November 30, 2010

Comments On Comments,
With a Follow Up on Following

I greatly appreciate readers who take time to comment on a post, whether to give feedback or to offer a different perspective on an issue.  In fact, I would welcome even more comments than are the norm for crAAKKer; let me hear from you!  However, a couple of recent posts have received higher than normal comments, with a couple of minor issues arising which I think merit some brief meta-comment from me.

  1. Comments on crAAKKer always have been unmoderated, meaning comments post immediately without my prior review and approval.  The downsides to that approach are that occasional spam comments get posted, and I do not get to filter out other inappropriate comments prior to posting.  For now, I think the unmoderated system is working fine, given the volume of comments posted.
  2. I do not have a specific comment moderation policy, as I am a firm believer in free speech and the value of a robust debate.  Thankfully, to date I have only deleted a handful of comments, all because they were spam for various businesses of dubious nature.  I hope this continues to be the case, and I am confident crAAKKer readers will continue to comment in a civil manner.
  3. I would ask that readers leaving comments review their comments prior to posting to ensure that they are not an unfair personal attack on another commenter, and that their comment does not use unnecessarily inflammatory language.  Civility is the key concept; vigorous debate can be rough and tumble, but should always be civil.  A comment need not reach the level of defamation to violate the civility ideal.  Also, with a nod to Justice Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define incivility, but I know it when I see it.  I definitely reserve the right to delete comments which are defamatory, rude, inflammatory, or otherwise inappropriate.  Unfortunately, I am unable to edit posted comments, so my only option with a comment that crosses into incivility will be to delete the post.
  4. I am actually A-OK with commenters who wish to link to other blogs or websites, if doing so advances their comment, or provides additional information about their comment or the comment author.  I only consider a comment to be "spam" if the primary purpose of the comment is to link to another site.  So please, feel free to link to your blog or website as part of your comment.
  5. If you have trouble posting a comment to crAAKKer, or if you have a concern about a comment, please feel free to email me directly, using this blog title at that gmail.com server.
On a semi-related issue, I have been gaining a number of new Twitter followers recently, which is also greatly appreciated.  Hopefully you find my tweets entertaining!  Because I get occasional questions about how I decide to follow folks on Twitter, here are some general guidelines:
  1. I do not vouch for anyone who follows me on Twitter.  I periodically review my followers and try to block those which are clearly spam, but there are businesses which appear legitimate which follow me. Use your own judgment as to whether to follow my followers.
  2. I follow people I know personally.
  3. I follow people who I find entertaining, informative, or interesting.
  4. I do not follow people whose posts are essentially hand by hand recitations of poker sessions. Highlight hands are great, but I don't want to sort through three dozen tweets about routine hands.
  5. I do not automatically follow someone merely because they follow me.
  6. I do not follow businesses unless they are a business I personally use and like, and they refrain from spamming via Twitter.
  7. I rarely follow people who protect their Tweets.  This is generally because, for people I don't know, I like to scan their Tweets to see if they are someone I'd like to follow.
  8. Similarly, please note that I do not do "link exchanges" with other blogs or websites.  If I like a website, and feel crAAKKer readers might enjoy the blog/website, then I will link to it, regardless of whether they link back to crAAKKer.  If I don't link to your site, it doesn't mean I don't like your site, it merely means I just don't think linking to your site is appropriate for my readers.
These are obviously general guidelines, but I've found that I need some basis for limiting the number of Tweets I receive each day.  Currently, I can expect to find 50-100 new Tweets to scan through every couple of hours during the day, and more on weekends.  I find y'all incredibly fascinating, but there are practical limits to how many Tweets any person can process in a given day.

5 comments:

  1. You have used the word comment so many times in this post, it has lost all meaning. Now what word will I use in my whining tweets? -dawn summers

    ReplyDelete
  2. @ "dawn summers" (if that is really who you are):

    You have so many blogs that word has lost all meaning. Now what will I call this place where I post reports on the crushing of poker dreams?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would love to use the pot/kettle bit here but I fear it would be #rude.

    I'm libertarian (small L) myself. But, don't carry it to extremes online. I ran a discussion group back in BBS times and wouldn't censure a troll. He basically drove off half the subscribers over time.

    Ken (not sure that's who I really am)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Better make that #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude #rude.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "but there are practical limits to how many Tweets any person can process in a given day."

    The teenage population of America politely disagrees.

    ReplyDelete