Gawker Media Network's efforts to manage user comments

Written for women, by women, it may surprise few that the "Celebrity, Sex, Fashion" Jezebel site reigns in the most user comments out of the Gawker network. "The Girls Guide to commenting on Jezebel", published in April 2008 - a response to the commenting chaos that ensued after Jezebel "went live" about ten months prior - did nothing to prevent some of the user comments from ruffling feathers. This time around, Editor-in-Chief Anna Holmes has taken a more proactive approach by introducing a new (if somewhat complicated) commenting system.

The "Two-tiered" system curates its users' comments, prioritizing or elevating worthy comments above useless gibberish in order to present the crème de la crème of user comments to readers who simply "have neither the time nor energy to wade through the mediocre contribution." It sounds simple enough, but confusion may occur when the star system is added to the equation.

This star system has undergone changes. Previously "stars" were awarded to rank commenters based on the number of followers they had. But from now on, star worthy comments must prove to be "engaged, intelligent, humorous, fair-minded, thoughtful, etc.," resulting in a slash of starred commenters.

With stars comes power. Starred commenters will act as "mini-moderators" who have the ability to prop up a Tier 2 comment to Tier 1. In addition to that, (and here is where the complexity surfaces) when a starred commenter in Tier 1 responds to a (non-starred?) commenter in Tier 2, the Tier 2 comment will be moved to Tier 1. Finally, a commenter with star power will be able to view (gasp!) unapproved comments from newbies. At his or her discretion, those posts can then be approved and qualified for some Tier 2 action. Starred commenters should be warned, however, that their actions will still continue to be closely monitored by the editorial team and they must continue to play by the rules. Engaging in conversation with non-approved commenters is grounds for de-starification.

The good news for foot-in-mouth commenters is that they now have a 15-minute grace period to edit their published comments. Not only will a site that is error-free prove to be more aesthetically pleasing, but the reverse chronological ordering and nixing of the expanded view options are meant to do away with eyesores. As for instances in which the writer of an article has made a grammar/spelling mistake or ran a factual error, a reader's comment pointing out the faux pas is not welcome in the commenting space. Rather, readers are encouraged to email the respective writer and/or editor Holmes, in Jezebel's case.

Alas, in the Web 2.0 world we live in where social networking is the norm and blogs tend to be reactionary, sifting through a matrix of users' comments can prove to be a daunting task (Holmes admits that she never has the time to read comments). However, it seems that reader interaction is becoming a crucial asset to online news sites and cannot be ignored. Critics of e-reading devices have doubted their capacity to help revive revenue and newspaper subscription numbers as they lack user-interaction features. Even though one site, 1000words.net, argues that the Kindle app for iPhone may revolutionize journalism since it has proved that users are willing to read and pay for long passages via a handheld device, its only downside is the absence of an online community.

Gawker Media Network's efforts to provide its readers with the most insightful commenting strands demonstrates a belief that if regulated, comments play an important role in online journalism. It is an approach that echoes that of fellow online-only site, True/Slant, where "interaction with audience is compulsory" and the site's contributors can highlight reader comments that help to further the conversation.