WalkingJoe

Fri, Aug 23, 2013 : 2:56 p.m.

Kyle, thank you. I don't believe it was you that I emailed and it was quite a while ago. thanks again for understanding and I will email you with a private explanation of why I was upset.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Aug 23, 2013 : 2:38 p.m.

Hi WalkingJoe- Thanks for posting this, that entire comment thread was removed this morning. In the future please make use of the report abuse button if you think a comment has violated our community guidelines. You note that you've emailed in the past, I haven't seen an email from your account lately, so if there is a current issue you'd like to discuss or question you have please feel free to continue to use that as a way to get in touch with us.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.

Sorry about that John, it's been restored. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Aug 22, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.

Hi jrad- We ask readers to avoid speculation on accidents and crime until more information is released by officials.

John

Mon, Aug 19, 2013 : 10:09 p.m.

@Kyle, I can appreciate that point, but it is so very strange when the comments that are most often so speedily removed on a given article are the ones that are actually the least egregious. Mods seem to be very pro-active on certain kinds of comments, but wait to rely on readers' to get the others. Surely if a mod is patrolling an article and notices one commenter calling out another for clearly violating these guidelines, it stands to reason that not only would that comment be removed, but also the one that was clearly inappropriate. Yet, what seems to happen most often is that the person calling out someone for violating guidelines is removed, while the original post is left up for quite some time. The priorities seem backwards, is what I'm getting at. Why are active mods waiting on readers to report clearly abusive comments on threads that they are obviously actively monitoring, but waste no time deleting comments that seem quite minor in comparison? As a random example, comments which are vaguely described as "not adding to the discussion" will be deleted, but two or three entries up will be a comment that is clearly racist/hateful/attacking someone personally. One violation seems more serious to me, yet the first will be removed quickly, while the other stays up for hours. It also seems very unsustainable on the part of A2 to ask commenters to have to ask about why something has been removed on a completely separate thread that has now reached close to 1000 entries spanning 4 pages.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Aug 19, 2013 : 6:51 p.m.

Hi John- Every story presents a whole new conversation and being that we cover such a broad number of topics across the county it is impossible to make an exact science out of 'enforcement'. The goal of the community guidelines is simply to outline expectations for readers to follow in an attempt to maintain a civil constructive conversation. If you ever see a comment you believe violates the guidelines please hit the report abuse button on it so we can take a look at it. Or, if you have one blocked and curious as to why please let me know and I'll do my best to give you a clear answer.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 : 3:27 p.m.

Sorry EH- It's summertime which means a lot of time off around the office and makes it difficult for us to keep up with threads like this as always, feel free to email with any questions so we can see it sooner.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.

You have my email EH, as noted before please contact me that way and I can usually get back with you sooner. Your comment in question was removed for making light of the situation.

EyeHeartA2

Sat, Aug 3, 2013 : 3:36 a.m.

I bet this is going to be a heck of a reply - 3 days in the making. I can't hardly wait, but it looks like I will have to.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.

Ricebrnr, numerous comments on that thread were removed. If there are any on that story or any future ones you think violate the guidelines please flag it for removal and we will take a look at it. Thanks.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 5:15 p.m.

Kyle, really??? taken down for not following these guidelines - Insensitivity to victims of accidents or crimes - Using tragedies to make a political point - Presuming guilt on the part of persons accused of crimes but readers are allowed to jump all over the victim in the stolen guns story?? if that ain't hypocrisy!

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Jul 26, 2013 : 8 p.m.

We hold no political agenda. Our goal is simply to maintain a civil conversation from readers, and welcome input from all perspectives. Your comments removed earlier today were taken down for not following these guidelines - Insensitivity to victims of accidents or crimes - Using tragedies to make a political point - Presuming guilt on the part of persons accused of crimes

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Jul 26, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.

Hi Rhino- We're not a government run site, but we do try to keep the conversation as open as possible. With that said, there is a need for moderation to maintain value for readers which includes removing comments that violate our community guidelines. We understand that there can be a grey area at times and we do our best to keep up with the conversation and weigh removed comments accordingly. As noted elsewhere in this thread please feel free to email us anytime if you have a question or concern about a specific comment.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Aug 8, 2013 : 3:40 p.m.

Hi Barb- Please flag any comments you believe are outside of our community guidelines and we'll review them as soon as possible. Thanks.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Jul 8, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.

Sorry for the delay AA. Try to add a little context to your posts next time. Although it expressed an opinion there was no framing to it, thus making it trolling comment.

arborarmy

Thu, Jul 4, 2013 : 12:41 p.m.

Thanks for the clear, concise answer. Much appreciated.

1bit

Wed, Jul 17, 2013 : 11:58 p.m.

Will do, thanks Kyle. I would again suggest A2.com review its policies for using religious icons and symbols for avatars. If you allow a trickle, then be prepared for a flood.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Jul 8, 2013 : 4:55 p.m.

Comment such as that will always be removed from a story as it distracts from the conversation. Letting us know here or by email is the more effective method of bringing such concerns to our attention.

ThinkingOne

Tue, Jun 18, 2013 : 4:08 p.m.

Then I would have to say that you and the other editors must be quite busy, as the number of humorous responses to all articles - including crime stories - seems to be quite large. As a second comment, I would like to add that certain things about all stories are humorous, even for crime stories. This is a perfect example by its very nature. A drug dealer calls the cops because he was robbed while doing a business deal? How is that just not by nature funny? He brings his girlfriend AND her mother along? This is not funny all on it's own? Another comment would be, the comment I responded too seemed to also be a humorous one - bringing girlfriend and mother along - yet it was not edited out. So the criteria in play is relative funny-ness? Plus, I was responding to a comment, not the article. And lastly, this situation has been reported many times over many months. While apparently some readers found it to be 'news', I think most found the situation very familiar. It was not like I was shocking anyone on a heartbreaking, fresh situation. The bottom line is that, plain and simple, some things are just funny. Even crimes and criminals.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.

Hi TOne, We try to keep the lighthearted comments on crime/court stories to a minimum. We recognize that many do open the door to such comments but we encourage readers to post their thoughts in a more constructive manner. Using your post as an example, your point may have been a valid one but using it in a satirical manner just was not appropriate.

EyeHeartA2

Fri, Jun 21, 2013 : 5:58 p.m.

Brad, we are soul mates.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Jun 17, 2013 : 8:28 p.m.

Which story did you comment on that you are referring to?

alan

Wed, Jun 26, 2013 : 4:45 a.m.

It has been a general trend for a long time Kyle. People post the most vile, ignorant, bigoted comments and they are left up. When someone suggests that their comments are vile, ignorant, or bigoted those comments get removed. Happens every day.

Peter

Fri, Jun 14, 2013 : 5:54 p.m.

At what point did this thread change from the place to put our "question[s] about any moderation decisions [you] have made" to only specific questions about individual posts?

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Jun 14, 2013 : 4:37 p.m.

Again, this thread is intended for specific questions regarding commenting. If you think a comment has an issue please continue to use the report abuse option as you have done in the past so we can look at them on a case by case basis. As always we'll continue to watch commenter reader history and address any situations with individuals on a one on one basis as necessary.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Jun 13, 2013 : 8:16 p.m.

Hi Holland, thanks for alerting us to that, it was correctly shortly after publishing.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Jun 13, 2013 : 8:18 p.m.

Hi Peter- You posted quotes with no context for us to address. This thread is to pose questions regarding commenting if you have one, please fire away.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Jun 7, 2013 : 4:59 p.m.

Nothing at this time.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Jun 6, 2013 : 5:06 p.m.

"Please avoid: Posting personal information about individuals" I understand your intention in asking the question, but doing so crosses the line. We do not force readers to disclose their entire background before commenting, but at the same time we do keep an eye on comments being posted to ensure an individual does not go too far and abuse this system to attack a competitor.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Jun 6, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.

Hi DBH- I was out of the office for a few days off and still catching up on things, I'll shoot you an email shortly! Thanks for understanding.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Jun 6, 2013 : 5:12 p.m.

Hi BTT- We welcome reader input, but it needs to be posted in a constructive manner otherwise it will be subject for removal. If you have specific concerns regarding any story or reporter we suggest emailing or calling us directly so we can address the issue appropriately. Thanks.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 30, 2013 : 3:16 p.m.

There is no picking or choosing based on specific users Elouise the same rules apply to everyone. We re-review comments on an regular basis to help maintain consistency across the board, you made a post on a holiday and we reviewed it that evening which was when it was removed. As always, if you have information regarding something in the community worth looking into please send it our way by emailing news@annarbor.com for consideration. Thanks.

Elouise

Wed, May 29, 2013 : 7:50 p.m.

And maybe a story should be done on the entire place...

Elouise

Wed, May 29, 2013 : 7:49 p.m.

So why was my comment approved then left up for over a day? If AA.com staff are going to regulate, they need to do it %100 or not at all... Picking and choosing what you feel is appropriate is wrong. I'm sure you all have your favorites and least favorites when it comes to those who post and I'm sure it's shown...

Kyle Mattson

Wed, May 29, 2013 : 2:36 p.m.

Hi Elouise- Although we understand the frustration of the situation you personally had with that particular business it was off-topic to the gallery. If you have a business-related issue you think that our reporters should look into to verify please email us so we can do our due diligence on both sides of the situation. Thanks for understanding.

Elouise

Wed, May 29, 2013 : 4:01 a.m.

Oh and not to mention the links I left to show the reviews that spoke for themselves...

UpperDecker

Tue, May 28, 2013 : 9:31 a.m.

They put you on pre-moderation. Time for a new name. May I suggest DHB?

Kyle Mattson

Tue, May 28, 2013 : 9:37 p.m.

Just shot you an email Brad per your request.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, May 28, 2013 : 9:18 p.m.

It was restored shortly after being taken down. No mystery involved.

Brad

Sat, May 25, 2013 : 12:54 a.m.

Any idea why it has mysteriously reappeared? Feel free to claim that didn't happen.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 23, 2013 : 8:26 p.m.

Hi Brad- Just did a search and it appears that comment is showing.

Brad

Thu, May 23, 2013 : 12:14 p.m.

Seriously, please take a look at that comment and tell me how anybody could construe that to be in violation of the guidelines. What were they thinking?

UpperDecker

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 4:23 p.m.

Kyle I would like to revisit the current policy of not allowing comments regarding people's appearance. It is true that I do appear to look like a troll, however I do not appreciate you rubbing it in my troll face and to do it so soon after scolding me for the same behavior. Tsk tsk

Kyle Mattson

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 3:32 p.m.

Undecided, but I know what a troll looks like...

UpperDecker

Fri, May 24, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.

So you agree that he looks like Cleveland from Family Guy?

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 23, 2013 : 8:27 p.m.

We've long had a policy to not allow comments regarding people's appearance.

Cash

Wed, Jun 12, 2013 : 12:08 a.m.

EyeHeartA2, you aren't alone. Almost everything I post is deleted after supporting this site since day one. I feel like I am targeted.

EyeHeartA2

Mon, May 20, 2013 : 6:36 p.m.

I see the comment was restored without explanation. This is a recurring theme with our weekend crew (who for some reason deleted a string of comments on their moderation heavy handedness.) Putting it back a day later is not the answer. Getting that crew to some level of competence is. Or at least tell them to pull the bullseye off my back. It is getting old.

Peter

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 5:09 p.m.

It was pretty plain Kyle.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, May 15, 2013 : 1:15 p.m.

The paraphrase takes those comments further than their original intention Peter. We've cleaned up a number of comments from that thread. Thanks for your attention to it.

UpperDecker

Wed, May 22, 2013 : 5:47 p.m.

I called Beermaestro an idiot in another thread and I would like to know why it wasn't removed.

DBH

Sat, May 18, 2013 : 3:42 a.m.

Good question, @US. Good question.

Usual Suspect

Fri, May 17, 2013 : 5:17 p.m.

Why is it you never actually answer the question of why it was removed?

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention beermaestro, I've restored your comment. Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.

Sent you an email EH.

DBH

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 7:23 p.m.

Kyle, I contend the "moot point" is that the reason for the original deletion of my reply with the link was rendered moot once it was confirmed that the photo in the link was that of the abductee. Whatever validity existed for the deletion of the post with the link (and I accept that, though I respectfully disagree with it) disappeared once the confirmation occurred. I only posted the latter comment once it was obvious to me that the deletion was no longer appropriate, and yet the former reply (with the link) remained unrestored.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 6:49 p.m.

Our reporters do their due-diligence in reporting and we always make a priority to include photos when applicable and they have gone through the appropriate channels. If readers choose to seek out what other local outlets may be publishing we welcome them to do so, but we have established internal procedures/processes for our reporting. As for the latter comment, reposting your comment as you did was simply emphasizing a moot point that is distracting to the greater discussion at hand in the comments.

DBH

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 6:21 p.m.

Kyle: #1, My link was to a Detroit news website which had her picture, not to her Facebook profile. #2, Even if you think the reply with the link was untimely, why was it not restored after the photo of her on the Detroit website was confirmed as being of her? I posted a subsequent reply to Kyle Feldscher that now that the photo was confirmed, my post and its link remained deleted. That reply was then deleted.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, May 9, 2013 : 3:44 p.m.

We had not receive confirmation from police at the time of that particular headline of the identity of the woman. We try to make every effort to wait for police to release images of individuals in situations like this to avoid any potential misidentification. An updated story was made shortly after with the photo as confirmed by officials.

UpperDecker

Wed, May 1, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.

Roger that Kyle, I sent you an email.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Apr 30, 2013 : 6:33 p.m.

I'm not sure what you are referring to UD, care to email me a screenshot?

JRW

Mon, Apr 29, 2013 : 5:08 p.m.

Thanks, Kyle. I appreciate the response. It's been far too long. I know a lot of posters would like to have the sports articles on AA dot com with commenting directly on that site, not MLive. Maybe you could write a short update for everyone on AA dot com. Thanks again.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Apr 29, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.

I'm with you JRW, we were hoping to have this transition complete much sooner. This is outside of our control here in the newsroom and our tech team is working on it. I'll see about getting an updated timeline posted on that wolverines commenting changes thread.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Apr 29, 2013 : 3:11 p.m.

M-W, your original comment above was removed as it included the text of the comment in question.

M-Wolverine

Mon, Apr 29, 2013 : 2:03 p.m.

So the comment that went beyond the guidelines that you agree should be removed still didn't deserve the actual comment questioning why it wasn't removed? So I was right, but me pointing it out here violated conversation guidelines. This is a messed up blog.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 8:16 p.m.

Hi M-W, I've removed that comment you pointed out. Anytime you see a questionable comment like that go ahead and hit the Report Abuse button next to the comment and we'll look into it.

Messa

Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 7:15 p.m.

That's charming, Kyle. You're allowed to be sarcastic, but when I am, I get my post deleted. I didn't call names, use "bad" language, anything, but still got the ax. Nice.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Apr 26, 2013 : 8:13 p.m.

We do enjoy the smell of fresh apple pie, sound of our local orchestra, and sight of the sun setting over Ann Arbor ;) Typo-sarcasm aside, we are actually not interested in restricting readers from expressing their opinion as that would not be worth our time moderating or your time commenting. Rather we simply strive to create an opportunity for all our readers to weigh in on news happening on their community here in Washtenaw County. We have established these guidelines with both the readers and content of stories in mind to maintain a fair conversation across all topics we report on. If you ever have specific questions regarding blocked comments or ones that you think that should be removed let us know. Thanks!

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Apr 25, 2013 : 4:19 p.m.

Understandable Tag, we try to be flexible with it and allow it here and there, but we have to have it in place as some people abuse their shift/cap lock key. And, yes all profanity will flag your comment for removal. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Tag

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 10:25 p.m.

Thanks for the response Kyle. I am disappointed in this case as the caps was more out of fun, and in our section it's actually something we hear and yell on an almost weekly basis. A lot of ahem "older" fans like to sit and we like to stand watch and cheer on our team. The students need to step up, get up and get into the stadium or give up their cheap tickets and stay home and sit on the couch. Would the intended word spelled out been moderated as well?

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:34 p.m.

Correct Tag. Also, as noted above masked swearing will usually result in comment removal as well.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:36 p.m.

Hi Brad- Sorry for the delayed reply. Just checked your comment and I agree it should have stood. I've gone ahead and restored it for you.

Brad

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 7:12 p.m.

That's what I figured.

Brad

Sun, Apr 21, 2013 : 1:19 p.m.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't this where I'm supposed to ask about that? If not how about you tell me where to do that rather than continuing to delete posts. Care to identify yourself?

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:39 p.m.

Agreed Audion. The comment has been restored.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Apr 24, 2013 : 9:41 p.m.

Attack on a reporter, as always if you have feedback please shoot us an e-mail so we can look into the matter further. Thanks!

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Apr 15, 2013 : 3:05 p.m.

Rice- You'll have an email coming your way today.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Mar 13, 2013 : 8:14 p.m.

Sorry about that SD09, I've restored your comment.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Mar 4, 2013 : 2:52 p.m.

Hi Ms- Looks like it was removed because you simply posted the link and no other context to go with it. If you are sharing a link to make a point, help other readers understand your perspective and why you are sharing it. It does often help to reference prior stories, but without some reasoning as to why you posted it the comment will often be flagged for being off topic.

Messa

Tue, Jul 30, 2013 : 7:20 p.m.

You're posting on this sad, sorry little excuse for journalism, Eep. That's what you're doing wrong. I hope you see this before it's deleted because they WILL delete this. They're power-happy and we mustn't criticize the POWERS THAT BE. (eyeroll)

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Mar 1, 2013 : 9:32 p.m.

Not sure why your previous comment here was blocked Eep, but to answer your question. It appears it was removed for tracking too far off topic and speculating at cause. Early on in crime reports little details are known and we caution jumping to conclusions until more in known. Hopefully that helps.

EyeHeartA2

Mon, Feb 25, 2013 : 9:31 p.m.

Thanks for the follow up Kyle.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Feb 25, 2013 : 8:58 p.m.

Ah, thank for the clarification, I've restored it, but it is still on the fence for being on topic as it is essentially a troll comment. Just try to be mindful of that in the future. DBH- This thread is for questions regarding site commenting. The questions you posed were far outside of that. If you want to discuss any of the matters you presented in your post please contact Community News Director Paula Gardner directly.

EyeHeartA2

Mon, Feb 25, 2013 : 8:13 p.m.

Actually, Kyle, it isn't showing. I had two comments on the story, somewhat ironically, the more off topic of the two remains, while the more on topic comment was deleted. My comment was in response to Steven R. who said that hoop houses were a "sound investment". My response was along the lines of if a hoop house is the highest and best use for a piece of real estate in a community, that is pretty sad. I see nothing off topic on that.

DBH

Mon, Feb 25, 2013 : 3:46 p.m.

Despite the hassles, @EyeHeartA2, count yourself fortunate that you are even receiving replies to your questions. My last 2 (see those from 2/3/13 and 2/10/13) have been ignored.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Feb 25, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.

It was most likely flagged for being off topic EH2, which it borderline is. Either way, it appears to be currently showing.

EyeHeartA2

Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.

Thanks for the follow up Kyle.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Feb 18, 2013 : 2:11 p.m.

Just took a look at it and restored that comment. Thanks for pointing it out. Looks like it was flagged a few times by other readers causing it to come down, but I do not see an issue with it so thanks for posting it here so I could look into it.

C.C. Ingersoll

Tue, Feb 19, 2013 : 6:58 a.m.

Okay -- I understand. I'll take more care from now on.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Feb 12, 2013 : 10:45 p.m.

Although it may have followed sociological theory it simply crossed the line too far into blaming the victim. Understand that these situations come with a large grey area for us in comment moderation, but we treat them with as much sensitivity as possible to protect those effected by the crime.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Jan 16, 2013 : 4:47 p.m.

Thanks for your feedback Suzanne.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 : 8:44 p.m.

Hi Alan- In the future please feel free to flag those comment you may see and inappropriate for the site or being posted by a particular user using the 'Report Abuse' button. Your comment was probably blocked as out of context it was seen as a negative attack at another commenter, these scenarios are a bit of a grey area but we do have those policies in place as a way to keep the conversation on track and as useful to other readers as possible.

DBH

Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 10:36 p.m.

Semantics, I suppose, Kyle. A reporter does not necessarily have to have a degree in journalism to be a reporter, just as a cook does not have to have graduated with a degree in culinary arts to be a cook. In any event, I will just settle on AnnArbor.com staff, formal reporters/journalists or not. If writing is part or all of what one does for a living, I feel the quality of the writing should be expected to be higher, and subject to greater public scrutiny, than writing submitted by those for whom writing is not a significant component of their occupation.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Jan 8, 2013 : 6:39 p.m.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll be sure check out the comment. In support of my fellow staffers here in the newsroom, I'll humbly keep my name from the reporter title. Those individuals have spent years studying their profession and continue to put in hours perfecting their craft and bringing you news from around the county. Although you do see posts from me from time to time my role is more oriented at connecting the dots here between the content published here on the site, comments, and what is trending in the community.

DBH

Mon, Jan 7, 2013 : 10:30 p.m.

Thanks for your reply, Kyle. My comment was directed toward annArbor.com staff reporters, not any of the other writers you cite. Specifically, my comment in this particular instance was the article YOU wrote about New Years resolutions.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Jan 7, 2013 : 8:25 p.m.

Hi DBH- Sorry for the delayed reply, I was out of the office all last week. Thank for your feedback, we'll definitely take it into consideration for the future. As one who was a reader like you not too long ago I understand your perspective and expectations. One thing that I would submit to readers is to consider the diverse sources of content they are reading as they may be from our staff reporters, regular community contributors, concerned citizens through letters to the editor, guest opinions, etc. Thanks and best wishes to you in 2013!

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Dec 28, 2012 : 5:34 p.m.

M-Wolv- We do allow feedback from time to time to stand on the site as we see it as valuable to improving how we serve the community. However, if they become too much of a distraction, stray too far off-topic, or directly attack a reporter or community author it is subject for removal. Thanks for raising your questions it and we'll consider it in future moderation. We hope you have a great 2013!

arborarmy

Sun, Dec 30, 2012 : 4:01 p.m.

My mistake. It was in the article about Washtenaw County needing to marshall its hunger resources. At this point there is no point to restoring the post. I sure would like to know why they were deleted.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Dec 28, 2012 : 4:59 p.m.

arborarmy- I only see one comment from you on that story in the records and it is currently showing. If there were other comments you attempted to post on that story and they are not showing please email me more details so I can look at our technical records to see if there was an issue. Thanks.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Dec 14, 2012 : 9:32 p.m.

Hi Craig- It was taken down as it was considered as blaming the victim.

Craig Lounsbury

Fri, Dec 14, 2012 : 8:47 p.m.

even though the details have changed and a 10 year old is not among the victims I still would like to know why my post was deleted at the time.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Dec 13, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.

DBH- Can you resent the email you are referencing as I just went through my email box and not finding the one you are referencing. Unfortunately the voting system we have here is pretty basic so we have no way to see specifics behind how often any comments are voted on or who submits the comments, so essentially we're in the same boat as you. Thanks for understanding.

EyeHeartA2

Fri, Dec 14, 2012 : 11:08 p.m.

I'm not sure how my original comment about Rebekah Warren was considered an attack on another commentator?

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Dec 14, 2012 : 9:40 p.m.

Hi EyeHeart- Your comments were removed for being considered as attacks toward other commenters. Based the number of situations you seem to be having with comments I would recommend giving consideration to your approach as a commenter on the site. Shoot me an email if you want to discuss this further. Thanks.

EyeHeartA2

Fri, Dec 14, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.

Crickets? Here is what I think happened: Somebody who disagreed with my opinion flagged it, then your foreign moderators just took everything down in every post without bothering to look at it. You get what you pay for with foreign labor, don't you?

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Dec 12, 2012 : 10:38 p.m.

SC- You comment was posted in all caps which automatically flags your comment for potentially being removed. It is noted in the guidelines above.

StopCrying

Tue, Dec 11, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.

You already did sign up. Rookie

DBH

Sun, Dec 9, 2012 : 1:13 a.m.

For what?

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Dec 10, 2012 : 7:49 p.m.

Sorry Craig it appears that one was removed in error, it has been restored now.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Dec 6, 2012 : 10:53 p.m.

Hi Terry- We have always allowed readers the choice to remain anonymous on the site. This is because as a source serving the local community we see value in giving residents the platform to express their voice without concern. With that said, we do welcome and encourage readers to use their real name such as yourself if they feel comfortable doing so. In partnership with MLive we have also done numerous to find that transitioning to other commonly used systems like Facebook have equal downsides such as the inability to 100% eliminate anonymity and there are readers who do not use Facebook. Ultimately any system used will always have some form of downside. Thanks for you feedback and feel free to email me with any other suggestions you may have.

StopCrying

Tue, Dec 11, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.

Fair enough Kyle....I will be lurking nearby and awaiting these future changes.

Kyle Mattson

Thu, Dec 6, 2012 : 10:37 p.m.

Ha, I doubt you did SC. To answer your question, the addition to go further back in your commenting will not be a featured added in the near future as we are working on larger updates which will ultimately enable you to do so. The most recent update was made to stabilize user profiles as we were having reports of a number of issues from readers.

StopCrying

Tue, Dec 4, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.

Did I get down voted by a member of the annarbor.com I.T. staff that does not want more work to do? Otherwise, I am unsure why someone would not want to revisit their own post history....

DBH

Sat, Dec 1, 2012 : 1:13 a.m.

In support of @StopCrying's request, while AnnArbor.com may never have made ALL commenting history available to users, what used to be available was several pages (I'm guessing 4-5) of comments with, perhaps, 7-10 comments per page. When AnnArbor.com revised its display of user profiles (it no longer, for example, shows when the user registered), the number of pages of comments available to the user to review dropped from the 4-5 to 1. I, too, would like to have back the option to review and revisit several pages of past comments.

StopCrying

Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 6:44 p.m.

You used to be able to goto "page 2" and continue scrolling through posts. I like to revisit conversations and often have already posted on a different topic since, thus erasing my own post history. Will you guys be making that available in the future? It seems rather odd to only allow a user to see only their last 10 posts....

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 5:47 p.m.

StopCrying the ability to view all commenting history is never an option we've made available to users. If you need to reference a comment you made for a noteworthy reason please contact me directly and we wil consider pulling the detailed reports.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Nov 30, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.

Hi Craig- The original comment has since been blocked for being off-topic.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 8:59 p.m.

Hey EyeHeart- Your guess is correct that the comment was deemed off-topic I see the connection you made, but you were bringing up a completely different story/accident. As you noticed an update has been published. In the future if you have inquires regarding a story previously reported on please feel free to contact the reporter for an update.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Nov 28, 2012 : 8:24 p.m.

So, somewhat coincidentally, the story came out today. Thank you for closing the loop. (I still think I shouldn't have been deleted though.)

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Nov 27, 2012 : 10:27 p.m.

HI Arborarmy- Thanks for asking. We do regular reviews of various readers as required and address their comment activity on an individual basis via email if required there are steps we make such as pre-moderation and if needed suspension. If there is ever a particular issue or example which concerns you please feel free to email me and I'll look into it further and take action as needed. Thank you.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Nov 26, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

Hi Craig- Although referenced in the Niagara Gazette story the link to the individual's personal Facebook page was not included in our post and is a practice we rarely do. Your most recent comment posted on the story is fine and will stand. Thanks.

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Nov 14, 2012 : 12:35 p.m.

half the posts in this place are slightly off topic and somewhat in jest. So I find your explanation lacking. Go ahead and delete my other post in there too. The one about claiming the title east burns park for my neighborhood.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Nov 13, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.

Come now Craig, I know you posted it in jest it is clearly off-topic and of 'troll' nature which is why it was blocked by our moderators. We will most likely have coverage on the forthcoming public art project to be installed at the location so save up your thoughts on public art for then. Thanks!

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Nov 12, 2012 : 3:19 p.m.

http://www.annarbor.com/news/the-civility-of-dog-owners-civil-infractions-on-ann-arbors-old-west-side/ here is a link to an April 13 story with a video. In the video at the 1:18 mark a woman is shown with a plastic bag preparing to pick up after her dog (a #2). At the 2:06 mark the phrase "no poop gets left behind" is uttered by a citizen. So am i to assume Ann Arbor.com has a policy that allows the mention of dogs defecating but bans the mention of dogs urinating?

DBH

Fri, Nov 9, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.

No, Kyle, it is now showing. Its publication was delayed for at least a couple of hours, which was puzzling to me since, in my opinion, it was informational in nature and hardly a reply which would not pass muster by the moderators, no matter how strict the criteria. However, I am now puzzled why, at this point, you think it did not show up because the root comment was removed. The root comment was not removed (and never was, from what I saw during my periodic visits to the story and its comments), and my reply eventually was (and remains) published.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Nov 9, 2012 : 4:38 p.m.

DBH- Looks like you comment was a reply to another comment which ended up being removed which is why it is not showing.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:46 p.m.

I've restored the comment DBH.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Nov 7, 2012 : 9:42 p.m.

We found the issue and fixed it DBH. Thanks again for bringing it to our attention.

DBH

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 5:57 p.m.

FWIW, as of now the comments are loading again, at least on my computer.

justcurious

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 4:21 p.m.

Thanks for the reply Kyle. Unfortunately I have a new Macbook Pro with Safari 6.1 on it and clearing the cache is not on the menu anymore. I really do not like the changes they have made to it. I guess I need to change browsers.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 3:49 p.m.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, commenting was not disabled on that story, and we're unsure of why the comments are not loading. Our tech team is addressing the issue with our commenting system provider. Curious, if you haven't done so recently try clearing your cache and see if that helps. If not, shoot me an email so I can look into it further, thanks.

justcurious

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

Yes Kyle, DBH is correct. That is the article. I too thought perhaps that commenting had been disabled, but totally erased is another matter. In any case, a notification saying what happened would be good. I also am finding it hard to comment on other stories. Nothing happens when I hit reply.

DBH

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 2:44 p.m.

I think @justcurious is referring to http://www.annarbor.com/news/man-killed-on-i-94-crash-saturday-a-good-family-man-2-others-remained-hospitalized/ . I, too, noticed that the commenting have not only been disabled, but have disappeared. Also, after I initially noticed that the comments disappeared, the number of comments increased from 43 to 45. I am guessing the disappearance of the comments occurred about the time of the last update, 6:27 PM yesterday if I remember correctly. I am speculating that the comments were "disappeared" at the request of the deceased's family because of the pain it obviously caused them. If I am correct, it seems to me that it would be unprecedented in the short history of AnnArbor.com, even though I understand that it would have been done out of compassion for the family. Nonetheless, if such a measure is done, I think the responsible person ought to insert a note into the article, stating what was done and why. I am all for compassion, but I also am all for free speech. As part of the local fourth estate, AnnArbor.com needs to acknowledge and explain when they take such drastic measures.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.

Which crash article are you referring to JC? The comments on the "Police release details of Saturday's fatal crash on I-94" one have been disabled, but you should still be able to view them. Never trust the actual count as we've found that there is an occassional delay in that number updating.

Bob Needham

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 5:10 p.m.

That must have been inadvertent. It's been restored.

Eep

Thu, Nov 1, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.

I saw that Paula Gardner replied to me earlier, but now her reply has been removed because it violated AnnArbor.com's conversation guidelines? How did one of your own staff member's replies violate the guidelines?

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.

JC- That is a yes and no answer. Obviously all of us in the AnnArbor.com office cannot be awake reviewing every single comment 24/7 we do spend extensive amounts of time late in the evenings and on the weekends reading as commenters such as yourself to jump in where needed, address any issues, and try to keep the perspective of all conversations on track.

justcurious

Tue, Nov 6, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.

It says above... "Comment moderation process Throughout the day, members of AnnArbor.com's staff take turns moderating comments using the above guidelines. We also contract with an outside company that moderates our site outside of business hours." So it is not necessarily aa.com staff doing the moderating...correct?

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Oct 29, 2012 : 8:20 p.m.

DBH- Good questions. First off, flagged comments are for the most part reviewed in the same time frame as all others, there is no default which removes a comment once being flagged where it is then restored. Lately there seems to be fewer comments being flagged overall, so maybe that is what you are noticing. For the response time to comment approval, there is no set time window I can can give you. Obviously we place our priority on keeping you informed with a steady stream of news, and every story generates a very different conversation. While some stories are concentrated on a specific topic, others (such as our recent presidential endorsement) open up a very broad exchange of opinions. Combined with the irregularity of breaking news and 24/7 nature of the internet addressing specific moderation issues on an immediate basis is simply not always possible. With that said, we do have someone assigned to keep watch over the comments being posted around the clock. Also, many of us here including myself, community news director Paula Gardner, and our editing staff are online following the conversation as often as possible be it while at the office, on the weekends or 3am on a weeknight. Many sites now rely solely on automated systems to review their comments, but we see value in participating as readers with you and encourage our reporting staff to do the same. I do receive emails to the moderator@annarbor.com and we make every effort to look into each situation in a timely fashion, just understand that we do have to sleep and eat once and a while too. Please also feel free to email me directly at kylemattson@annarbor.com as well. Thanks.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Oct 29, 2012 : 8:19 p.m.

Cash- There has been no change in moderation. There are hundreds of new accounts created each week which are created by readers to comment on specific stories which continually changes who is in the room conversing. If you do not have interest in participating in the comments going forward please feel free to let me know and I'll disable your account.

DBH

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.

Thanks for your reply, Kyle. I don't think I ever would have a question about whether or not a comment has or has not been removed since I could just check the comment in the appropriate story and see for myself if it has or has not been removed. My concern is that, in the past, it seemed to me that comments that were flagged as assuming an accused's guilt were at least temporarily removed promptly by default, and then restored later if the flag was felt to be invalid. Now they seem to be left until someone gets around to looking at the flag to see if the concern is valid. I have seen comments (ultimately removed) stay around for more than a day after I had flagged them. Which brings me to an important question on this issue: How long after a comment is flagged should we expect it to be removed, if it is to be removed? Will that vary with 8-5 weekday hours vs. other hours? If we are to contact moderator@annarbor.com (presumably, you at the moment) about a persistent comment after having flagged it, we need to know what the length of time we should give the comment to be removed, but I don't know what you/AnnArbor.com considers a reasonable amount of time. Thanks.

Cash

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 : 2:56 p.m.

Kyle, either there are guidelines that are enforced, or there aren't. After reading your response I don't feel any closer to the answer. Kyle, Reader comment behavior changed because it was ALLOWED to change....because moderation has changed. There have always been bullies and rudeness but previously they were deleted. Now the attacks on posters remain. If I were one of the people attacked on the responses to that article, I'd be getting a lawyer...and as some of those posts were made by lawyers, that may be happening soon. Stay tuned.

Kyle Mattson

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 : 1:58 p.m.

No change has been made to the site, we too notice changes in reader commenting behavior and have been making efforts to address this issue this with a number of individuals. I'll be reviewing the Conners situation with our moderation team today as we agree that grossly violated our guidelines (which is why your comment reposting them below was removed Cash). DBH- Every flagged comment is reviewed. If you ever have a question regarding whether or not a comment has or has not come been removed please email moderator@annarbor.com and I'll look into it asap.

Cash

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 : 11:48 a.m.

Yes, and when I quoted above (here) what was posted at the Judge Conners article, it was removed! Beyond disgusting....and no explanation.

DBH

Sun, Oct 28, 2012 : 3:26 a.m.

I agree. The moderators also are leaving intact comments which clearly assume guilt on the part of accused (but not convicted) defendants even when flagged as being inappropriate. It has happened both during the day as well as after hours. The evidence leads me to believe AnnArbor.com has changed their standards (and not for the better, in my opinion) from those of Tony Dearing, Jen Eyer, and Stefanie Murray without notification to the readership. Disappointing.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.

Hi Mena- Can you expound on your question a bit more to help us understand what you're asking?

Unusual Suspect

Tue, Oct 9, 2012 : 12:16 p.m.

I agree. The shorter way to put it is their software doesn't work right. It never has from day one. And this is from a blog in a city where the software development resources are nearly endless.

DBH

Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 3 p.m.

@US, I think the most common cause (perhaps the only cause) for the discrepancy in comments shown and # of comments is that when a main comment is deleted, all of the replies to the deleted comment are not visible, even though technically the replies themselves are not deleted (unless they were deleted based on their own content, of course) and AnnArbor.com continues to count them toward the number of comments.

Unusual Suspect

Mon, Oct 8, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.

The number of comments has never been shown accurately on all stories.

Kyle Mattson

Sun, Sep 30, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.

We're looking into it DBH. Thanks!

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 8:40 p.m.

Hi Cash- Your comment is appearing as is HomelandC's original comment which was being discussed. For future reference please direct and concerns regarding blocked comments here or by email (which you did) as moderating related comments in articles are subject to off-topic removal.

EyeHeartA2

Tue, Sep 4, 2012 : 7:39 p.m.

I'm still here for you, Cash. Anyway, don't hold your breath waiting for a response.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Sep 7, 2012 : 3:05 p.m.

Thanks for noting it EHA2, we're keeping an eye on it.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 10:50 p.m.

Thanks Kyle; Although, somebody needs to work with those guys. I put the comment up Sun. AM. Tue night it is restored. At that point, nobody would read it anyway. This is an ongoing issue with those guys.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Sep 5, 2012 : 8:24 p.m.

Hi EyeHeart- Your comment has been reviewed and restored.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Aug 22, 2012 : 8:38 p.m.

We do have a number of projects in the works to improve the overall commenting system as we realize there have been a number of issues commenters are having and features which are missing. It will be a few months before we can completely roll all improvements out so thanks for your patience while we work in that direction.

DBH

Wed, Aug 22, 2012 : 6:52 p.m.

Thanks, Kyle. While I'm at it, would it be possible to have the comments on this site displayed as a default from newest to oldest (I know we can choose it as an option from the current default (oldest to newest) every time we access the comments on this site)? Since the comments now are 2 pages (and counting) and over a year old, there are several keyboard maneuvers required to access the newest comments. For anyone wishing to view the comments, I have to believe almost everyone would be wanting to see the newest ones rather than those from over a year ago. Thanks again.

Kyle Mattson

Wed, Aug 22, 2012 : 5:07 p.m.

Thanks for pointing that out DBH it does appear to be a bug from out most recent update and we will look into correcting that ASAP.

Kyle Mattson

Fri, Aug 17, 2012 : 3:50 p.m.

Ricebrnr- I just sent you a reply to your earlier email (thanks for pointing it out)!

Ricebrnr

Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 10:51 a.m.

Sorry Kyle, not feeling it. Sent you a follow up email about my premoderation. Speedy response? Meh not so much.

DBH

Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.

OK, Kyle, thanks very much for the clarification. I look forward to your continued input and feedback.

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.

Thanks for the feedabck DBH- If anyone has questions regarding comments they are more than welcome to post them here and we'll reply, the suggestion of email is just to help speed up the process. There definitely is value in learning from each other in regards so I welcome that interaction as much as possible. Cheers!

DBH

Mon, Aug 13, 2012 : 6:21 p.m.

Well, Kyle, I must say it is gratifying to finally receive a response. In the past, questions posed on this site were almost always answered on this site by one of the staff, Tony Dearing in recent months. Are you saying that that practice has now changed, that commenters now need to send questions to community@annarbor.com in order to receive a reply, and that replies will no longer be offered on this site? If so, then what is the point of this site? To just blow off steam? Providing answers on this site to questions posed on this site are somewhat instructive for the readership that looks at the questions, comments, and AnnArbor.com's responses. If you are discontinuing that practice, I think it would be a negative development, at least for the readership.

Kyle Mattson

Mon, Aug 13, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.

Hi DBH- We are actively monitoring site commentary on a daily basis. Feel free to post any questions here regarding overall moderating inquiries. If you have any questions regarding a specific comment which was removed, account problem, spam poster, or the like please feel free to send us a link and note to community@annarbor.com and we will look into it as soon as possible for you!

Kyle Mattson

Tue, Aug 14, 2012 : 11:36 p.m.

Hi 1bit- I've review and restored your comment. Thanks for reading!

DBH

Wed, Aug 1, 2012 : 7:06 p.m.

Here is the latest information, on AnnArbor.com at least. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/police-no-updates-on-investigation-into-rollover-on-us-23-that-killed-2-children/#.UBl9xaByGSo

DBH

Wed, Aug 1, 2012 : 2:01 a.m.

Both good questions. Unfortunately, since Tony Dearing left, questions on this thread appear to be ignored. I thought perhaps his replacement (Paula Gardner) might be ill or otherwise indisposed, but today she posted a comment on a story dealing with a teacher and a minor in Wayne County, so it appears she is actively working. You wouldn't know it, though, by looking for answers on this thread. I also have emailed her (at least a week ago) asking if the policy has changed regarding responses to questions posed on this site, but that has been ignored as well. Sad and rude, in my opinion. If the policy has changed regarding questions posed on this site, I think it would be respectful to the readership at least to acknowledge that overtly, rather than letting us draw our own conclusions based on silence.

alan

Fri, Sep 21, 2012 : 2:58 p.m.

You have got to be kidding. I respond to Peter and you remove my response? Was it because I offended the moderators? The comment section has gone straight downhill in the last year and apparently we now can't state our opinion or relate our experiences as they relate to the comment section? There is no adherence to your own guidelines anymore.

alan

Fri, Sep 21, 2012 : 2 p.m.

Oh no. I've had this conversation before. It's perfectly okay to be a bigot but not to call someone a bigot. It's okay to just make things up and post them but it's not okay to correct someone with actual facts taken from verifiable sources. You may never use mathematics or statistics, anything that requires critical reasoning skills, or big words that the moderator might not be familiar with. I gave up and found other news sources. I just pop in every few months to see how much worse it has gotten.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jul 24, 2012 : 2:40 p.m.

any shred of common sense or fairness in moderating seems to have left with Tony. They barely seem to even monitor this place anymore.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Jul 23, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.

not here, they don't even respond any more.

Craig Lounsbury

Thu, Jul 26, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.

closing in on 3 days with no response. Should I assume Ann Arbor.com has reached the point where they will delete anything for any or no reason and decline to justify it under their own terms?

Tag

Mon, Jul 16, 2012 : 6:46 p.m.

SIP.... It is / was probably the volume of your comments on the article that got you put on pre-moderation status. And by volume I mean the 8,500 posts. LOL

say it plain

Sat, Jul 14, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.

Is it a secret reason? I was never contacted by Kyle, and I don't understand the reference he made in thread. I guess I have to go back to the thread and ask him...

Tony Dearing

Fri, Jul 6, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.

We understand there are people who think commenting should be largely unrestricted and who chafe against our guidelines, but our readership has made it clear to us since our launch that they don't want that kind of free-for-all and that unmoderated discussion tends to degenerate into the lowest form of discourse. Our most recent survey of readers and commenters confirmed this again, and we plan to continue to apply our current guidelines.

Craig Lounsbury

Mon, Jul 23, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.

good luck with that.

Hmm

Thu, Jun 21, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.

That would be very good thank you for taking the time to do this. Someone gave my comment a -1 today for giving an honest opinion on some food I'd eaten recently. This is the type of behavior that needs to be stopped imo.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Jun 21, 2012 : 3:06 p.m.

Thanks for raising this issue, and we'll look into it. It would be a fairly major undertaking to re-engineer the system in a way that publicly displayed who votes a comment up or down. However, people are required to be logged into the system to vote on comments, so at the very least we can identify whether there are one or more people engaging in abusive activity and take steps to prevent that on an individual basis. We'll see what we can do in this regard.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jun 19, 2012 : 3:17 p.m.

OK. Thanks. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a comment.

Brad

Tue, Jun 19, 2012 : 3:10 p.m.

My mistake, I was looking on the wrong article. Sorry.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jun 19, 2012 : 12:43 p.m.

I checked, and from what I can see, you posted three comments questioning why that story was no longer appearing on the homepage. All three of those comments continue to appear, and here are the links to them. I can't find where we have removed any comment from you along those lines: http://annarbor.com/sports/pair-of-ann-arbor-first-timers-push-through-to-capture-inaugural-ann-arbor-marathon-titles/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:389e644a-403c-4973-9003-494c4e5376d2 http://annarbor.com/sports/pair-of-ann-arbor-first-timers-push-through-to-capture-inaugural-ann-arbor-marathon-titles/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:b382cd63-bfb5-4b17-9479-64faa38a0150 http://annarbor.com/sports/pair-of-ann-arbor-first-timers-push-through-to-capture-inaugural-ann-arbor-marathon-titles/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:7e9454e3-069c-49ae-acbd-ad7da71de5ba

Tony Dearing

Fri, Jun 15, 2012 : 1:54 p.m.

Thanks for raising this issue. I reviewed your comment and the cartoon that you offered a link to, and I have restored your comment.

Alan Goldsmith

Thu, Jun 14, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.

Thanks for the clarification.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.

Alan, just to be clear, you aren't on pre-moderation. The story you commented on was placed on pre-moderation, which we do occasionally when a particular story is receiving too many comments that are either off-topic or violate our guidelines.

Craig Lounsbury

Fri, Jun 15, 2012 : 3:08 p.m.

The point, was not to provide a link as to ask the "rhetorical question" why this sort of news gets "announced" on an out of town, out of state, out of conference radio station? Maybe next time I'll just be direct. or maybe I should just give up.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Jun 13, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.

Sorry not to get back to you sooner on this. We did not understand the value of a link to a live feed of the broadcast of an Alabama radio station, versus a link to something on their site that was specific to the story. What did the live broadcast offer that wasn't apparent to us?

Tony Dearing

Sun, Jun 17, 2012 : 1:29 p.m.

Thanks for asking. As I mentioned in my reply to you, in crimes not involving death, we exercise judgment as to whether to include a street address or photo of the location. This was not the kind of break-in we routinely report. This was a very serious crime that involved a violent assault. The victim had been identified and we spoke to the husband, who spoke to us on the record, so there was not an issue of protecting anyone's identity. Again, in this case, that the location was a key element in the story and that it was journalistically appropriate to show the location in a photograph.

DBH

Sat, Jun 16, 2012 : 12:48 a.m.

From your reply: "There are instances where we will not report the exact location of a crime -- such as break-ins." Well, then, Tony, can you tell me why AnnArbor.com published a photo of the home in this story? http://annarbor.com/news/crime/victim-ok-but-arbor-meadows-residents-in-shock-after-violent-home-invasion/ . That was a break-in. And the story had already specified the general vicinity of the home ("300 block of Hazelwood Trail").

Tony Dearing

Fri, Jun 15, 2012 : 1:45 p.m.

We took a little time to discuss this internally, and to look at how other media handle this issues. There are instances where we will not report the exact location of a crime -- such as break-ins. We would typically say something like "in the 200 block of . . ." for a break-in. However, for a number of reasons, we believe that properly covering a homicide requires a more detailed report, and the location where the crime occurred is relevant to the reporting. We believe the place where the homicide happened is not just a matter of curiosity to readers, but a basic fact of the story, and that in the case of a homicide, there's a legitimate public interest in reporting the location. For that reason, when we send a reporter or photographer or both to the scene we consider it journalistically sound to take and publish a photo of the location. In other alleged crimes that do not involve death, we would exercise judgment as to whether to include a photo or street address in the report.

DBH

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.

@Craig Lounsbury, thanks for pointing out a logical conclusion to my post which, upon review, was not entirely accurate on my part. I agree that we don't want to "disappear" anyone, only that I do not see the need to publish a photograph of someone's residence, someone who has been victimized (including someone who has been killed), or someone accused of a crime, since they are presumed to be innocent prior to a plea or conviction, or prior to a dismissal of charge(s). I don't see the possible newsworthiness of precisely identifying where someone lives (via photograph of their house) outweighing the desire for privacy. There might be an exception when the circumstances of the crime involved something unique to the house, but I expect that would be the exception. As an example, see http://annarbor.com/news/crime/victim-ok-but-arbor-meadows-residents-in-shock-after-violent-home-invasion/ (the second link I provided in my original comment).

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.

it seems to me if the victims of homicides are never identified then people could just "disappear". It kind of harkens to a third world dictator.

DBH

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 2:40 a.m.

In reviewing my comment, I don't think I was specific enough about my complaint. My concern is that the photographs of the houses easily identify the actual site of the purported crime(s) and, therefore, would allow one with little effort to identify those involved, certainly the victims in most cases. As far as I can tell, publishing the photographs of the homes at which a crime is alleged to have occurred is an unnecessary invasion of privacy. The neighborhood and/or street name should be sufficient to inform the reading public of the vicinity of the crime without causing the victim to feel as if their privacy has been further violated.

Tony Dearing

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:17 a.m.

Thank you for pointing that out. The comment you are referring to was subtle, and got past the moderator, but definitely inappropriate. I appreciate you flagging it and I have removed it.

Alan Goldsmith

Sun, Jun 10, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.

But we have groups who complain about Federal involvement and rules but are perfect fine to accept tax free status or in the case of the Medical system, unwilling to abide by the proposed changes but gladly accept Medicare, Medicaid and other dollars raining from the Feds. This 'war on religion' babble talk could be taken way more seriously if the Religious non-profits would walk away from all Federal funds. But you can hardly call this a 'war' when the money continues to roll in. That was my point.

Tony Dearing

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:10 a.m.

Your comment started off fine, but when you turned the discussion to removing tax-exempt status for groups that behave like political action committees, you went off-topic and that's why your comment was removed.

Peter

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 3:22 p.m.

My eyes are rolling so hard you can probably feel right now.

Tony Dearing

Sat, Jun 9, 2012 : 11:04 a.m.

We close conversation on a story when the comments continue to go off-topic or violate our guidelines. I went back and reviewed the comments on the spelling bee story that you refer to. There are a number of comments on it that should have been removed, and I removed them after the fact. That story would have been a good candidate for shutting down commenting, and in retrospect, I wish we had closed the conversation on it.

Ricebrnr

Tue, Jun 5, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.

whoops meant to reply to the previous comment apologies

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jun 5, 2012 : 7:24 p.m.

Commenters are welcome to disagree and to challenge each other. We just ask that they do it in a way that isn't meant to condescend or insult. You had two replies to mixmaster on two different comments. The first one was fine, but the second one failed the "don't insult, don't condescend'' test and that's why we removed it.

1bit

Sun, May 27, 2012 : 2:33 a.m.

Thank you.

Tony Dearing

Sat, May 26, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.

The photo was removed from the column and an editor's note was added to the story acknowledging that.

1bit

Sat, May 26, 2012 : 9:11 p.m.

Okay, I get it - you were changing the photo. But whomever is doing this should take the time to make a quick post acknowledging that the photo was changed and comments directed towards it deleted. It was silly to delete the comment in any event.

alan

Fri, May 18, 2012 : 3:23 a.m.

Thanks for the reply Tony, but it doesn't appear to do any good According to your guidelines posting in caps is considered shouting and is not allowed. So I flagged this one and got ignored. What gives? No kidding! Democrats created this DISASTER over DECADES in a wonderful scam as democrats were elected with union money then sat across them at the contract negotiating table later. So BILLIONS were racked up with TAXPAYERS paying for SWEETHEART RETIRMENT DEALS. FINALLY we have leaders in Lansing who are NOT IN THE POCKET OF UNIONS and are actually representing the REST OF THE STATE AND WE THE TAXPAYERS. Those who support nonsensical benifts for public employees need get on a bus and MOVE TO BANKRUPT CALIFORNIA.

Tony Dearing

Tue, May 15, 2012 : 2:25 p.m.

Thanks. We always appreciate such candid feedback. The comment you are describing are not the type we want on this site, and if there has been a slippage in the consistency of our moderation, I will address that. We continue to encourage readers to flag such comments.

Tony Dearing

Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 12:20 p.m.

We understand the importance of consistency in moderation, and the guidelines I described to you are ones that we want to apply on a consistent basis. If you see comments on the site that violate our guidelines, please flag them or bring them to our attention via email. Thanks.

Peter

Sun, Jul 1, 2012 : 12:30 a.m.

About 2 months later, many, many, many posts have been allowed that far, far, far more blatantly break this 'rule.' It's pretty clear to me that you made up some random excuse, and I hope it's clear to everybody else.

Peter

Wed, May 9, 2012 : 8:30 p.m.

Okay. I respect and appreciate your blunt answer and I will strive to abide by that rule.

Tony Dearing

Wed, May 9, 2012 : 8:05 p.m.

Sorry, but this is one we take quite seriously. If someone asks a commenter to reveal information about themselves, we take the comment down. It is perfectly fine, however, to ask a commenter to provide some substantiation for what they are saying, such as links or reference to a published report.

Peter

Wed, May 9, 2012 : 6:23 p.m.

When a poster is attempting to claim that medicine isn't medicine and women are inferior to men, it seems pretty ticky-tacky to censor any attempt to determine their ability to make such claims. Accept that as a fact and don't try to determine my authority to make such a claim, that would be against the rules! How do you know I'm not really Tony Dearing, proclaiming the one true word of aa.com?

Tony Dearing

Wed, May 9, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.

There are two reasons that your comment was removed. First, it is not appropriate to ask another commenter to reveal information about herself in order to demonstrate that she is qualified to express her opinion. Second, the story was about contraception, and to bring up the issue of the sexual molestation of altar boys is off-topic. Hope these explanations are helpful.

DBH

Fri, May 11, 2012 : 11:49 p.m.

Also, is there any chance that the comments on this site could be displayed, as a matter of default, from newest to oldest? With over 460 comments, and with (as of now) 2 pages of comments, I think almost anyone interested in reading the comments are interested in the newest ones, not those from a year ago. It is a pain to have to either go to the next page, or rearrange the comments from newest to oldest. Thanks.

DBH

Fri, May 11, 2012 : 11:49 p.m.

It's been 2 weeks (17 days, actually, considering the original posting was on 4/24/12), Tony, since you wrote that AnnArbor.com was checking on the story regarding the student fall at the Cancer Center. Nothing yet? If not, any idea when your reporters will have something? I am curious about some other stories that beg for follow-up as well: 1) Has Cole Rickett ever been tried, or scheduled for trial, in the death of Carolyn Dutta? I emailed Julie Baker asking the same question but have received no response. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/ontario-man-faces-multiple-charges-in-fatal-car-crash-involving-ann-arbor-woman/ 2) Betty Powell Chisholm was to have returned to court on 3/13/12 in the case in which she is accused of hitting Gerald Foster while he was in a wheelchair, but I haven't seen anything about her having returned, or rescheduled to return, to court. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/77-year-old-woman-betty-chisholm-ann-arbor-police-motorized-wheelchair/ 3) There was a man, an unnamed 18 y/o, who was arrested but not yet arraigned on a charge of "tagging" (graffiti) playground equipment and trashcans at Ann Arbor's Las Vegas Park. Was he ever arraigned? I haven't seen anything on him since the 4/3/12 report. http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/ann-arbor-teenager-arraigned-on-felony-vandalism-charge-for-graffiti/ 4) Is AnnArbor.com going to do any follow-up on the missing Brice Moss? The last I read, the police thought (but did not know for sure) that he went missing voluntarily. At last report, his case was still open. Is it still? Thanks.

Tony Dearing

Fri, Apr 27, 2012 : 4:41 p.m.

We're checking on that. I will post a reply here when I have the information.

DBH

Tue, Apr 24, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.

How about this story, Tony? http://www.annarbor.com/news/u-m-student-injured-in-fall-at-cancer-center-is-released-from-hospital/ Was the cause for his being on the roof ever determined, and was he ever charged in the incident? I have seen no follow-up on this story, though I may have overlooked it. Thanks.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Apr 24, 2012 : 2:43 p.m.

Thanks for the update on updates....;) I wonder how the investigation continues? I assume the site of the fire has been cleaned up? If so, what sort of physical evidence do they have that would take several months to process? Or is it a matter of a backlog of cases?

Tony Dearing

Tue, Apr 24, 2012 : 2:28 p.m.

An update. We're told that the cause of the fire remains under investigation, and that it could be several months before the investigation is concluded.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Apr 24, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.

We do periodically circle back and check on past incidents. We're checking to see if a cause for that fire has been determined.

cornelius McDougenschniefferburgenstein jr. 3 esq.

Wed, Apr 18, 2012 : 4:23 a.m.

tread lightly anti the machine might notice.

DBH

Tue, Apr 17, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.

@Peregrine, since no one at AnnArbor.com has responded, for what it's worth I can refer you to Tony Dearing's reply to @antikvetch's similar question on this site on 3/2/12.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Apr 12, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.

Point well-taken.

Ulysses Wong

Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 10:25 p.m.

Just a point of order, veered, not veering out of control.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.

We did remove many comments from that discussion. We reviewed the comments you flagged, but we did not judge them to be in violation of our conversation guidelines. So many other comments did violate our guidelines that we closed down commenting, which we frequently do when the discussion is veering out of control.

Ulysses Wong

Wed, Apr 11, 2012 : 6:18 p.m.

Tsk Tsk, closing commenting is not the same as removing posts that violate YOUR enumerated rules.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Mar 29, 2012 : 2:21 p.m.

Sal, it's fine for people to post comments about riders of bikes not following the rules of the road. However, your comment also speculated on what the rider of the bike in that particular story was doing that might have resulted in the accident. In stories involving accidents, we ask people not to speculate on what might have happened, when the facts aren't know, and particularly not to suggest that a person might have been at fault, when there's no indication of that. If you were to post the same comment without the speculation, that would be fine.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 5:52 p.m.

Really, I understand your point. I hope you can understand mine. Someone has died here. When you have covered enough deaths, and you've dealt with enough family members and friends of people who have died, you really come to understand how much the pain and trauma they are feeling is added to by the comments that people post on stories about tragic deaths. At some point, you just come to realize that simple human decency and compassion have to prevail, and that's why we moderate stories on tragic deaths to a higher level. I can tell you that many, many of our readers who have been through such experiences -- and even some who haven't -- have told us how much the appreciated the way we moderate comments. We feel it's the right thing to do.

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 5:31 p.m.

seems like a tap dance Tony. We could generically talk about the dangers of texting but not connect the dots? Given the fine line I still wonder what the text reference adds to the story except the invitation to state the "obvious" which you won't allow. I understand your desire to avoid comments that are "Insensitivity to victims of accidents or crimes" . But in a manner your pointing out she was texting does that very thing. Now everybody who reads the story will know the circumstance and will draw the very conclusions you won't allow in "print" . It seems a bit hypocritical to me. Thats just my opinion.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.

It's a basic fact of the story, and it has to be included. People can talk about texting while driving, and that's fine. We'll probably get comments like "If she hadn't been texting, she'd still be alive'' or "If she was texting, she got what she deserved,'' and those are the kinds of comments we'd take down.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 5:15 p.m.

That's fine. It was the link to a specific product that got your earlier comment removed. We understand you weren't trying to shill for that particular product and just meant for it to be informational, but we don't allow commercial links and had to take it down.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.

thank you Tony for your consideration of the "issue". I do realize I was treading a thin line in asking the question.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 12:25 p.m.

Craig, I was just reviewing your comment. I can understand why the moderator might have interpreted it as speculation or "blaming the victim,'' but in the context of the story and the information reported, you question was a legitimate one, and I restored the comment. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Mar 27, 2012 : 12:03 p.m.

I am hoping for a response/explanation.

1bit

Sun, Mar 25, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.

Thanks!

Tony Dearing

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.

Yes, our apologies, but it's a bug that cropped up when we introduced the changes to our commenting system a couple of weeks ago. Every comment shows as being reported as abuse. We thought we had the problem resolved, but apparently not. We'll get back to work on it.

1bit

Sat, Mar 24, 2012 : 6:08 p.m.

Funny, it looks like any post I make says "Abuse Reported" immediately after posting. Looks more like a bug in the website.

nemo

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 3 p.m.

Thanks for the reply, Mr. Dearing, Clearly we have to disagree on this issue of language, and I will have to let it go at that. You have a product to distribute, while I take issue with censorship in any guise. In my mind you're walking the thin line between well gauged responsibility, and nannyism, so perhaps you need a good bouncer, or not, it's all a question of perspective. From my perspective, an organization that hopes to represent the "fourth estate" can not dare to take that right upon themselves, and has to leave these opinions to the "mob" at hand, at the risk of all credibility. This is where we disagree, so be it.

Tony Dearing

Fri, Mar 23, 2012 : 2:05 p.m.

Appreciate the feedback. We're been working hard to improve the conversation. We think these latest changes are another step in the right direction, but there's more to do, and more changes coming. You do a very good job describing the kind of conversation that we aspire to. That aspiration is the reason we don't allow the term "tea bagger'' when referring to a member of the Tea Party. The term tea-bagging has a vulgar connotation, and our concern is that interjecting it into a political discussion debases the conversation.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:38 p.m.

Thanks for asking. I addressed this issue in a post last year, which you'll find here. http://www.annarbor.com/about/why-we-need-to-apply-our-regular-conversation-guidelines-to-howard-weinblatt-coverage/ Now that it has been established that a crime did occur and that there was a victim, our conversation guidelines particularly apply to this case.

Tony Dearing

Mon, Mar 19, 2012 : 10:35 p.m.

Please note that Sven has posted his own apology on the story.

DBH

Mon, Mar 19, 2012 : 5:20 p.m.

Wow, that's the first I knew of this, as I had not read the story (or the comments/replies) until now. Tony, your apology within the comment section of the story is better than nothing but, really, since Sven's reply to TruBlu is public and on the site, the most responsible (and mature) outcome would be for Sven to apologize in the comments section (as a main comment, as well as a reply to TruBlu's original posting, as far as I'm concerned), don't you think? Otherwise, from my standpoint, your report of how this was handled comes off as how one would respond to a child who misbehaved.

Tony Dearing

Mon, Mar 19, 2012 : 3:51 p.m.

Thanks for raising this concern. Please see the comment I have posted on the story: http://www.annarbor.com/news/kayaker-rescued-from-huron-river-after-capsizing-clinging-to-tree/

Tony Dearing

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 12:41 p.m.

Justin, our guidelines ask people not to post comments that presume guilt on the part of someone who has been accused of a crime. That's why your comment was removed.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Mar 22, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.

@DBH, that is exactly what I was referring to. Thank you.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Mar 20, 2012 : 2:38 p.m.

OK. Thanks. It appears I misunderstood the point. I'll take a look at this.

DBH

Tue, Mar 20, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.

Tony, most (?all) of the hot links provided by readers in their comments/replies already have the URL displayed. To what some readers probably were referring were hot links embedded in the stories that are highlighted (in blue, on my computer) on which you can click to be taken to that site. Even then, at least on my computer, with the cursor hovering over the embedded hot link, I can see the URL at the bottom of the screen, so I don't see what the problem is in that regard. Disabling hot links in which the URL is already displayed does nothing other than require a copy and paste in order to access the site. It's just darn inconvenient, one more unnecessary step.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Mar 20, 2012 : 1:20 p.m.

Based on feedback from our readers, we haven't enabled hyperlinks in comments. What our users have told us is that they want to see the URL before they make a decision to click through to a web site that a commenter is referring them to.

DBH

Sun, Mar 18, 2012 : 12:39 a.m.

I noticed that as well and found it surprising and disappointing.

DBH

Thu, Mar 15, 2012 : 9:50 p.m.

I agree that, short of libelous statements, criticisms of public officials should have a longer leash than criticisms of those not in public office.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Mar 15, 2012 : 12:19 p.m.

We introduced changes to the commenting system overnight. Here's an entry we posted this morning explaining the changes: http://www.annarbor.com/about/annarborcom-introduces-new-commenting-features-including-ability-to-vote-down-comments/ Please feel free to give us specifics on any issues you see with the new system. Thanks.

shutthefrtdoor

Wed, Mar 7, 2012 : 5:50 p.m.

Hello!

Tony Dearing

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.

Yes, we did review your comments, and I explained why we removed it.

stevek

Tue, Mar 6, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.

My comment simply stated that the discription of the suspected criminals (young men in their early 20's who assault and rob) is the same or similar to a lot of other criminal activity in the area--please explain someone could "flag" this post as offensive. It did not state anything else.

Tony Dearing

Mon, Mar 5, 2012 : 3:35 p.m.

Your comment was flagged by a reader, and we reviewed it and removed it. On crime stories, we ask people not to post comments that make stereotypical remarks or generalizations about suspects. At the time we were reviewing your comment, we noted that you have a high number of demerits, relative to the number of comments you've posted. Based on that number of demerits, we have placed you on pre-moderation.

stevek

Fri, Mar 2, 2012 : 10:25 p.m.

nevermind!

antikvetch

Fri, Mar 2, 2012 : 8:51 p.m.

Mr. Dearing, that simply does not make sense. The information I posted was solely what has been posted on your own website. As a regular commentator, I am somewhat familiar with the other commentators. I have NEVER seen five new accounts started in one day, all for the purpose of endorsing one candidate. It simply does not pass the smell test -

Tony Dearing

Fri, Mar 2, 2012 : 8:04 p.m.

We understand the point you were trying to make, but we ask commenters not to look up information about other commenters and post that information about them. That would include information regarding when they registered to comment. That information is readily available to anyone who wants it, but in other situations it could have a chilling effect on discussion, and that's why we don't allow it.

Tony Dearing

Fri, Mar 2, 2012 : 7:23 p.m.

To cite two people by name and speculate that they may have committed a number of crimes based on a general physical description is potentially defamatory and violates our conversation guidelines. That's why your comment was removed.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Feb 28, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.

My apologies. I try to respond to these as soon as possible, and I'm not sure how I overlooked this. I went back and reviewed the two comments. I agree that the second comment posed a simple question, and should not have been removed. I have restored it, and have followed up with the moderator on duty at that time.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Feb 28, 2012 : 2:52 p.m.

shall I assume that you can't defend your position so you'll just ignore my question?

DBH

Mon, Feb 27, 2012 : 4:09 a.m.

I don't think that is the only conclusion that can be drawn here. It is possible the police gave his sister, as one of his next of kin, information they are unwilling at this point (until further investigations and arraignments take place) to share with the public at large in an official capacity. Since the police are unwilling to share anything further with the news media right now, personally I don't think it is the role of the media to speculate, which it seems is what it would have to be at this point.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 2:50 p.m.

I'll drink to that.

DBH

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 1:57 a.m.

Craig, doesn't irony get rusty? If you haven't used it in awhile, perhaps the moderators want you to polish it a bit. ;-)

DBH

Sun, Feb 19, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.

@WalkingJoe, I also noticed that your comment was deleted, and am not clear why either. If you should be interested, below is my reply to the comment which you would otherwise only be able to see if you clicked on my Username or on another commenter's Username, @alan, who also had replied to your (now) deleted comment. "Speaking only for myself, I am interested in the content of the news, and I also appreciate when it is presented in a clear and unambiguous manner, a goal to which any professional journalistic enterprise should aspire. Your last sentence presents a false choice and mischaracterizes at least my motivation (and, in my opinion, that of others) in discussing the way in which the headline (not the "article" as you state) is confusing and could be improved. It's called constructive criticism, not finding "fault with everybody." Your hyperbole is unwarranted."

Tony Dearing

Sat, Feb 18, 2012 : 8:21 p.m.

The comments on this letter to the editor are correct in expressing this concern, and the letter has been revised to remove statements that presume guilt on the part of the accused.

Tony Dearing

Sat, Feb 18, 2012 : 7:13 p.m.

Thank you for pointing this out. Your comment was fine and should not have been removed. I have restored it, and I will address this with the moderator who was on duty at the time.

shutthefrtdoor

Fri, Feb 17, 2012 : 8:55 p.m.

Fair enough Tony...sorry & thanks for the explaination.

Tony Dearing

Fri, Feb 17, 2012 : 7:03 p.m.

We ask people not to post comments that refer to the physical appearance of someone in a story. Most often, when we have issues with this, it's someone commenting on the appearance of a woman, such as "She's hot'' or "Looks like she needs to go on a diet.'' While your comment was not egregious, we have enough problems with this that we don't allow comments regarding physical appearance.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Feb 14, 2012 : 9:43 p.m.

I reviewed the comment you were responding to, and removed that. While we welcome you to challenge other commenters and disagree vigorously with them, we ask that you reply to the substance of their comment, and not criticize their pattern of commenting, and particularly not to post comments from past stories on a current, unrelated story. But in this case, the real problem was the comment you were trying to reply to, and as I said, that has now been removed.

E Claire

Tue, Feb 14, 2012 : 9:15 p.m.

good luck getting a response. I just responded to another poster who says everyone here is rude with some of his own rude comments and they deleted it. I guess I'll be deleted the account I just created today..what a joke this blog is!

justcurious

Mon, Feb 6, 2012 : 5:16 p.m.

Still waiting.....

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 31, 2012 : 7:01 p.m.

Under our guidelines, we ask people not to interject race into the discussion when race is not an issue.

Steve Pierce

Sun, Jan 29, 2012 : 5:41 p.m.

Thanks for your kind reply and explanation . - Steve.

Tony Dearing

Sun, Jan 29, 2012 : 1:39 p.m.

Steve, just to be clear, your comment didn't violate our guidelines. It was the comment by RJA that violated our guidelines, and we removed it. When we remove a comment, we also remove replies to it, since the comment being replied to is no longer there. That's why we took yours down.

shutthefrtdoor

Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 8:50 p.m.

We were doing just fine.

Ann23

Wed, Feb 1, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.

Thanks, I read back through comments on the conversation guidelines and figured that was it. I should have looked through them before asking. I noticed that the other comments on grammar and spelling that I was responding to were removed after I asked also, so that made it less confusing to me.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Jan 26, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.

Commenters are welcome to disagree vigorously with each other, but we ask people not to post comments that seek to correct the grammar of spelling of another commenter. That's why your posts were removed.

Tony Dearing

Sun, Jan 22, 2012 : 4:22 p.m.

Yes, a more general statement that you'd had a previous bad experience with the teacher would be OK under our guidelines, as long as the current story is about that particular teacher. Often, when a parent brings up a past concern, it happened at the same school but involved another teacher, and we don't allow that. The reason we ask people not to get into the specifics of a past incident is that we have no way to check the accuracy of those statements. If it were a past incident involving the same teacher, and there were a previous story that reported on the incident, then it would be OK to bring up that incident, and link to the past story. Hope this explanation is helpful.

Jessica Hughey

Sun, Jan 22, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.

So, just to educate myself for future comment opportunities, would it have been acceptable to just say I had had bad experiences with the same teacher? I'm assuming it would have been, judging by the opposite comments that remain (i.e. "legendary", etc.) So, would it be acceptable for me to say my experience with this teacher was "horrible" (which, in my estimation, would be the opposite of "legendary") without mentioning a particular incident? Just trying to understand your point.

Tony Dearing

Sun, Jan 22, 2012 : 3:39 p.m.

Jessica, we do allow commenters to criticize educators, and they take full advantage of that. There are those in the education community who think that teacher-bashing is the favorite sport of commenters on AnnArbor.com. However, one thing we do not allow on current stories is for someone to go back and bring up a past personal incident involving their child and how the school or a particular teacher or principal handled that past incident. A single incident from the past is an off-topic discussion, and that's why your comment was removed.

Jessica Hughey

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.

In addition, glowing comments toward this teacher such as, "My son was in Wendy Nagle's classroom for 4 years and I spent one day every week in her classroom myself. Her patience with even the most difficult children is legendary." LEGENDARY?? Really, there needs to be some kind of balance, here. If negative comments are to be removed, then overly positive, glowing assessments of this teacher should be removed, as well, leaving only the most benign, neutral comments. Balance...

Jessica Hughey

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.

I completely agree with Jim about AA.com's "one-sided" view of what constitutes an "personal attack on a private person". On the story, "Parents Fight For Reinstatement of Beloved Teacher At Ann Arbor Learning Community", YOUR use of the word "beloved" in the title sets the tone for the entire story. She is not a "beloved" teacher by everyone. But you chose a side when you printed that title. Why are positive experiences with this teacher NOT deleted, while my very negative (but equally valid) experience with her (in a professional capacity, not a personal one) is deleted??

Tony Dearing

Fri, Jan 20, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.

We are not trying to created a one-sided conversation. People can defend the doctor, and many have done so vigorously. Nor have we said people "cannot say anything'' about the other side. There are two things we've asked people not to do. One is not to speculate on things that haven't been factually established. Now that much more factual information has come out regarding this case, commenters are free to discuss this information. The other issues has revolved around commenters wanting to assert that the family should have done something different than what they did in this case. Our conversation guidelines ask people not to post comments that suggest the victim or alleged victim of a crime should have done something different. The classic example would be a story about a rape where someone posts a comment saying, "She shouldn't have been walking alone at 3 a.m.'' We understand some commenters feel that guideline shouldn't apply in this case, and we have considered that, but so far, we have decided to stick with our guidelines. That still leaves latitude for people to discuss both sides of this case.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Jan 19, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.

We're sorry to lose you as a reader, but our conversation guidelines have been developed based on feedback from the community, and what we've heard from the community quite consistently is that the conversation doesn't have value when it degenerates into people attacking each other. I reviewed your comment, and it violated our conversation guidelines. The decision to remove it was appropriate.

Tony Dearing

Fri, Jan 13, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.

@Ann23, you're fuller explanation of why you were concerned about the condition of the mother makes sense, although there was another story that included information on the condition of the mother, and without the context of your question, it seemed more appropriate on that story. @EyeHeart2, we do want people to be able to comment on the site, and one of the most common concerns we hear goes something like this: "No way am I going to post a comment, because your commenters will just rip me apart.'' Disagreement is fine; we just ask that commenters not take a shot at someone, because it discourages people from commenting, and everyone has a right to their opinion. Your comment was fine, except that the final sentence was clearly mocking the person you were replying to, and that's what we ask people not to do. In the case of the governor, that's different because he is a public figure and an elected official, and he is subject to criticism. We don't allow people to refer to him as Dick, just as we didn't allow DickRod for people referring to Rich Rodriguez. If you see that reference, flag it. But we don't have a different standard for Rick Snyder than we did for Jennifer Granholm. People are allowed to criticize the governor.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Jan 11, 2012 : 2:34 p.m.

Perhaps you can email me what my final zinger was that was over the line, I really don't see it. Quite frankly though, I think it was pulled for the first lines, not the last one. I'm still wondering about calling our governor a D*ck, saying he looks like a Grinch, calling him a bigot and sweeping all Republicans into the "mean" category? Really, the consistency thing is the issue, not where the line is, but how it moves, seemingly with the conversation(moderators views?)/commenter at hand. They may or may not even know it is going on, but it sure looks like it. Personally, I happen to think that you shouldn't put yourself in harms way, and that sometimes bad luck is self inflicted. AA.com sees otherwise. Fine, but at least be consistent about it. People let their dog run loose, it gets hit by a car, and commmenters can't say a word about it, but somebody gets their car or house broken into and a gun gets stolen and that is seemingly fair game until it gets pointed out? Even then, it may still remain, as the "helpful suggestion" remains.

Ann23

Wed, Jan 11, 2012 : 2:16 p.m.

Tony, I kind of agree with your first statement. It is my opinion that the children and wife are victims. As well as the people who were injured during the accident and his other family members. However, and I admittedly haven't looked too deeply into this, I can't anymore because the comments have been deleted, I am concerned that comments in support of the living victims are being removed in support of the person who committed suicide and left the victims behind. I think that the health and well-being of the children's mother is very on topic in the case of the story about the support fund. It is a relevent issue when it comes to how the children will be cared for with the funds and by whom. And, who will be making the decisions on what is done with the funds. Especially since the story only states that the family of the father set up the fund and as far as I know their mother is still alive and at this point she is the legal parent/guardian of the children and in my opinion should be the person who is put in control of the funds. If she isn't doing well then that raises more issues that directly relate to the fund and how it would beb used for the health and well-being of the children. To me it is information that will give readers enough information for responsible and informed decision making since they are actually being asked to be involved at this point by donating money.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Jan 11, 2012 : 12:39 p.m.

@EyeHeartA2, you had two comments on the gun story. The first should have been allowed, and I will speak to the moderator on duty at the time about that. I have restored it. As for your second comment, we welcome people to disagree with another commenter, but we ask that they not do it in a way that insults or demeans the person they are disagreeing with. Quite often, what we see is that the commenter fashions a substantive response that is well within our guidelines, but then adds a final sentence that takes a dig at the person being responded to. Very often, it's the final sentence that results in the comment being blocked, and that was the case in your comment. @Ann23, the family, friends and colleagues of someone who commits suicide do not deserve any less compassion or sensitivity than when someone is murdered. Our guidelines apply equally in either case. On a particular story, we ask that the comments be about that story, and not about other things, because that takes the commenting off-topic. This was a story on a fund being created. There have been other stories on our site and other sites reporting on the condition of the wife, and that would be the place to post a question about her condition.

Ann23

Wed, Jan 11, 2012 : 3:37 a.m.

Since it has been ruled a suicide it is no longer an allegation.

Ann23

Wed, Jan 11, 2012 : 3:36 a.m.

I'm confused on how somebody who commits suicide is a victim of an accident or crime. And, on how asking about how the hospitalized spouse of that person is doing violates your policies.

EyeHeartA2

Tue, Jan 10, 2012 : 5:04 p.m.

On the subject of consistency, please explain why my comment it the gun article was pulled. I flagged the response that was clearly blaming the victim. Nothing was done and my analogy to other crimes was removed. I posted here on it, but that was futile as well. Also, on the political front, I posted several comments below that appear to be over the line, but were allowed to remain. Commenting on looks/appearance Name calling Masked swearing Again, allowed to remain. No consistency here, especially on nights and weekends.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 10, 2012 : 4:14 p.m.

OK. I'll go back and take a look at that. If you see any comments that you feel we've been inconsistent in moderating, please feel free to flag them.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jan 10, 2012 : 4:11 p.m.

fair enough. Just be consistent. Any suggestion of some sort of depression or long term problems that weren't addressed or weren't noticed are also speculation.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 10, 2012 : 3:25 p.m.

I appreciate that you try to stay within our guidelines when you comment. We ask people not to speculate on things that can't be known, and we wouldn't allow a comment on a suicide story that offered theories on what the person might have been thinking before the suicide. That's why your comment was removed.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.

Here's a link to the announcement: <a href="http://admin.annarbor.com/about/jen-eyer-moving-to-new-role-with-mlive-media-group/">http://admin.annarbor.com/about/jen-eyer-moving-to-new-role-with-mlive-media-group/</a>

DBH

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 2:11 p.m.

Thanks. Another one bites the dust, eh? I will miss her, and I wish her and her family well. I hope your announcement will include her new destination.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 2:07 p.m.

Jen has left us after accepting a new position. I will be announcing that today. Just haven't had a chance to post it yet.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 4:13 p.m.

I will add my concern that the general tone of the comments suggests that many folks are assuming that &quot;a drunk driver&quot; caused the fatal accident even though there is some significant evidence to suggest he may (emphasis may) have had the right of way.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 4:08 p.m.

fair enough I appreciate you took the time to explain. So for all practical purposes I was &quot;blocked&quot; as collateral damage to the original post.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 3:34 p.m.

Your comment wasn't blocked. The comment you were replying to was blocked. That's why your comment doesn't show on the site (because once a comment is blocked, the replies no longer display), although it's still in appearing on your profile page.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 3:23 p.m.

I may retract my apology. When I click on my own profile my comment appears in the story. If I click directly on the story my comment is not there. Is this a glitch? Or is Ann Arbor.com allowing my comment to appear only to someone who first views my profile?

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 2:01 p.m.

It appears I may have been in the second story about the accident and my comment from the first story was not removed after all. My apologies to Ann Arbor.com for my blunder.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 1:42 p.m.

See my reply to ann marie. Thanks.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 2:18 p.m.

go to the Windsor Star and look at the pictures taken at the accident scene. Then go to the intersection on Google street view. Pay attention to the trees on the right side of the road. look at the picture of the front of the truck, taken from the direction the truck came from. Look at the high power electric lines in the background. Go back to Google street view and look at the intersection again. Then tell me which direction you think the truck and car were coming from. Its really really hard to spin anything other than what &quot;steve&quot; the first witness on the scene said.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 1:41 p.m.

We're trying to establish the facts of what happened here, and we will report the facts as we are able to determine them. In the meantime, our guidelines for stories involving tragic deaths ask commenters not to speculate on what might have occurred.

Tony Dearing

Tue, Jan 3, 2012 : 1:46 p.m.

Commenters are welcome to disagree as vigorously as they want to with what someone else has posted, but we ask commenters to do so based on the substance of the comment, and not to attack or insult the person they disagree with. Your comment was removed for that reason.

DBH

Mon, Jan 2, 2012 : 6:41 p.m.

&quot;I would assert that these type of nonsense posts are generally not written by people who voted or by those who didn't vote for candidate X and are only designed to be inflammatory.&quot; @1bit, I am not necessarily challenging you on this, but I am curious why you think this statement is true. Is it a gut feeling on your part, personal knowledge with others whose behaviors fit the profile you describe, or do you have some type of study you can reference that has documented this? Thanks.

JustMyOpinion

Fri, Dec 23, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.

Sorry, typo; you need to review your VALUES.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Dec 21, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.

Thanks for asking. The story was about the fund-raising goal of the kettle drive and the off-topic comments did not address that, but rather other issues. People are welcome to have that conversation and are free to have it on the Community Wall.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Dec 16, 2011 : 9:42 p.m.

@BornInA2: This is a relatively new policy, so perhaps you were informed of the old one. As I said, readers have complained about such comments being distracting, and that is the reason for the new policy.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Dec 16, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.

No, Ricebrnr. So it ends. At least until you can agree to follow the rules.

DBH

Mon, Dec 19, 2011 : 11:45 p.m.

Thanks for the offer, Jen, but I'll pass. It's usually not that important to me. If and when it is in the future, I will attempt to contact someone.

Jen Eyer

Mon, Dec 19, 2011 : 5:40 p.m.

David and DBH: I reviewed both of your blocked comments, and I don't see any that would qualify for this situation (where there's a comment that is generally OK, but one part of it violates the guidelines). I'd be happy to review the history with you in greater detail individually, if you'd like.

DBH

Mon, Dec 19, 2011 : 4:22 a.m.

I do not recall ever having received such an email notice from AnnArbor.com regarding a deleted comment unless I initiated the inquiry.

David Briegel

Sun, Dec 18, 2011 : 11:33 p.m.

Jen, I would appreciate that courtesy. Like most, I just have given up but there are times when I wonder &quot;what the heck&quot;?

Jen Eyer

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.

When a comment is mainly OK with just a small part that violates the guidelines, we do usually copy the comment and email it to the commenter as a courtesy.

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 5:46 p.m.

**due** to oversight. Apologies. Fat fingers and fast typing do not make for quality commenting.

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.

&quot;i wonder if people whose comments are cut are told this so they can consider a rewrite. Sometimes, in writing a comment on which you feel very strongly, you might slip up and blow it. The comment is cut. Do we get to know this? That would be great.&quot; I totally agree with this. Sometimes, it's obvious to me why a comment of mine was cut but other times it's a head scratcher. I'd like a &quot;OK, UrbanSombrero, here's what you did wrong....&quot; type IM or something. If that's not possible, I understand. But I think it would help overall not just with comments, in general, but also to lessen the upset feelings of the commentariat when they are cut. Sometimes, I'll admit it, it ticks me right off that I've had a comment removed because I just don't understand why. Also, sometimes, it seems like it's kind of arbitrary----a comment I make on one thread will get through, yet a comment (in a similar vein) in another thread will be deleted. Is that die to oversight? Or, differences in opinions between moderators? I've stopped getting upset over it and just figure, &quot;It is what it is&quot;. Yet, I'd like to know why. I think Billy Bob hit the nail on the head, here.

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.

Thank you for your reply, Jen. I appreciate it. :)

Jen Eyer

Wed, Dec 7, 2011 : 5:17 p.m.

Urban: We agree, and one of our changes for the coming year involves making that "tombstone" less obtrusive. The purpose of having it is to be transparent about the comments that we block, but when a thread is littered with them, we realize it makes it very difficult to follow the remaining conversation. The ultimate goal, of course, is to get to a point where we don't have multiple blocked comments. That is to say, where our commenters are aware of the guidelines and are staying within them. Crime stories are the one area of the site where this remains a challenge, and we are working on some new strategies to address that. Thanks for your questions, and for reading.

Larry Eiler

Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.

Rich Rod will be a success no matter where. IF he gets rid of his tendency to be so full of himself and not the team.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Nov 9, 2011 : 3:06 a.m.

I replied to you via email. That wasn't the reason your comment was removed.

Goofus

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 7:56 p.m.

I agree with Tesla, and think you are mainly concerned with covering up the fact that A2dotcom's earlier coverage of the &quot;alleged&quot; robbery was so embarassingly shoddy that it didn't even qualify as journalism. In the earlier story on the alleged robbery, all you did was interview Mr. Hoey and then repeat exactly what he said like it was news...without independent verification or other sources. There are still no outside sources verifying that anything Mr. Hoey said was true, and that's why A2dotcom is censoring references to it's own RELATED coverage to the related story.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.

Tesla, we try to be consistent, and it is a constant challenge, particularly in &quot;gray'' areas of commenting that require judgment calls. Sometimes, when commenting seems to spiraling in a direction that's off-topic, we'll get two or three moderators together, discuss how we should handle the issue, come to a decision and then implement it. If we decide that some portion of the conversation has gone off-topic, and that comments posted earlier are what led it in that direction, we take down all the comments, even if some have been up for a while. On this story, we were particularly concerned that comments on the earlier article about the robbery were so inappropriate that we had to close the conversation, and having had that experience, we decided we would not go down that road again on a story that wasn't about the robbery.

DBH

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.

[Supposedly, I had 32 characters left.] &quot;...is not acceptable to me.&quot;

DBH

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 5:22 p.m.

Tony, I endeavor to take people at their word in what they say or write (&quot;say what you mean [or write] and mean what you say [or write]&quot;). While it is tempting for me to intuit what someone might mean, asking for clarification has resulted in far fewer misunderstandings than not, particularly when what someone says or writes is the opposite of what the context implies. Nonetheless, I understand that, for most people, &quot;could care less&quot; is substituted for &quot;couldn't care less.&quot; Why? I have no idea. I hypothesize it likely is the result of that person sleepwalking through their discourse, not being mindful of what it is they are saying or writing. When I have asked for clarification from someone using &quot;could care less&quot; in conversation, no one has taken offense and, after considering what they said and what they meant, thanked me (seemingly sincerely) for having brought it to their attention. In one instance the discussant actually meant &quot;could care less&quot; which I found helpful to know because, given the common error of intending the opposite, clarified for me that he had meant the opposite of what I had thought he had meant, assuming that he had misspoken. If you (or AnnArbor.com in general) feel it is necessary to acquiesce to sloppy word usage on the part of commenters (and, I might add, writers) because well, hey, everybody does it, the assumed meaning is understood (at least by most), and you don't want to risk offending the offender, then so be it. I may be the Don Quixote here tilting at windmills, but I personally feel that a journalistic organization loses a tiny bit of its journalistic soul when it yields on points such as these, denoting the organization as a follower rather than a leader. I should point out that I understand language evolves and not recognizing that fact and trying to resist it in general is futile. Still, to accept the usage of a phrase which is the exact opposite of what it says is not a

Tony Dearing

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:30 p.m.

One of the most basic things we've learned about moderation is that we have to have clear policies and enforce them consistently. I can assure you that 99.9 percent of the time, when a commenter points out someone's spelling error or bad grammar or a typo, it's done in a snide way meant to ridicule the other commenter. I absolutely understand that was not your intent, but this happens so frequently that it's something we have to enforce, and we have to be consistent about it. Again, there was no confusion here. Any reasonable person could understand the commenter's meaning in this case, even though he or she did not have the correct word choice.

DBH

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.

Tony, I find it odd that AnnArbor.com (or any other journalisitic endeavor) would deny anyone an attempt to clarify the meaning of a phrase when the context of the comment in which the phrase is used seemingly would call for its exact opposite. Such a policy contributes to the continued &quot;dumbing down&quot; of online (or conversational) exchanges. It reminds me of the &quot;doublethink&quot; characterized in Orwell's novel, &quot;1984&quot;: Black is white; white is black. Sad.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Nov 2, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.

We ask people not to post comments that seek to correct the grammar, punctuation, spelling or word use of other commenters. While it is quite common for people to say they &quot;could care less'' when they actually mean they &quot;couldn't care less,'' their meaning is understood, and does not need to be corrected or clarified by other commenters.

Peter

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.

So, by that rule do you not allow anybody to ever post anything that requires knowledge of another posters thoughts or intentions? You allow your authors to write stories calling people liars in the titles, why don't you ascribe that sort of rule to them? You pull an awful lot of posts based on what you think somebody's intentions are rather than what they posted, why don't you follow that rule yourselves?

Jen Eyer

Tue, Nov 1, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.

Hi Peter, We don't allow people to call each other liars or accuse each other of lying. Lying requires intent to deceive, and it isn't possible in most cases to state with certainty what another commenter's motives are.

DBH

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.

Another option, one I most often follow, is to email the person who wrote the article directly about the typo or other error. Occasionally, I cannot find an email address for them in which case (if I think the error is worth my and the readership's time) I will post a comment below the story. I estimate that I receive an email response thanking me about half the time from either the writer of the article or from a moderator (I emailed a writer just this morning about a typo and have not received anything in return, though the spelling error was corrected). I really don't care if I receive an acknowledgement in response as long as the error is corrected. For corrections of fact, though, in the past I have seen writers (or someone else at AnnArbor.com) make the correction(s) in the story without leaving behind a note to the effect that the story has been revised. I hope this practice will cease with your more explicit policy.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 : 6 p.m.

Thanks Jen; Your policy makes sense. What didn't make sense to me was to see that my comment had been deleted for being &quot;off topic&quot;. More to the point would have been something like: &quot;A typo was pointed out and corrected, so we removed the associated comment.&quot; - which is what actually happened. Had I seen something like that, I never would have thought twice about it.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.

A couple of months ago we developed a new internal policy for comments that point out typos. We did this in response to feedback from readers who find such comments distracting from the conversation (particularly the rudely-worded ones). The policy is copied below. To your second comment, yes, across the industry, as news organizations simultaneously face declining budgets to pay for copy editors and increased demand for immediacy, the number of typos have increased. We strive to produce error-free articles, of course, but the days of multiple layers of editing before publishing are gone. There are trade-offs to getting news immediately and for free. We appreciate readers who courteously point out typos, and that is why we thank them personally via email. Correcting typos When a commenter points out a typo, please take the following steps: 1. Fix the typo 2. Delete the comment 3. Email the commenter thanking them for pointing it out, and letting them know it's been fixed. When a commenter points out a more substantial (but not a factual) error: 1. Fix the error 2. Post a comment noting that it's been fixed 3. Delete the comment Fact errors should still be noted within the story. Comments that contain more substance than simply pointing out the typo should not be deleted.

Peter

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.

My original post didn't accuse any particular person of being racist, it stated the phrase 'the race card' is an inherently racist phrase. You or whoever deleted it extrapolated that to infer that I was calling the specific person who used that phrase racist. And accusing me of shutting down conversation is pretty rich. I'd almost like to know the mental gymnastics you went through to type that one out.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.

Peter: There are usually ways of expressing one's opinion that will not result in being blocked. In this case, you could say something like, &quot;Why do you think they are just playing the race card?&quot; Or, &quot;I don't agree that this group is just playing the race card. I think they have a valid point.&quot; Or even, &quot;I find the phrase race-card offensive.&quot; You say you want to be able to have open discussion, but accusing someone of being racist does nothing constructive to further the conversation. On the contrary, it shuts it down. It is also possible to ask people to cite their sources. Commenters do it all the time here, as long as it is done respectfully. And thank you for pointing out the Nazi comment. We have blocked it. We do not allow people to compare even our political leaders to Nazis, as we feel such comparisons belittle the suffering that occurred during that time.

Peter

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.

Well, I don't think that &quot;this group of brown people didn't get what they want so they're playing the race card&quot; is a legitimate point. I'm sure you'll object to that, but do try to remember a single time when a white group has been accused of playing the race card. It's only used to attack the actions of minority groups. And I think the real reason I brought it up here is that there is a site-wide inability of anybody to engage the content of another post. Asking for sources? That's a personal attack. Pointing out the inherent racism in a statement? That's a personal attack. Calling the mayor of Ann Arbor a Nazi? Go for it! <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-officials-announce-crackdown-on-graffiti-to-combat-growing-nuisance/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:69cef38a-68de-4c09-98e8-230d89570b2b">http://www.annarbor.com/news/ann-arbor-officials-announce-crackdown-on-graffiti-to-combat-growing-nuisance/?plckFindCommentKey=CommentKey:69cef38a-68de-4c09-98e8-230d89570b2b</a> And, might I add, I don't think you should delete or hide that comment I just linked. I think people should be able to engage it and the poster who wrote it, at the article it was made on. Otherwise this isn't a forum for discussion, it's just a place to go shout whatever and see who wins the popularity contest.

Jen Eyer

Tue, Oct 25, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.

We did not agree that the &quot;race card&quot; reference in this instance is an example of dog-whistle racism. The commenter has a legitimate question regarding the organization's motives.

Peter

Tue, Oct 25, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

I'm glad we had this engaging discussion.

Peter

Mon, Oct 24, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.

Hi Jen, The text of the post accused people of 'playing the race/religion card.' The phrase 'race card' is dog-whistle racism. It's used to conjure up the image of a minority taking advantage of their race. I didn't accuse the poster of being racist, I asked when the inherent racism of the phrase would be acknowledged. What would have been the 'right' way to broach that subject? How would you prefer I brought it up, if at all? An email straight to a staff member's trash? I think an open discussion about it would the best solution.

Jen Eyer

Mon, Oct 24, 2011 : 3 p.m.

Hi Peter, We don't allow commenters to accuse each other of being racist. -Jen

Jen Eyer

Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.

I replied to your question via email.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Oct 19, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.

It was blocked for the &quot;raping&quot; reference, which is considered an offensive euphamism by some.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Oct 18, 2011 : 8:19 p.m.

Sometimes I think I get deleted because I like to push the line. And that extends to fairly benign comments. Like one this afternoon. I have no idea why it was deleted.

Jen Eyer

Sat, Oct 8, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.

Macabre: I restored that comment — it should not have been blocked. I will speak with the weekend moderator who was on duty at the time. Thanks!

Peter

Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.

Lol. Real convincing.

Jen Eyer

Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.

I believe that comment was blocked in error. It has been restored.

Jen Eyer

Sat, Oct 1, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.

I don't see any comments by you (blocked or otherwise) on that story. Are you sure it posted? Try posting it again.

Jen Eyer

Sat, Oct 1, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.

It was removed for abbreviated swearing. I have emailed it to you so that you can reword and re-post, if you'd like.

Jen Eyer

Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 4:36 p.m.

KJMClark: These have been blocked.

KJMClark

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:34 p.m.

His comment is in reply to mine. His comment was at: a2roots at 4:40 PM on September 21, 2011, in reply to my comment: KJMClark at 3:18 PM on September 21, 2011, both in the article &quot;8 tickets written so far under Ann Arbor's new safety ordinance...&quot; His comment is still showing up as reported in my browser. He made basically the same comment at 4:44 PM, which is also marked as reported. That's a top-level comment, probably on the second page somewhere. Thanks for the quick action and reply on this one!

Jen Eyer

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.

This person made a similar comment earlier today, which I did remove. I have now removed the newest one as well. Could you please provide a link to the earlier story where your report was ignored? Thank you.

Not from around here

Wed, Sep 14, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.

It's offensive and a personal attack. ERMG and DB have been given carte blanche to offend republicans and people that don't agree with them at will. They may consider Republican Facist but your advertisers consider them customers, and if there customer leave them because they are offended that they are supporting a Blog than offends them, then your advertisers will pull out and all of you will be looking for a new job.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, Sep 13, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.

Jen, it's a personal attack and everybody, including EMRG, knows it. There is no other way around it but to say that you give him special privileges.

Jen Eyer

Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 6:54 p.m.

Not from around here: As we've mentioned in previous conversations, the use of republikan is allowed because it is a fairly common shorthand in online forums used to draw a parallel between the party and fascism. Just as we allow readers to compare a party's policies to communism or socialism, we allow readers to compare a party's policies to fascism.

Not from around here

Mon, Sep 12, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.

ERMG is worse than any of them. Over the weekend he called another poster a simplton, another on closeminded and me illiterate. And yet he didn't get deleted. As a matter of fact his post are stil up right now. Here's an interesting note CBG, I was actually told by Jen Eyers that it was OK for ERMG and DB to use &quot;republikan&quot; because it is commonly used to denote facism and it was OK to call someone that is on the right or a Republican facist! And yet she is still here and Tony and crew are allowing certain posters to call us Nazi's with impunity.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.

Oh, I thought you were talking about ERMG.

Not from around here

Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 10:11 p.m.

Well as I ponted out, and was quickly deleted for, one of the most eggregious offensive poster, left wing and name calling of course, has actually written articles for annarbor.com and been used as a source. Hypocracy abounds here at annarbor.com. I don't blame Tony, he's a fair and level headed guy, buit he needs to fire his staff and start over.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 7:13 p.m.

MFAH, it seems you've noticed what many of us noticed long ago - that poster has protected status for some reason. I don't know, maybe he's the editor's brother-in-law or something.

Not from around here

Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 3:33 p.m.

Tony, the proof is in the pudding. Once again, one day after stating that annarbor.com was moderating all post evenly, one of your serial offenders in back on the same article calling people who disagree with him facism, hypocrits and stupid, all using the same tone and terminolgy to offend and incite. And , once again, your moderatering staff is allowing his left wing insults to stand. This is a clear example of someone being &quot;that Guy&quot; you state you want to eliminate. Again, my objection is not with you but your obviously biased moderating staff. Maybe a new crew is in order.

Not from around here

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 9:29 p.m.

unfortunaly my contact with Jen and your moderating staff has been less the possitive to down right negative. I have had the small group of left wing commenters question my integrety, intelligence and accuse me of criminal acts and have litterally gone hours before they were removed. If I contact you directly, or put themin the body of the article, it gets handled immediatly. No one likes to feel belittled or slighted because of their beliefs. However the staff under you has shown callous disregard for that. Mrs Eyer herself has told me that it is OK to us the term RepubliKan solely because it designated Facism and its ok to call republicans facist! How insulting is itto be told that just because you vote ddifferently than her and the staff you should be lumped in with Nazi's? If you look up and down this comment thread, you can see a common complaint, against a specific member of your staff. In my line of work, that person would be removed and a person with appropriate record and accomplishments would replace them.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.

@Not from around here, We understand the importance of moderating fairly and consistently. Anytime you feel we have failed to do so, we welcome you to challenge us on that, and we will address it. That's what happened in the story in question. You felt that a comment violating our guidelines had been allowed to remain on the site. Based on your concern, I reviewed the comment and removed it, along with several other comments. All we ask is that you post comments about moderation issues here on this thread, rather than on a story. Comments about moderation are off-topic on stories, but we will address them here. If you see a comment you think should be removed, please flag it. If you flag it and it is not removed, please bring that directly to my attention, or the attention of Jen Eyer. Thanks.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.

I didn't know about the Beckett - bicycle thing until I looked up &quot;En Entendent Godot&quot; at Wikipedia. I read the thing in French, so I think of it as a French play. Since she had already replied by the time I read your comment, I couldn't figure out why she might be like Godot, so I looked it up to make sure I wasn't missing something. Actually, I'm not sure she got your joke, or her smiley doesn't really make a lot of sense. :j would have been better.

DBH

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 2:54 a.m.

Oops, sorry, meant to include it as the 8th reply to the previous comment from 9/4/11.

Jen Eyer

Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.

Flagging comments sends them to the moderator on duty, which means they've already been dealt with. So I can't follow up. Can you send me links to the comments? jeneyer@annarbor.com

KJMClark

Sun, Sep 11, 2011 : 11:03 a.m.

So I've flagged several comments that suggested other people shouldn't have commented, or were very disrespectful to other commenters. Have those been taken down?

KJMClark

Sat, Sep 10, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.

Then I suggest you add that to your commenting guidelines. Under &quot;Please avoid&quot;, add something like &quot;anything that says another commenter shouldn't comment, or should know something about a topic before commenting, or asks another commenter to not comment for lack of knowledge, or hints in any way that comments should have correct or useful points to make.&quot; I'm very serious about that. It's not a personal attack to say that someone should know something about a topic before posting - unless you consider pointing out a lack of knowledge or a minor judgement error as a personal attack. If you *do* consider that to be a personal attack, you should add an abuse flag for &quot;rude, disrespectful&quot;. That kind of comment happens all the time. If it's really a guideline that &quot;we don't allow commenters to suggest that others should not comment.&quot;, then it should be in your guidelines. That's broad enough to include up there, and it's not up there now. There's no hint of that guideline in the items you have listed. How long will it take you to add that as a guideline to the ones listed?

Jen Eyer

Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.

KJMClark: The crux of the issue here is we don't allow commenters to suggest that others should not comment. That was the problem with your comment.

KJMClark

Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 2:06 a.m.

And now &quot;respectful&quot;, which is even more vague, and not enforced at all, and also not in your guidelines. Your guidelines say &quot;personal attacks&quot;, which you are now expanding to mean a lack of respect. Are you saying any time I think someone isn't showing me due respect, I should report that and you'll delete the comment? I would hope not, that could quickly become silly. I think you're changing the topic and obfuscating. You deleted my comment for being a &quot;personal attack&quot;, which you are now interpreting as anything not sufficiently respectful. That seems extremely subjective, and not following any useful definition of personal attack. You're quickly moving into saying that attacking someone's ideas or incorrect knowledge is the same as attacking them. That seems inconsistent and arbitrary. I'm trying to come up with a way to not have a comment deleted in the future, and the best you can give me is &quot;be respectful&quot;??? Why don't you try to say what you mean without the words &quot;respect&quot; or &quot;respectful&quot; and see if that works better?

Jen Eyer

Fri, Sep 9, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.

KJMClark: I'm having a hard time finding a way to phrase what you are saying (to ask someone to know what they're talking about) in a respectful way. As for elected officials, there is a different set of rules than for private citizens. We give people wide latitude to criticize public officials. We do take down comments that attack appearance or physical traits, or that make unfounded accusations of serious wrongdoing, for example. But although we'd prefer people not use words like idiot, we recognize that is part of political discourse.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 12:14 p.m.

Another thought I had overnight; you wrote, &quot;I'll just reiterate that we are trying to create a community where people can talk to each other in a neighborly, civil and respectful way.&quot;, but you're allowing people to trash public officials with abandon. I know some of those officials personally, and those comments don't seem civil or respectful to me. I'm not talking about constructive criticism, I'm talking about the comments that say things like &quot;idiots on council&quot;. Why aren't you deleting all of those disrespectful, rude comments?

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.

I'm not asking you to list all of the possibilities for a personal attack. I asked, &quot;Is it also unacceptable to ask someone to know what they're talking about?&quot; Just stick to the concept of what is OK/not OK for asking/suggesting that someone should know something about the topic they're posting about. DBH - as in je suis en entendent Godot, who will never arrive? Not sure why Jen would think that's funny. You know that's supposedly Beckett's only work that doesn't have a bicycle in it?

Jen Eyer

Wed, Sep 7, 2011 : 12:45 a.m.

DBH: Ha. Yes, I get it. :)

DBH

Tue, Sep 6, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.

You get it, though, right?

Jen Eyer

Tue, Sep 6, 2011 : 5:42 p.m.

KJMClark: It would be impossible to list everything that would constitute a personal attack. I'll just reiterate that we are trying to create a community where people can talk to each other in a neighborly, civil and respectful way. DBH: That's a new one for me.

DBH

Tue, Sep 6, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.

I think in this case, Jen Eyer = Godot.

KJMClark

Tue, Sep 6, 2011 : 11:06 a.m.

I don't recall &quot;telling&quot;, I recall asking. I don't have the actual comment, so I can't tell which way it was. Is it also unacceptable to ask someone to know what they're talking about? Maybe AA.com should clarify what constitutes a personal attack? I will continue watching for replies.

Jen Eyer

Mon, Sep 5, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.

KJMClark: As I said in my email response to you, we don't allow commenters to tell other commenters that they shouldn't comment because they don't know what they're talking about. That is considered an attack, and it creates an inhospitable environment. If someone shows a lack of understanding of an issue, by all means feel free to challenge their information. But please do so in a way that is respectful. Thank you.

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:07 a.m.

it;s a personal attack UNLESS you also include teh pointer where the poster (and the reast of us) can LEARN something. spread teh KNOWLEDGE arrrrrrround, not the fruits of my application thereof.

KJMClark

Fri, Sep 2, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.

I'm assuming the reply will be along the lines of &quot;It's not an attack, but it also isn't constructive and doesn't add to the conversation.&quot; If that's the case, you are making a subjective decision that trashing public institutions through ignorant comments is your preferred form of conversation, no? DDAs are supposed to be semi-autonomous bodies. Why don't you point that out in your reporting about the DDA? As journalists, shouldn't you be attempting to explain the Ann Arbor DDA's role so that we can get past that kind of &quot;I pay the taxes and don't like what they're doing&quot;, when in fact the commenter doesn't pay those taxes?

DBH

Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 5:11 p.m.

OK, Tony, thanks once again for your thoughtful response. My only disagreement with what I understand AnnArbor.com's stance on this is that, in my opinion, permission should be obtained (even if just oral) from someone who is injured and whose identifiable photograph is to be published by AnnArbor.com. While AnnArbor.com might consider an injury to be &quot;very minor,&quot; that may not be the opinion of the injured person. Also, in the absence of a medical evaluation, what may appear to be a minor injury may, in fact, turn out to be an objectively major injury (an abrasion or bruise on the face or head, for example, could be a signal for significant head trauma, later to be diagnosed as a subdural hematoma). Unless your photographer is capable of rendering reliable medical assessments on the spot, assuming any injury is minor or even &quot;very minor&quot; actually would be just a guess on their part.

Tony Dearing

Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.

DBH, to join the conversation here, I just want to add that there's not a set of guidelines for photos that can cover the range of photographs that we consider for publication. We make decisions about photos on a case-by-case basis depending on the content of photos and the circumstances of the incident involved. Generally speaking, we're much more cautious about photos involving children than adults, and we're much more cautious about photos where people are identifiable when the incident involves very serious injury or death than when the incident involves very minor injuries. While those are a couple of general approaches, we still exercise editorial judgment on any individual photo as we consider publishing it. These can be very difficult calls and it is not unusual for us to discuss a photo at length before making a decision on publishing it.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Thu, Aug 25, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

How can it be an invasion of privacy when the photos were take in a public location?

DBH

Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.

So, Jen, could you be clear and specific when photos are, and are not, allowed? Are photos only of injured minors disallowed, and photos of injured adults allowed? If photos of injured adults are allowed, are they always allowed? If not always allowed, when are they allowed and when are they not allowed? Are any photos of injured minors ever allowed? If so, when and when not? Based on the information you have provided, and on the pictures published yesterday by AnnArbor.com, the tentative conclusion is that pictures of injured adults are allowed to be published without their permission, but pictures of injured minors (even if they are not identifiable in the picture) are not allowed. Please confirm if correct, or clarify clearly if not. Photos are not explicitly addressed in your conversation guidelines above. Personally, I think addressing the issue of photographs would be helpful.

Jen Eyer

Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.

No, but the photos were potentially of minors, which adds further reason to be cautious.

DBH

Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 11:30 a.m.

Thanks for your reply, Jen. Did you find any of the victims identifiable in any of the pictures? I did not. If their faces are not identifiable, how do the pictures invade their privacy? In the same vein (anticipated by my original comment on this subject), the injured person in the photo (I believe it was the lead photo) in the Sheesh slideshow was clearly identifiable. Did AnnArbor.com receive his permission to be photographed and publicly displayed?

Jen Eyer

Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.

The crash gallery contained photos that we viewed as being potentially insensitive and invasive of the victims' privacy. However, we are attempting to contact the commenter who posted them, to possibly get permission to publish a couple of the photos.

Macabre Sunset

Thu, Aug 18, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.

I appreciate the apology. Obviously, I'm concerned that you or someone on your staff (these were not removed during off-hours) has decided I'm not welcome here. Which I would understand given that I'm rarely politically correct (at least as defined by Ann Arbor politics). If that's the case, better to just ban me. I know when I post close to the line, and I learned how that worked in the past. But the consistency is completely gone these days. And when a post like the Mike Hart comment is removed, something nowhere near any line I've seen, I just shake my head and wonder what it is you're trying to build here. Why have a forum at all?

Jen Eyer

Thu, Aug 18, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.

This and your other comment about Benton Harbor which you posted a few minutes prior were both blocked due to moderator error. They have been restored, and we apologize for the error.

Jen Eyer

Thu, Aug 18, 2011 : 1:23 a.m.

I am looking into why your two posts were removed today, and will post back here tomorrow.

Not from around here

Thu, Sep 8, 2011 : 9:18 p.m.

quite simply post that are flagged from the left of center posters are left up to do there damage untill some calls in and complains. Exact post from right wing posters using the the exact same lanuage, even quoted, are taken down immediatly. This is because of the political views of the posting staff.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Aug 12, 2011 : 8:24 p.m.

I can't track when you flagged it to know who was moderating at the time, but that sort of comment falls in a gray area. It's not an attack, but it also isn't constructive and doesn't add to the conversation. I'll let the moderators know to keep an eye out for such comments in the future. Again, thanks!

Ricebrnr

Fri, Aug 12, 2011 : 8:15 p.m.

Well thank you, but how come it wasn't removed when I flagged it then?

Jen Eyer

Fri, Aug 12, 2011 : 7:34 p.m.

Bedrog's comment should have been removed as well. It now has been. Thanks for the heads-up.

Jay Thomas

Thu, Jul 11, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.

That was a century ago...

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 2:01 a.m.

no. no i don;t.

Ricebrnr

Fri, Aug 12, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.

Growing up in the east coast mecca of &quot;liberalism&quot;, NYC, I can assure you that it only ever meant &quot;open-minded&quot; and &quot;tolerant&quot; of things they agreed with. As it ever does for any group..

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Aug 17, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.

Absolutely right, Cable Chef. Jen has her political views, and anything that doesn't fit them is subject for removal, whether it's on topic or not. It would be nice if there were a newspaper serving the area.

Cable Chef

Sat, Aug 6, 2011 : 3:20 a.m.

I disagree. It was On-topic and well within your guidelines. You and your staff are completely off base if you think it was off-topic or a condemnation of Islam. It was a post based on fact and was also pointing out what comes along with the Islamic culture. Nothing was damning, unless you dislike Islam and interpreted my comment as such. Then that's your problem, not mine. But alas, soft foreheads prevail. Congrats on running one of the most heavily moderated, inconsistent &quot;news&quot; sites on the internet. At least now we know you and your staff are directly responsible for such incompetence. An outside firm from 5pm-7am, no wonder there is such inconsistency here. You people can't even be competent enough to police your own site. Again, keep on ignoring what we say and we'll return the favor in kind.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Aug 5, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.

Cable Chef: Comments are moderated by an outside company from 5pm - 7am weekdays, and all weekend. They are not authorized to contact commenters directly or to post comments explaining why comments were blocked. I check in periodically during that time as my schedule allows, but typically I catch up in the morning with any issues that have come up overnight. Your comment was blocked last night because it contained a blanket condemnation of Islam, which for this story was off-topic. The story is about a rezoning issue for a school which happens to be Islamic. It is not a story about the Muslim religion.

Cable Chef

Fri, Aug 5, 2011 : 2:19 a.m.

The most disturbing part of this whole thing is that you have been given very good feedback and suggestions about the moderating/comments system and yet you have IGNORED them, as if you are the end all be all of the digital world. Some of us have been doing this for years, longer than you and your staff have been alive. Yet you ignore our constant complaints about your broken system. Go ahead, keep ignoring us and sooner or later we'll all start ignoring you too.

Jen Eyer

Thu, Aug 4, 2011 : 2:20 a.m.

Craig: Our apologies. Your comment has been reinstated. The comment that immediately followed yours was the one that should have been blocked (and now is).

Tony Dearing

Sun, Jul 24, 2011 : 9:33 p.m.

On the comments about &quot;disrespect,'' we ask commenters not to post the same comment more than once, whether on the same post or other posts. Once that point has been made, it's not necessary to repeat it, and in many cases, for someone to post the same comment more than once can amount to spamming comments, so that's why we ask people not to do it. Your comments on health code violations were OK, and since the second one remains published, I did not re-publish the first one. This comment here also should not have been removed. My apologies to you. I will address these issues with the moderators involved on Monday.

loves_fall

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 5:08 p.m.

I'm going to go flag everything that &quot;doesn't add anything constructive&quot; too. You guys are ridiculous.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 2:58 p.m.

It was considered to be insensitive to the person involved (by the moderator and at least one other reader), and it did not add anything constructive to the conversation.

loves_fall

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 11:09 a.m.

Well, if a reward is offered and someone provides information, they should get it, right? Are they automatically disqualified if no foul play has occurred? The ;) was being lighthearted as in, &quot;it would sure cheer me up to make $2k&quot;, not sarcastic. Not to mention that since there was neither a crime nor an accident, as she seemed to be fine (at least, no worse than her family reported her to be prior to the incident), I'm not even sure which guidelines you guys are deleting my comments under.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 2:59 a.m.

Your use of the ;) symbol led us to believe it was not a serious question. Did you really think that the missing person would receive the $2,000 reward for information on her whereabouts?

loves_fall

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 1 a.m.

It was a serious question. Why is it inappropriate?

Jen Eyer

Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 7:17 p.m.

It was flagged by another user as inappropriate, and we agreed.

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.

There must have been quite an exodus after I last looked at the story. Now I don't agree with your policy, but to be consistent on it, you have to remove everything that discusses people not walking in a public place after dark. This is today's version of the last generation's, &quot;she wouldn't have been raped if she weren't wearing a tight sweater.&quot;

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 10:08 p.m.

Macabre: We took down all the comments that contained victim-blaming.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.

Yet his was just one out of many that blamed the victims. Again, the whimsical application of your policies makes it impossible to follow. So we have no idea what you want here. You need a fair, consistent policy.

Jen Eyer

Mon, Jul 18, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.

sbbuilder: Suggesting a different action on the part of the victims *is* victim-blaming. These women had the right to be where they were and not get assaulted, period. Readers can decide for themselves whether they personally would do anything differently, but we do not allow commenters to publicly lecture victims on what they should or should not have done, or to insinuate they didn't use good judgment. As readers, we don't know why they were there, why they chose that particular path that particular night. There may well be a very good reason. And in the end, our judgments don't matter, because they had the right to be there.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.

Your attitude is troubling, Jen. This is someone who has come to your site, someone who your advertisers are presumably trying to reach. He has a valid complaint about the stupidity of your moderation practices. While he's wrong about how the First Amendment works, your response is equally off-topic. A fair and consistent moderation policy is very much needed here. You have a nice community here, but you're driving it away (intentionally, if your comment above is sympatico with your employers) with this stupidity.

Jen Eyer

Mon, Jul 18, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.

In response to bruceae: We do not allow comments that promote violence, illegal actions or vigilante justice. Since you alluded to the First Amendment, I'll just point out that if you would like to promote such actions, you may do so on your own website.

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.

Only 3.5%? That's not to say my goal wouldn't be 0% (there are several boards I've participated on for years where I've never been close to having a post removed), but with the capricious nature of the moderating team, I don't see how you can be anything more than saccharine and not have a lot of posts removed. It's frustrating. It seems like you look for a reason to remove a post rather than look for a reason not to remove it. I simply don't believe that the 3.5% that were removed didn't have a significant percentage that were right on your line, except for a word or two. You might yell out &quot;entirely off-topic&quot; and remove it, but then you'd have to remove maybe 25% of the comments on the entire site if you applied the same standard. You need consistency. Without it, you've created this antagonistic atmosphere.

loves_fall

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 2:32 a.m.

Agreed. But like others have pointed out, don't hold your breath waiting for improvement. Better find a new online hangout now.

Jen Eyer

Thu, Jul 21, 2011 : 12:39 a.m.

Macabre: Also, I thought you'd be interested to know that you've had 3.5% of your comments removed since we launched our new system in January.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 10:24 p.m.

Macabre: As I said, the email notifications are typically done when there's a comment that is fine overall, but contains a small part that violates the guidelines. I just reviewed your comment history for the past few months, and didn't see any blocked comments that would have fit that profile. The were almost all of the same variety, which I'd be happy to discuss either privately or here. You're welcome to email or call me anytime: jeneyer@annarbor.com or 734.623.2577.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.

I have never received one of these notes from the moderators, although probably 10% or so of my comments are deleted. I think this policy only exists in Jen's mind, because it isn't being widely implemented.

DBH

Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.

Actually, my comment about asking the &quot;moderator at this website&quot; was meant to pose a question as a comment at this website, after which a moderator (usually the one in charge (such as Jen Eyer currently) but sometimes a different moderator) will eventually post a reply on this website in response offering an explanation. Thank you for pointing out that moderators may be emailed directly. Ordinarily, I prefer communications about deleted comments to take place on this website in the form of comments so others may read and learn whatever may be gleaned from that particular issue.

Jen Eyer

Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 12:10 p.m.

Cable Chef: We do sometimes contact users to let them know we've removed their comment. This is typically done when there's a comment that is fine overall, but contains a small part that violates the guidelines. We include the comment so the commenter can revise it. We also encourage people to post on this thread, or to email us directly (as DBH mentioned), if they have questions about moderation.

Cable Chef

Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 6:27 a.m.

By the way, thanks for the info. I did not know we could contact them for a response ;)

Cable Chef

Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 6:15 a.m.

We shouldn't have to ask why they were removed. We should be told when the action occurs. Doing so would accomplish two things. 1.) It would keep people from posting repeatedly about why their posts were removed. A large number of these posts occur within the conversation in that particular article. Notification would reduce that number, greatly. 2.) It would foster a greater sense of community among the users as well as helping people understand how their post was in violation or the guidelines. I know I would feel alot better if a moderator took the 30-60 seconds it would take to send us a message about our supposed transgression. Just sayin.

DBH

Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.

Cable Chef, if you will read some of the 618(!) comments on the previous Comments Moderation site (<a href="http://www.annarbor.com/about/comment-moderation-guidelines-meant-to-cultivate-community-forum/),">http://www.annarbor.com/about/comment-moderation-guidelines-meant-to-cultivate-community-forum/),</a> you will see time and time again complaints about the lack of consistency in moderation. It apparently remains an unsolved problem. Secondly, if you ask the moderator at this website why your comment was removed (preferably giving the link to the story on which you commented, along with the time and date of your submitted comment), often (but not always) you will eventually receive a response from a moderator explaining the deletion. The explanations don't always make sense, or seem to miss the point, but explanations can be had.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Jul 20, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.

It's a feature many other message board support. You are hopefully not wedded to Pluck. And if you are, that may be why they have no incentive to keep up with development.

DBH

Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.

Cable Chef, I don't see how one's typing speed is relevant. Type rapidly, type slowly. In either case, all one has to do is review the text before pressing the submit button. Basically, that is what you are doing if you have found an error AFTER having pressed the submit button, right? Just review your text BEFORE you press the submit button, and then the problem is solved. Every time. With no edit button needed.

Cable Chef

Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 3:11 a.m.

Because some people (not me) type at the speed of light. lol I like the idea of an edit button. And just to add to Craig's idea a bit, why don't the moderators just edit out the part of a post that violates the guidelines? Better than just removing the whole thing, in my opinion.

DBH

Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 11:41 p.m.

I have mentioned this before, so excuse my repetition, but it seems once again relevant. Why not simply carefully peruse your comment for any errors prior to pressing the &quot;submit&quot; button? I don't see the need for an edit button.

Jen Eyer

Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.

Craig: This is a really good suggestion. The system doesn't currently allow for that, but it's something we could request for future development.

Mick52

Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

Jenn if AA.com is skeptical of its sources that should be stated in the article or the information should be confirmed by a second source, maybe three. It is just silly to delete a comment on a person's guilt when they are so obviously guilty.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.

Mick52: No, you are taking my words too far. What I am saying is that when we write a crime story, we cite our sources. We don't say John Doe was busted with a kilo of cocaine, period. We say John Doe was busted with a kilo of cocaine, according to police. Good journalists are skeptical of everything, and attribute information to their sources rather than declaring it as fact. We encourage commenters on stories like this to use the same type of conditional language. To your question about whether we should be concerned about liability, the fact is that legal questions surrounding online comments still remain.

Mick52

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.

So Jen, you are saying that AA.com does not trust police reports? Please explain the difference between guilt and absolute guilt. Is absolute guilt more guilty than guilt? And does absolute guilt make it okay for me to post my opinion? I need to seriously know this so that I can alter my opinions to absolute opinions. Is there innocence and absolute innocence too? I base my opinion on facts. News flash for you: the news is supposed to report the facts (and nothing but the facts). So hypothetically I am now able to tell everyone I know that Director of Audience Engagement Jen at A2.com says I can say that A2.com does not accurately report the facts or stand by their stories. If you folks thought that the MSP report was false and you had printed that I would not have deemed the guy who confessed, per your story here, that he is guilty. I probably would have focused on that lying Trooper. Excuse me for believing that when your writer reports the driver told the Trooper the drugs were in the rear door panel, I should not believe that is the truth, even though the drugs were found in the car. Had I known I cannot trust such pinpoint information, I would never have speculated on this man's compliance in this crime. Therefore from now on please require that your reporters put a disclaimer at the beginning of each story that the reader should not consider the information as accurate until a follow up story deems it absolute accurate.

Mick52

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.

I get frustrated constantly over how people misconstrue legal concepts. If the presumption of innocence were as broad as A2.com would like, the police would never be able to jail a person up to and during their trial. This is the best example of why that concept does not apply. And what happens in court does not always reflect whether a person is guilty or not guilty. Sometimes the guilty are set free by a jury because some evidence, like a weapon or a confession is excluded as evidence. Suppose Casey Anthony comes out and admits her crime. Is she guilty or not? Maybe A2.com is tiptoeing over liability but that IMO, seriously impairs their credibility. Like I posted above it is not liable if it is correct. It makes me wonder who is in control. Jen, how are facts that are correct, which we expect from a news service a liability issue? Your philosophical ideology has no place in journalism. Your mission should be to report the news, factually and timely. I do not care if you delete inappropriate personal attacks, but you also delete many posts with valid opinion. In the commentary on sports stores, it is rampant and posts with insults are not removed. I expected my post on the drug bust might be removed from the story but I am disappointed. This is why I suggest you get some professional assistance on your staff. It is unbelievable to me that you would not publish news on crime just because charges are not brought, warrants are not issued, etc. There are many reasons that can happen but they do not mean a person is not guilty of the offense. Suppose for example in the sexual assault case Trespass brought up the victim was too emotionally distraught to testify and the case was not charged. That would preclude the story being published? Unbelievable. It is odd to me that A2.com does not alter their practices when so many people bring up issues with it.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.

Mick52: Hypothetically speaking, you are still basing your opinion of the person's guilt on what the police say. Unless you have firsthand knowledge, you're not in a position to declare absolute guilt.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 5:04 p.m.

Craig: It is partially a liability issue, and partially a philosophical one. We believe that people have a right not to be slandered by their neighbors and peers, and therefore we will not provide a forum that allows that to happen. There are enough instances here and elsewhere of charges being dropped against suspects, of people being mistakenly accused, of new circumstances coming to light, that no reader is in a position to declare a suspect's guilt as fact.

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.

Mick52 as did Stephen who was deleted make valid points.... &quot;The presumption of innocence is a concept used at court for the jury to use to build their opinion to determine a verdict.&quot; Since this isn't a court of law whats the point of the policy with respect to anonymous commentators? Is a liability issue?

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Jul 13, 2011 : 4:01 p.m.

welcome to purgatory Mick ...you can check out any time you like but you can never leave.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 5:49 p.m.

True, but humorous posts don't typically get removed for being off-topic. They get removed because much of what passes for humor is actually a rip on someone else. Here's an example of off-topic humor that we didn't block, starting with UrbanSombrero mocking herself: <a href="http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/man-struck-with-bottle-during-fight-on-valley-drive-in-ann-arbor/">http://www.annarbor.com/news/crime/man-struck-with-bottle-during-fight-on-valley-drive-in-ann-arbor/</a>

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Jul 22, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.

But what are the guidelines? You can't really create a joke that doesn't rely on some off-topic reference. Much of humor is what is unexpected.

Jen Eyer

Thu, Jul 14, 2011 : 9:06 p.m.

We love humor, as long as it doesn't violate the guidelines.

ShadowManager

Thu, Jun 30, 2011 : 7:05 p.m.

you say that again...oh, wait, don't...otherwise it will be deleted!

DBH

Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:25 a.m.

Yes, it does, but the &quot;if&quot; is being used to refer to her leaving the scene. His statement about her having committed a crime is unqualified and accusatory. There is no &quot;if&quot; related to this component of the sentence.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 2 a.m.

That sentence contains the qualifier &quot;if.&quot;

DBH

Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.

I understand your point, Ms. Eyer, but then how do you reconcile stating that he is not presuming her guilt with his later statement in the same comment &quot;If this woman didn't stay at the scene of the crime she committed. What makes the court system think won't be a flight risk?&quot; Are you seriously telling me that he is not accusing this woman of having committed a crime, and one involving the crime of which she is accused? You are not saying that he is accusing her of some other unrelated crime, are you?

Jen Eyer

Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.

No, there are scenarios where it would be possible for the woman to have injured them without having committed a crime.

DBH

Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.

I don't understand. Isn't he accusing the accused of having committed the crime of which she is accused by stating &quot;...and look at this woman, who injured our child and could have possible killed our grandchild.&quot;? There was a crime committed (two people were severely injured by a hit-and-run driver), right? The accused woman is (by definition) accused of having committed the crime (which is why she was arraigned, jailed, and subsequently released on bail), right? The female victim's father states in the comment that &quot;this woman...injured our child...&quot;, right? So, Ms. Eyer, I don't see how you can state that the comment does not presume her guilt. He doesn't use the word &quot;guilty&quot; but he clearly is blaming her for having injured his daughter. You have never required the use of the actual word &quot;guilty&quot; before in a comment for it to qualify for deletion as long as the substance of the comment otherwise stated a presumption of guilt on the part of the accused. Apparently, I am missing something related to your guidelines. I would appreciate clarification.

Jen Eyer

Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.

DBH: Our guidelines state that we remove comments that assert guilt. The comment you referenced does not assert that she is guilty of any particular crime.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.

And after you get Firefox, get the AdBlock Plus add-in. After a little customization, with the help of the AdBlock Plus Element Hiding Helper, it makes this blog actually readable. Otherwise, this site is more painful to look at than a 15 year old's MySpace page.

Jen Eyer

Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 2:06 a.m.

DBH: You responded just as I would have! Thanks for that. I'll just add that we're working with Demand Media to speed up the system.

DBH

Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 12:32 a.m.

I may have some insight into CBG's comments. Because of some apparent incompatibility issues with IE8, at the suggestion of Ms. Eyer, I have switched to Firefox to read AnnArbor.com's website. I have noticed a huge improvement in the speed of loading of the pages, even of this page with (currently) 95 comments. If you are not using Firefox, try it and see if it doesn't help. Seocndly, I also have noticed that there are times when some pages will list the Favorite Comments inappropriately. That is, comments that have fewer votes than others will be listed as one of the three Favorites. However, the only time I have noticed this to be the case is when pages are loaded when searching for a particular commenter's submissions. For example, if I click on my ID (DBH), I will get a listing of all stories on which I have commented. If I click on any of those stories, my comment will be listed as one of the top three (perhaps THE top comment, I don't remember). I have not seen this error otherwise. I agree, it is a flaw in the system.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.

Ben is right. The comments load as though they were coming through a dialup modem. Also, sometimes the &quot;most popular&quot; comments have dozens of votes fewer than the ones with the most. I hope you're not paying very much for that service. Good Night and Good Grief

Jen Eyer

Thu, Jun 2, 2011 : 2:20 a.m.

Ben: Thanks for your feedback. I'm curious to know which news sites you think have solved the problem of inappropriate comments?

trespass

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.

@Jen- several commentors say that he ran from the police. That is the crime of R/O. I don't see how you do not interpret that the same as I do.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 1:19 a.m.

What I see is a lot of commenters trying to interpret what the suspect's actions might have looked like to the officer. That's very different from asserting what his motivation was.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.

genericreg: What I'm saying both above and here is that we do things very differently from most other news sites, and that shows when you look at the results.

genericreg

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 6:08 p.m.

&quot;Jen Eyer at 11:19 AM on May 31, 2011: Yes, compared to other media sites, both locally and nationally.&quot;

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 1:01 a.m.

We actually don't think of it as a &quot;problem&quot; at all. We strongly value the comments on AnnArbor.com, so much so that we are willing to devote substantial amounts of staff time to ensuring the commenting community is as constructive and civil as possible. Comparisons to other local media are apples to oranges.

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.

I see them now; they weren't displaying in our system the way blocked comments normally do. It does seem that comment length was an issue. Have you found the new system to be be useful on that front, with the character limit warning?

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 10:30 p.m.

Andrew: In looking at your comment history, I see only one comment that was removed. For the previous account that you used, none. Is there another account you're using that I'm unaware of? (I would hope not, as that would be against the guidelines:)

sal

Wed, Mar 28, 2012 : 9:08 p.m.

Vague and at the whim of the moderator's opinion. If you're going to have a guideline enforce it fully but using the 'guideline' to hide behind to censor an opinion of another individual while allowing an acutal violation of your guidelines is cowardly and unethical.

Will Warner

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 7:27 p.m.

Two school districts, both alike in dignity...

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 6:34 p.m.

Good one.

Will Warner

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.

I once posted a comment in Latin and it was deleted! Nemo me impune lacessit!

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.

Tom: Without seeing the examples you're referring to, I can't speak to them specifically. However, generally speaking, when we say personal information, we're referring to things like addresses, phone numbers, emails, children's names, etc. Things like political affiliation or activities would be judged on whether they are relevant to the conversation, and also whether the person is a public or private individual.

Townie

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 4:36 p.m.

What are you saying here? I'll submit this to a journalism professor (perhaps an English professor as well) for their response. I rest my case.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 1:55 a.m.

Townie: Using your example, it depends on whether such changes are relevant to the situation at hand, and whether there is any evidence to suggest the outcome would have been different had the changes not been implemented.

Dalex64

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.

Take a look at the comments on &quot;clickondetroit&quot;.com and judge for yourself the quality of the conversations.

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.

Macabre: We definitely try to do exactly that, especially for new commenters, or when we have to remove a comment that overall has value because part of it violates the guidelines.

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.

Macabre Sunset, I agree entirely.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.

Moderation is necessary. The truly huge news forums like CBS and CNN are absolutely useless because there is no moderation and people use them to present spam and off-topic political views (often quite racist). No sense bothering there. I think you guys sometimes get close to doing this well. That's what makes it so frustrating. It's more the inconsistency than the goal that bothers me. It would help if you would email a copy of the removed post, along with a reason why it was removed. That way it would be easy to re-post, trying to follow the guidelines. Obviously you can't do that with every removed post, but when someone isn't trying to violate the rules, it would help with the community relations part.

kathryn

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.

If we had only &quot;big boys and girls&quot; commenting, there wouldn't need to be moderation. However, it's clear that here, as on most sites, moderation is necessary because people are quick to forget their manners when they are posting comments. Please keep it up.

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.

oneofsix: Yes, compared to other media sites, both locally and nationally.

oneofsix

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.

Jen, Higher quality conversations? Compared to what? Other local news sources? Explain please.. Conversations are one thing, good content to have a conversation about, is totally another thing all together.

Will Warner

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

Unmoderated sites go ad hominem within three comments and are a complete waste of time.

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:08 p.m.

The contrast between your comment and Mike D's comment directly above illustrates why we have taken this path. There are those who wish for more moderation, and those who would prefer less. I have found it interesting that when we speak to people face-to-face in the community, we never have people tell us they wish we were more hands-off. In the community and the industry, AnnArbor.com is known for having higher quality conversations than other sites, which is our goal.

seldon

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:51 p.m.

Based on past performance, I wouldn't want the annarbor.com moderators empowered to decide what &quot;adds value&quot; and what doesn't. They aren't good at it.

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:45 p.m.

Your site sounds like one whose comments I might not find tedious to read. Which site is that?

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:02 p.m.

Please see Tony's response to trespass, above.

loves_fall

Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:42 a.m.

It can happen if you accidentally get Facebook involved. I don't think it's changing your profile, but I think the FB login trumps the local one somehow?

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:18 p.m.

We never do this unless specifically asked by the user. When did this happen? Occasionally users log in using Facebook, not realizing that their real names will appear if they do that.

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Thu, Aug 16, 2012 : 1:45 a.m.

i had 4 chracters left .. email is on the way. tia

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 6:36 p.m.

For the record and the readership, Jen has responded by email to my comment on the problem I had with the comment length. No solution yet, but a response, for which I am grateful.

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:15 p.m.

Ah, I see. I just haven't gotten through all my email from the weekend yet. I'll look into this.

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:46 p.m.

And Craig, I trust by &quot;S list&quot; you mean Special, right? ;-)

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:41 p.m.

It was on the story on Cafe Japon. I emailed the moderator on 5/28 (12:34 PM), you (Jen) on 5/28 (5:27 PM), and the moderator again on 5/30 (10:15 AM).

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:30 p.m.

DBH: I'm unaware of this issue. Has it happened more than once? Do you remember which story it happened on? When did it happen?

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.

In my conspiracy world there is an &quot;S list&quot; and your on it DBH. Don't feel bad your not alone on that &quot;list&quot;. I think I'm on it too.

Cable Chef

Fri, Aug 5, 2011 : 2:02 a.m.

Yeah right. Like you people ever contact anyone over guidelines. Please, give us a little more credit than that.

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.

Temporary email services such as mailinator do allow users to check the address and complete the registration process. We prohibit these disposable services because we want users to use their legitimate email accounts, so that we can contact commenters when necessary.

seldon

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:49 p.m.

OK, so you're catching the ones who are stupid about it (e.g. using the same IP address they use for posts under their real name).

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.

While we aim for as much transparency as possible, in this case it would be self-defeating to discuss the various methods we use.

Ricebrnr

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 5 p.m.

First of all, concealed weapons are already disallowed in a bar. Those of us with CPL's would not conceal carry there anyway since we follow the law. I'm sure the criminal element will heed your stipulation though.... Besides which I'm sure any frequent commentors in AA will love that location too..

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.

We have hosted a couple of discussions in our Community Space, and I was planning to do another soon. But I like the idea of doing something in the evening, at a neutral location. Thanks for the suggestion!

Brad

Wed, May 29, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.

Really? Because I have had a number of posts blocked in error recently, and that was confirmed by another annarbor.com staff person. The solution? To undelete the posts, days after the fact (when it's on page 19). The better solution would be to talk to the people who improperly removed those posts in the first place, and make them STOP IT. I am guessing a lot of it could be traced to one or two moderators since it seems OK most of the time.

Jen Eyer

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:32 a.m.

Internally, we are continually improving our moderating process. I check over blocked comments on a daily basis, to make sure that we haven't blocked something in error. The moderators frequently discuss comments that are borderline to gain consensus rather than making solo decisions, and we work closely with our contractors to improve the consistency. When the moderators met most recently to discuss these revisions, we also talked about the need to be more consistent about emailing commenters with blocked comments in certain cases, and in noting why comments were removed. Thanks for bringing this up; it's an important point!

Mick52

Wed, Nov 23, 2011 : 11:07 p.m.

&quot;On his second point, the journalistic standard is not to name a person in connection with a crime until that person has been arraigned. If there is no warrant, no criminal charge and no arraignment, a responsible news organization is not going to publish a person's name or allow a person's name to be published in a comment.&quot; Nonsense. Whether or not a person is charged criminally has nothing to do with whether a &quot;responsible&quot; news organization will publish factual information. Maybe things have changed but one standard used to be &quot;get is right.&quot; The best journalist get it first, quickly (another standard) and print it after verifying it is true. It is a sad situation when a news organization will not print important news simply because there is no court action. Particularly with sexual assault. Many cases do not go forward because victim's have to go through a terrifying experience of an extreme personal matter and thus many cases go untried. It is a good thing that Woodward and Bernstein did not have to wait until charges and arraignments were held.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:53 p.m.

No, not changing my answer. In the first issue you raised, I was referring to journalistic standards, and that's what has guided us on that issue. I'm simply trying to understand what you're asking me to address in your follow-up comment comparing the reporting of comments made in a public meeting to the moderation of comments made in an online discussion. My apologies, but I don't understand how this relates to your original concern, so I'm not addressing it adequately.

trespass

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.

@Tony- You said that the decision was based upon journalistic standards but now you are saying it is based upon laws and legal precedent. I presume that you are talking about libel laws. If this were a question of jounalistic standards then I would presume that it is about being fair to the accused. In which case, it would not matter whether or not the information was in public records or if it was spoken about at a public meeting. In both cases the names are in the public domain. I am not familiar with the libel laws and legal precedents but that was not your original argument. I assume that by &quot;standards&quot; you are meaning ethical standards. Other professions such as law and medicine have such ethical standards as well but they are generally set out explicitly in the rules of the professional societies. Are there similar rules set out in the professional societies of journalism?

Tony Dearing

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.

@trespass, I'm not sure I understand your question. Comments made in a public meeting fall under a whole different set of laws and legal precedents than comments made online. I don't understand the comparison you are asking me to make.

Tony Dearing

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 12:46 p.m.

@DBH, yes, what you are describing is correct. For example, we might write a story that says &quot;A 37-year-old Ann Arbor man was arrested by police Tuesday on charges of robbing a convenience store . . .'' And then when the suspect is arraigned, we would write a follow-up story naming him. In rare instances, a news organization may choose to report the name of the suspect based on a warrant or an arrest, but that decision is made on a case-by-case basis, and is quite unusual.

DBH

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 1:44 a.m.

And while you're at it, Tony, if you would reply to my posting (2:26 PM), I would appreciate it. If I have it right, a simple &quot;Yes&quot; will suffice. Thanks.

trespass

Wed, Jun 1, 2011 : 12:06 a.m.

trespass at 8:05 PM on May 31, 2011 This comment has been removed from our system. This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore trespass . Show DetailsHide Details @Tony- The Ann Arbor Chronicle did report the names from the comments made at the Ann Arbor City Council meeting. <a href="http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/02/24/council-absences-delay-some-business/" rel='nofollow'>http://annarborchronicle.com/2011/02/24/council-absences-delay-some-business/</a> How is it different to report on public comments versus allowing a public comment to remain on your site?

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.

Tony, I certainly understand and agree with your point of not publishing someone's name until and unless they have been arraigned. So, by implication, you (or AnnArbor.com in general) are aware of these allegations against the FB players, but there has not been a warrant issued for either, and they have not been formally charged as well? If that should be the case, then I think AnnArbor.com's policy is obviously reasonable, justified and necessary. If, however, either has had a warrant issued and charged with a crime (but not yet arraigned), then (based on past AnnArbor.com's practices) a story would be in keeping with how others accused of crimes have been treated by AnnArbor.com. That is, a story is published about the charge(s) but the defendants are not named until and unless they are arraigned. Do I have that right?

Tony Dearing

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.

Craig, I would just note that this region has an incredibly competitive media market, and no other media has reported on these particular allegations either. That's because other media are applying the same journalistic standards to this particular situation.

Charlie Brown's Ghost

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.

I'm have complete trust that the tie between the U of M and the AnnArbor.com editorial board has NOTHING to do with the occurrences trespass is describing! Good Night and Good Grief.

Craig Lounsbury

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.

&quot;the journalistic standard is not to name a person in connection with a crime until that person has been arraigned. If there is no warrant, no criminal charge and no arraignment, a responsible news organization is not going to publish a person's name...&quot; That doesn't seem accurate to me. I need go no further than the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News who have often reported on ongoing investigations of Detroit politicians and reported on pending warrants, pending indictments, pending charges. i emphasis the word 'pending' as they reported these things prior to arrests, charges, indictments coming down.

Tony Dearing

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:20 p.m.

We routinely have commenters post information that is incorrect or unsubstantiated, and we have to guard against that. Trespass is a frequent commenter who does a substantial amount of original research and has often been able to demonstrate that he has extensive documentation to support information that is posting. We've had many conversations and over time, we've come to understand his level of research and have had fewer issues with his posts being removed. On his second point, the journalistic standard is not to name a person in connection with a crime until that person has been arraigned. If there is no warrant, no criminal charge and no arraignment, a responsible news organization is not going to publish a person's name or allow a person's name to be published in a comment. If we become aware of an allegation, we will investigate, but we are a journalistic organization and we will follow responsible journalistic standards. I do want to make it clear that this standard applies to anyone, whether they are an athlete or not.

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:08 p.m.

I remember @Cash had written about some objections she had to the addition of someone from UM (I can't remember his name, David something?) to AnnArbor.com's editorial board. Even if there is no actual conflict of interest because any decisions related to UM are isolated from him, there is definitely the appearance of a conflict of interest. If @trespass's allegation is true, that reinforces the appearance of a conflict of interest much more.

Sallyxyz

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.

AA dot com needs to follow up on these allegations. If UM is keeping these stories about athletes accused of serious crimes, then there is an even larger problem. Anyone else accused of these same crimes would be subject to coverage in the media. AA dot com needs to follow-up and verify the post by trespas. I agree with DBH.

DBH

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:23 p.m.

The information in your second paragraph contains some fairly serious allegations. I would appreciate it if AnnArbor.com would either refute them, or explain the rationale for such actions/inactions on the part of AnnArbor.com. Does AnnArbor.com have policies in effect which allow such censuring of comments based on information which is true and publicly available? If so, please explain why and under what circumstances such censure is allowed. I am not prejudging such censuring but, on the face of it, it seems to be treating UM athletes differently than others accused of sexual crimes whose stories appear on AnnArbor.com.

Tony Dearing

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.

Alan, I can recall that early on, we had a couple of instances where someone filed for office and continued to use their existing anonymous display name until we pointed this policy out to them. I don't recall a situation where we've had a public official knowingly violate this policy by commenting under a pseudonym.

dading dont delete me bro

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 12:12 p.m.

i was going to ask how this can be determined?

Jen Eyer

Tue, May 31, 2011 : 11:38 a.m.

Alan: That was a guideline brought over from the &quot;internal guidelines&quot; post, again in an attempt to get all of our information in one place. I do know that this has not been an issue in the time that I've been involved with comments, but Tony may be able to better address whether it has ever happened.