Questions and Answers on How The Times Handles Online Comments From Readers

It may seem a bit circular, but it’s true: One of the topics that receives the most questions and comments to the public editor is online commenting itself. So what you’ll find below are answers to some of the most frequently asked questions on The Times’s policies and practices on this subject. The answers were provided by Sasha Koren and Bassey Etim, who manage social media and online commenting for The Times. The questions were assembled by my assistant Joseph Burgess, who often fields these reader queries as he combs through the public editor e-mail each day. Many thanks to all of them.

---

The New York Times produces hundreds of articles and blog posts each day. What is the process for selecting which articles receive comments and why some allow commenting periods longer than others? Additionally, what factors does The Times consider when it is choosing articles for comment?

We open approximately 17 articles per day for comments. In addition, every blog post is open for comments by default. The process, in general, looks something like this: A member of the community staff consults with the news desk, which runs the home page, about the articles that are likely to be published that day, then decides which should be open to comments. That list is revised throughout the day as the news evolves and new articles are published. In addition, the Opinion department chooses a number of articles to open in discussion with the community team.

Generally, we consider four factors when deciding which articles should be available for comment: news value of the story; the likelihood of reader interest in the story; whether we can moderate the likely number of comments in a timely fashion; and whether we have recently hosted comments about the issue in question.

When an article does allow for comment, what is the average duration that commenting is allowed before it is closed? Besides duration, what else would necessitate an end to commenting on a piece of content?

On average, comments are left open for 24 hours, although we often close comments the day after an article has been published in the newspaper, regardless of how long the thread has been open.

We also often close comment threads when we feel the discussion has run its course and there is nothing substantial to gain from having more comments on the article. The community team asks itself the general question: Would our readers be better served by seeing another 1,000 comments on one article on a hot-button issue, or by finding 1,000 comments across four or five different articles on a variety of topics?

Readers who live on the West Coast are upset when they wake up to find that a David Brooks column or a front-page article has already stopped accepting comments by 8 a.m. local time. Has The Times taken any steps to ensure longer comment periods on the most popular content, like Op-Ed columns and front-page news articles?

Yes, the community team will be adding staff members soon to better handle the influx of Op-Ed comments we receive overnight and into the morning.

Is every comment that is received read by a Times staffer? In essence, do any fall into a “black hole”? Additionally, why is there sometimes a substantial time lag between when a comment is posted by a reader and when it is moderated by The Times?

Yes, all comments that are submitted are read.

The reason for the time delay is that we believe in moderating by hand. The rewards of this approach are in the quality of our discussions, in which we take great pride, not least because we feel we offer a safe space where people of all political persuasions can make their case without fear of a barrage of childish insults or insubstantial or off-color remarks.

The drawback is equally clear to anyone who has tried to comment on one of our busier stories – it can take some time for the comments to be reviewed and posted.

To us, the trade-off is more than worth it, although we know some readers disagree. We see these comments as an extension of our journalism. We value the input of a majority of our commenters and are not willing to have their words devalued by running them alongside personal attacks, innuendo and obscenity. Our bet is that when you visit NYTimes.com, you’re looking for urbane and literate content, and our comments sections seek to live by that same standard.

The Times has reduced the character count to 1,500 characters from 5,000 characters to allow the moderation staff to moderate comments more quickly. Some readers post 25-30 comments per day. Has The Times considered imposing a maximum number of comments per user per day, so that more readers have the ability to comment?

No, we have not considered limiting readers to a maximum number of comments per day and have no plans to do so. We want commenters to have ample opportunity to discuss as many topics as they like with as many points as they want to make. Our practice of hand-moderating all threads reduces the risk of one person dominating a given discussion.

What are the most common reasons The Times rejects a reader comment? What are some things readers can do to ensure their comments are within The Times’s guidelines?

The most common reason for rejection is for being “inflammatory.” We don’t allow name-calling, even for public officials in most cases. Rudeness to fellow commenters is also frowned upon, and usually rejected. We also reject comments for being off-topic, incoherent, unsubstantial and spam, and for using obscenities.

If a comment is respectful, on-topic and avoids YELLING, then it will most likely be approved. One more thing to ensure approval: When you make an argument, defend it. Simple declarative statements like “Obama/Romney is so dumb!” will be rejected. “Obama/Romney is so dumb because of X, Y and Z” will be approved.

For more information on our moderation standards, see the Comments FAQ.

A number of other news organizations have implemented Facebook into their commenting systems to promote real-time identity and enhance the level of conversation. Is The Times considering any features that would reduce commenter anonymity?

We encourage commenters to use their real names, but also see an advantage to allowing for anonymity. While we notice that those who comment under real names (or what appear to be real names) tend to leave more coherent and well-written comments that are civil in tone, we have heard from a number of readers that they value the ability to comment under a handle or pseudonym. For example, someone making a comment in an article about the business practices of her employer may not want to be publicly identified, lest she suffer retribution. A commenter undergoing treatment for a medical condition he would rather not discuss with family and friends has good reason to keep his observations private, even if he has valuable experiences to share on a story about his illness.

What are some new features that The Times has added (or is planning to add) that will enhance the overall commenting experience on NYTimes.com?

We have enhancements in the works, but they are still in the early stages and we’re not yet prepared to discuss them. But we hope to start some exciting new features in the coming months.