Patrol Magazine

THE ARTS | THE TIMES | THE CITY | OPINION | BLOGS | PODCASTS

A Brief Word on Patrol's Philosophy of Feedback, or Why We "Don't Let You" Comment

David Sessions    Nov 15, 2009    14 COMMENTS    SHARE

We've gotten lots of letters—some of them very angry letters—asking why we don't put comments on our articles, editorials, music reviews, etc. As we want you to interact with us as much as possible, we shall endeavor to explain ourselves a bit.

First of all, we do have a Facebook page, where we post nearly every article and blog post that goes up on this site. Follow it and you can comment to your heart's content. You even have 100 percent certainty that you'll annoy us by sending us an email alert every time you give your opinion. We also read all of your replies to / mentions of us on Twitter every day.

But about comments. The tone of some of your letters has reflected a mentality that infects web users these days, and one that we strongly question: the notion that feedback, reader input, crowdsourcing, "Web 2.0," etc., is a God-given right of internet users. No matter what it is—pictures of a cute cat, a story about someone's awful day, a serious article about theology—people expect to be able to drop in their two cents. 

Really, though, who would say that the thing the internet needs is more unfiltered commentary? And while anyone can start their own blog or broadcast their thoughts on Twitter, Patrol is a magazine. It is written, curated, edited and fact-checked. Each piece is meant to fit into a larger whole. And though it might sound a little snobby, we think the material that makes it into our articles is on a slightly higher plane the random tweet or blog post or LOLcat. A writer has put something of him- or herself into its creation, and an editor has seen it to completion.

Comments, on the other hand, can come from anywhere. You don't have to pass any kind of test to be a commenter; you don't have to be intelligent, articulate, or civil. You don't even have to give your real name. In 20 seconds of your time, you can call the writer a name or spit out some misleading information that casts doubt on their argument. Not that most of our readers typically behave in such a boorish fashion, but even the best of us can get a bit hasty and heated when a piece gets our blood boiling. And let's face it, lots of times we comment to blow our own horns, not because we're genuinely interested in the conversation. We don't believe it is fair to subject writers to a peanut gallery that may or may not be interested in having a "discussion" about the subject at hand.

Comment boxes also prod you manufacture an opinion instantly, which hardly leads to the most nuanced dialogue. When you read a piece in a print magazine, there are no distracting footnotes or instant reader reactions to shape your thinking about it. Provided you don't cheat and look at the Web site, you take time to come to your own conclusion—key phrase there being "take time." Sometimes I'm really annoyed the first 10 minutes after I finish an article, but an hour or a day later, may have come around to realize I completely agree with it. But if you caved to the lure of the comment box when you were halfway through the article (not that i've ever, ahem, done such a thing), you've blown your chance to participate level-headedly.

I'm starting to sound like David Denby, so I'll say a little about what we believe is good about online interactivity. Despite writers' typically withering opinions of commenters, we really are very excited about interacting with Patrol readers, and learn quite a bit from you. We take our email very seriously, and try to respond personally to ever letter we get. If you send something to our main line (feedback@patrolmag.com), the writer and most of our editors will certainly see it.

We allow open commenting on our personal blogs, which are far less formal and intended to be more of a two-way street. On articles, reviews and editorials, we provide each writer's contact information, so you have an open line to any writer you would like to praise, dispute, or ask for clarification. You just have to "show yourself" a bit, take responsibility for your opinion. If a comment isn't worth taking the time to send by email—or if you'd be ashamed to say it directly—then chances are it's not worth anyone else's time, either.

The internet would be a lot less barbaric place if more webmasters would stop mindlessly sticking comment boxes on every bit of content they post. (Seriously, who wants to read Mariah85747's thoughts on a Washington Post article?) So we are doing our best to lead the way in raising the level of discourse around our magazine, even if it means having a little bit less of it. We hope you will understand, and feel free to email us every day if you have to.

Now have at it. Comment to your heart's content. Tear me up. That's what blogs are for.

| SUBSCRIBE | | CATEGORIES: ,


  1. I appreciate you sharing the thought that’s gone behind your practice as a magazine. My reflection is that you’ve made a “policy” decision based on assuming the worst of people …

    Wonder if there’s another way to lead the way forward on internet discourse and raise the level of engagement, while not silencing potentially helpful dialogue partners?

    — Wayne Cox · Nov 15, 11:52 PM · #

  2. Another thing I failed to mention (but added in in the paragraph starting “Comment boxes also…”) is the immediate nature of internet feedback. It’s too quick, and often forces you to comment before you’ve given yourself time to think a piece over. That’s another mark against it.

    Some sites have effective comment threads because they have an extraordinarily intelligent readership or spent lots of time moderating. We could go the moderating route, but it’s time-consuming and unrealistic. Plus we want to avoid the mental and visual clutter of long comment threads.

    — David Sessions · Nov 16, 12:08 AM · #

  3. I find myself losing brain cells while reading the comments sections of most sites, no matter how serious the originally posted content was. All it takes is for a few dedicated trolls to ruin the usefulness of a comment section, and I think the editors did right with their decision/policy.

    I also like that it’s a little harder to be a troll on Facebook when you usually actually have to put your real face and name to your comments, which offers even a smidge more accountability than a clever or not-clever username or avatar ever could.

    — Henry · Nov 16, 12:10 AM · #

  4. By not having comments, you force people to display their thoughts as personal statements <i>connected</i> to their identity (a blog, website, etc.). There is increased accountability—though not necessarily in petty emails!—which would likely generate more genuine discussion than 2-paragraph comments.

    — Stewart · Nov 16, 02:07 AM · #

  5. You should try to add a comment system similar to that of slashdot.com. They have a sophisticated user ranking system to make sure that the best comments get preference.

    — Jay U. · Nov 16, 05:56 AM · #

  6. I think that the internet has blurred the line between talking and writing so much that we don’t know when it’s appropriate to speak and when it isn’t. Is commenting on an article analogous to discussing a speech with your friends after the fact, or is it like shouting out during the lecture? I believe that it’s more like shouting out, because most people seem to expect the writer to respond to them. Most of us have been taught that such behavior is rude. Good choice in not putting comment boxes on articles.

    — Keith R. · Nov 16, 01:08 PM · #

  7. I will admit my frustrations at not being able to comment on some of your articles that set me off in one way or another. But I am also grateful for not having the chance to post something in response that wasn’t thought through.

    I agree with you. Articles should stand on their own. Leave the commenting to the bloggers.

    Thank you. I don’t always agree, but I generally leave thinking about what you say.

    God bless.

    — Brian Lucas · Nov 16, 01:24 PM · #

  8. I’ve only been following Patrol for a couple months, but after being given the 411 on this magazine’s philosophy, I am now certain that this is a solid, source magazine. Bring on the insight.

    Chris

    — Chris Thielen · Nov 16, 02:39 PM · #

  9. I agree with Jay. The problems brought by the technology of comment boxes can be solved by adding more technology. Especially if its sophisticated, automatic, and foolproof.

    — Nathanael · Nov 16, 05:25 PM · #

  10. This is really helpful and appreciated. Once upon a time sending a letter to the editor was the only recourse of readers. Now facebook and twitter provide additional ways to comment on magazines for those not pleased with that. It is helpful to think of all that we CAN do instead of focusing on what we cannot.

    — ed cyzewski · Nov 17, 09:44 AM · #

  11. Thanks, Patrol. This is a sensible policy. The only places that I’ve found comments to be particularly helpful are where the readership is pretty narrow and unusually intelligent—i.e., First Things blogs or Stanley Fish’s blog at the NYT (even that one gets a lot of dreck). And so I appreciate that you are attempting to raise the level of discourse, though I could imagine that Patrol gets the type of readership whose comments wouldn’t be totally insulting to my intelligence.

    — Matt · Nov 17, 10:38 AM · #

  12. Good policy. Though it is true that EVERYONE has a right to have and express their opinion, it is not Patrol’s or any other publisher’s obligation to provide a forum for it to be expressed. This is your venue, use as you will and let the commentors start their own sites and blogs.

    — Todd Spellman · Nov 18, 02:53 AM · #

  13. David (and all of Patrol),
    I’m a relatively new reader, but like Chris T. I will be coming back, and this unique and thoughtful comment policy is part of that. Keep it up!

    — Chris H. · Dec 15, 04:18 PM · #

  14. Do you review e-books such as the one we present on our website in hopes some sclerotic curricula will begin to offer content-rich Humanities Life Skills so that in the these test-ridden times of No Child Left Behind times some of the best parts of the child are not left behind.

    — Fran Donohue · Dec 19, 03:32 PM · #

Commenting is closed for this article.




Scanner RSS Feed






Join the Patrol Facebook page!


Follow Patrol on Twitter