend a lot of my efforts behind the scenes dealing with private messages (PMs), explaining why posts have been moved, looking into complaints, damping fires and a multitude of other enquiries.
But it could all mostly be classed as educating members on both the way forums work, and netiquette - instead of writing a curt short reply, I do try and put in the effort to explain the reasonings behind a decision, which can sometimes be difficult and time-consuming when dealing with angry members.
Only last Friday, in fact, did I finally let loose on this very subject you raise on my own blog:
http://www.energy-performance-certificates.org/blog/clg-guide-commercial-epc-requirements-published
I don’t think people realise the currency of online identities: it’s a great mistake to treat it as an empty anonymous vehicle with which to launch attacks - It just doesn’t work like that but newbies - and we’ve all been there - just don’t get it at first.
As for stepping back: I think you do find yourself needing to, to some degree. When a thread becomes very opinionated and heated, it can be tempting to wade in yourself “to put someone right”, but then it becomes potentially very difficult to be seen to be balanced should you need to pull someone up or deal with a complaint pertaining to that same thread.
I think members need to feel they can ask a mod to look at something as a “balanced” mediator - if they see me wading in they might pre-judge how I will react, so avoid doing approaching me.
And then there’s the public side of it: dealing with the myriad organisations concerned with certain comments or individuals.
There’s no doubt, the busier a forum becomes, the tighter the rules and enforcement become. It becomes a very delicate balancing act eventually - the line become between free-speech and paternalism becomes blurred, almost without realising.
But the funny things is, it’s the members that drive it in that direction; but again, almost without realising it themselves.
All said and done, though, it is rewarding - although hardly anyone says thanks! Underneath the noise, there is a lot of valuable networking and knowledge-sharing going on, and knowing how important that is to people makes it difficult to turn away from.
on Oct 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 am
Phil - I think your moderation is great and as per the comments above there is a real role for this.
Individuals should treat professional networking forum discussions in the same way they would behave at a meeting or conference. Of course openess and honesty of opinion should be encouraged but if people can’t behave in a sensible manner and communicate with their peers with the respect everyone deserves, quite frankly they should stick to Facebook and other such sites.
Alex
on Nov 7th, 2008 at 11:06 am
[...] are back with a vengeance. I’ve just gone back and re-read the really helpful comments from my post of a couple of weeks ago musing on the ethics of moderating and I think we will need to act on some [...]
on Nov 9th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Hi Phil
Thought you might to do a piece sometime on Gordon Brown’s renewable energy strategy - from my experience it actually acts as a huge obstacle to the introduction of effect reneable technologies into the UK e.g. the Renewables Grant scheme is, in effect, a cartel of big energy suppliers with access to mediocre and poor technologies that specifically disallows any new technologies until 2010 - and where assessment needs to be through the BRE at £10-30,000 a technology (compared to similar testing in Germany, France, Austria &c. fo a few 100 Euros (and the BRE will not recognise the European Testing regimes.
We have taken to ignoring completely the ’support’ given by the Government as it is, it seems, disingenuous. A recent study by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on the effectivness of worldwide policies for encouraging renewable energy seems to confirm this. It has ranked the UK’s strategies 31st out of the worlds top 35 countries, and denounced its policies as “ineffective and very expensive”.
I’m not sure if the Tory’s have a better policy but it is hard to have a worse one!
best wishes
Alistair
on Nov 12th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Hi Alistair,
Yes this sound like it’s in a depressingly familiar mess. And the report from the BBC today castigating the government for its dithering on energy generally - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7723239.stm - doesn’t paint a pretty picture either.
Thanks for raising this. Perhaps you fancy putting it up within the Building forum?
Best wishes,
Phil