Posted by Chris van Avery in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
One of my enduring obsessions is rule sets (see here for an example) and having observed this blog for a couple of months it’s apparent that many of our visitors don’t have a lot of experience with this type of forum. For those of you that fall in that category and haven’t yet gleaned this information from other posts and comments, here a quick list of guidelines:
- Read for a while and get to know a little bit about the bloggers and commenters before you post. The traditional media tends to be an environment where personalities are rarely on display and the story is (notionally) presented in an objective fashion. In blogs, the author’s personality (and the commenter’s, too) are integral to the environment, and prejudices and opinions (usually) add to the appeal.
- Inform, and where possible, entertain with your comments—in the fewest number of words. Denizens of the Internet have notoriously short attention spans, so if you’re prone to a long-winded, academic style, you’re limiting the likelihood anyone will hang around long enough for you to make your point.
- Avoid posting comments that don’t relate to the original post (spam). If there’s a chance others might think your comment does relate to the topic thread, be sure to explain why you think it’s important.
- Avoid dragging a thread off topic with your comments (hijacking). The mere mention of a related topic by a previous commenter does not give subsequent commenters license to drag the whole thread into a discussion about the pros and cons of that topic.
- Avoid making comments for the sole purpose of provoking other participants in the discussion (trolling). That doesn’t mean provocative ideas are banned, it means that you need to be tactful in your presentation and offer supporting facts and arguments when you make the comment so we know you’re beating the beehive for a good reason.
- Avoid personal attacks on the character and integrity of, well, anyone (flaming). If you believe a report, organization or individual can’t be trusted, give us arguments in a courteous and impersonal tone.
- Avoid making a comment and never returning to the thread (drive-bys). If you’ve got something you think is important enough to say, you should be willing to hang around long enough to read and respond to counterpoints.
- Be gracious in victory and defeat. Nobody knows everything about a particular topic and intelligent and informed people can disagree about solutions even when they agree there’s a problem. Most importantly, if you can no longer answer another participant’s arguments with arguments, don’t pout and start calling people names. Better you should quietly admit defeat to yourself than announce to others that you’re a poor loser.
- Links to relevant sources (where possible) help back up your argument, particularly if it’s a controversial claim. It’s good if you mention So-And-So’s research or country X’s activities to support your argument, but a link helps everyone else evaluate your claim and the source’s credentials and thinking on a topic.
- If you think the guest bloggers are missing an important topic or story, we all have e-mail addresses and welcome comments and suggestions, so long as they fit with the subject matter of the blog (In other words, don’t spam our e-mail, either). Visit the bio page to get started on finding out how to contact us.
Feel free to discuss and make suggestions in the comments–but remember–don’t just call me an idiot, explain why you think I’m an idiot.
Author’s note: These aren’t “rules” from “she who must be obeyed”. They’re just a synopsis of common comment etiquette I’ve gleaned from participating in these types of forums for a dozen years. Your experience may vary. Some restrictions apply. Offer not valid in the Galapagos Islands or during Blue Nose and Crossing the Line Ceremonies. Guidelines may be changed without notice by order of King Neptune, or Davy Jones when King Neptune is on leave or TAD. Officers currently serving as an Executive Officer are required to “flame” someone at least once per month to maintain qualification to post.
Posted by Chris van Avery in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
17 Responses to “A Primer On Comment Doctrine”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Subscribe
I show up, and then this shows up. Makes me wonder. I’m trying!
February 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pmThanks, Yankee Sailor, appreciate your effort here.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pmHell hath no fury than a woman corrected
February 5th, 2009 at 6:31 pm“Feel free to discuss and make suggestions in the comments–but remember–don’t just call me an idiot, explain why you think I’m and idiot.”
Well, I would explain that I think so because you typed “and” when you meant “an”…..but then I’ve been waiting since spring to catch you in a spelling error.
That’s right, I don’t care how long I wait to getcha back.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:38 pmAh, the dangers of publishing without proofreaders and editors!
It’s fixed….
February 5th, 2009 at 7:14 pmHi. I’m new here, but I’ve noticed on other
February 5th, 2009 at 11:20 pmblogs that I read that the “drive-by” recurrence can be reduced and commenters remain more engaged in the discussion if you offer the ability to “subscribe” to comments to a thread by email. I am very likely to return to a thread if I’m getting an email. And if the comments get too hot you just unsubscribe from the particular thread. Just a thought.
I read three links daily,
http://opensourcegeopolitics.blogspot.com/
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/
If somebody has to show up to call you an idiot, that makes you relevant.
While frustrating, especially if you put in effort to produce good content, it nonetheless is print in numbers.
This is one of the rules of new media.
But remember if somebody has to show up and take the time to disagree.. then your message was relevant, it mattered.
I’m lazy and want you to do my work for me, to package and deliver good content.
See yourself from the perspect of editor and consumer.
But if they have to show up to criticize, you have made the initial step of a message.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:01 amSince the publishing platform is WordPress, there’s a comment feed offered (but there’s no link to it with the other feeds-Hey, Mary!). The URL for the comment feed is http://blog.usni.org/wp-commentsrss2.php.
For those of you that want to narrow your feeds, you can subscribe to feeds by category or author. See here and here for help.
For those of you so inclined, my author feed is http://blog.usni.org/wp-rss2.php?author=24
February 6th, 2009 at 12:47 am“Include links to relevant sources when commenting. It’s good if you mention So-And-So’s research or country X’s activities to support your argument, but a link helps everyone else evaluate your claim and the source’s credentials and thinking on a topic.”
Guilty as charged. However, so much of the ‘foreign navy’ and ‘R&D’ comment that I have provided is either simply my direct observations from working so closely with them and underway on them..or intentionally a bit vague because I’m not at liberty to divulge or link to more specific details in many cases.
So I’ll raise the question: “should I (or others in my situation)limit posting more of what I’ll call ‘unsubstantiated’ information, for lack of a better term? Or is it enough that I can back up my experience with so many experimental and advanced vessel types and continue to toss my comments about same in to the mix, even if they may be quite often ‘off the top of my head’? BTW..there is precious little else ‘on top of my head’, so its a smooth launching pad.
February 6th, 2009 at 10:52 amAll fine and good for your blog, YS. If it’s your blog, you’re free to impose whatever rules and guidelines you desire.
However, I think it wise to remember this is the USNI blog. IIRC, USNI represents a constituency a bit larger than a few guest bloggers.
What shall we do when a guest blogger presents demonstrably false information as fact? Are we to
February 6th, 2009 at 11:59 amFD said: I think it wise to remember this is the USNI blog.
That’s why I said these are “guidelines”. Google “comment etiquette” and you’ll see they’re pretty widely accepted (for most of us, anyway).
FD also asked: What shall we do when a guest blogger presents demonstrably false information as fact?
My suggestion from the guidelines is to, “be tactful in your presentation and offer supporting facts and arguments when you make the comment”, “give us arguments in a courteous and impersonal tone” and, most importantly, “Avoid making comments for the sole purpose of provoking other participants in the discussion.”
Bill asked, [S]hould I (or others in my situation)limit posting more of what I’ll call ‘unsubstantiated’ information, for lack of a better term?
Links are helpful, but they’re certainly not required. Experience counts, particularly when other members of the forum know a little bit about you.
February 6th, 2009 at 12:48 pmYS, I hate you, this post, and I hate the things you like. >:|
In seriousness:
FOD: What shall we do when a guest blogger presents demonstrably false information as fact?
Good example:
Guest blogger: DDG 104 is 423 feet long and was built at NGSS Ingalls.
You: Hey, DDG 104 is actually 510 ft long and was done at BIW. Check this link: http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/DDG104.htm
Bad example:
Guest blogger: DDG 104 is 423 feet long and was built at NGSS Ingalls.
You: That’s WRONG. IDIOT. You are dumb, your politics are terrible, and you should get out. 5 seconds in google would’ve told you different, so get a terrible disease and jump off a bridge. Wharblgl!
It’s pretty easy to disagree with people and what they say, even guest bloggers, without being, well, a jerk.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pmThree cheers for Spade!!! Nicely put.
February 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pmThanks ..I think I got it now.
BTW..did I ever tell y’all about the time we had Skjold over 80 knots?
(kidding..
)
February 6th, 2009 at 2:58 pmSpade says: In seriousness:
FOD: What shall we do when a guest blogger presents demonstrably false information as fact?
Go wiki style and correct the errors? Editorial staff???
http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/02/defense-program-with-its-own-pac.html
I think that many of us want “good information” and are NOT experts. Corrections are welcomed. If it is “fact” and not opinion, maybe a corrections/retraction window that is updated in a seperate column would be helpful?
But should this not be a place to solicit facts?
February 6th, 2009 at 3:05 pmBill: did the Chop have enough clean skivvies?
February 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pmIt appears, from most of the posts after your advice, that the advice was ignored. I spend less and less time at this sight. Folks, make your point and link to the rest of your looooong discussion.
February 9th, 2009 at 12:47 pm