So, I’ve been in post for a few weeks now, and I thought that I really ought to give you a taste of some of the issues that have arisen so far.
Is it fair to judge someone’s performance whilst they’re on maternity, paternity or long-term ill health leave?
This question did spur some slightly guilty reflection on my part. Childless by choice, and with little experience of the impact of either children of long term ill-health on one’s ability to function, it had never crossed my mind that, by including someone who was temporarily away from their post in our latest LDV Members’ Survey, we might be thought to be the cause of pressure on such a person to return to work earlier, or to do more, than was sensible.
As publishers, we do have a wider responsibility to take into account the effects of our actions, and given that our polls are quoted by other outlets (and not always friendly ones), any polling that might give a false impression, especially in relation to the ratings of senior Liberal Democrat politicians, is sub-optimal. Accordingly, I have recommended that, in future, where an individual is away from their post for an extended period for any reason, they be excluded from polling during that period. It would be helpful to the Editorial Team if, where such circumstances exist, they were pointed out to us as quickly as possible.
How best can we advise readers when comments are not permitted on a particular article/
Occasionally, when the content of an article is very controversial, comments are not permitted. This is something that is not done lightly, but if the Editorial Team feel that comments of a libellous or otherwise defamatory nature are likely, such a decision is taken. But how do we make that clear to readers so as to reduce levels of frustration? The answer, for the time being at least, is to include a statement to that effect in the main body of the article.
Yes, the comments box is not available in such circumstances, but it seems easier to make the information explicit rather than implied.
Can I withdraw my comments if I wish?
The short answer is, “No.”, as our comments policy does outline (scroll towards the bottom for an explanation). More prosaically, removing one person’s comments can have consequential effects. Any subsequent response to a deleted comment then appears contextless and an entire thread may need to be edited to make it read properly. For a volunteer website, this is perhaps a burden too great to be practical, especially where a, how shall I put it, more prolific commentor is involved.
So, there’s a flavour of the sort of issues that arise, and I welcome any other matters that you would like to have addressed.
* Mark Valladares is in search of a rocking chair, a jug of mint julep and a straw hat, the essential tools of a Readers’ Editor…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Chloe
GWYN WILLIAMS
Alex Macfie
Peter Martin
John Smith
6 Comments
If you aren’t allowed to remove comments if you wish, because of consequential effects, then LDV shouldn’t be allowed to insert comments when they wish, via auto-moderation. I don’t really agree with deleting comments either, but comments that have been moderated should be inserted at the bottom of the conversation, not where they were when written.
Thanks
Eddie,
Thank you for raising that issue, although it isn’t as straightforward as you might think. Firstly, we can remove comments if we wish to – I don’t think that I said that we couldn’t – it is more that there are some consequential complexities.
Let’s say that you ask me to remove a comment from the middle of a congested comments thread. Other people may have responded to you, either in agreement or not, and if I remove your comment, none of theirs then make sense. In order to make sense of it, I would be obliged to edit, or remove, their comments. And as those people made their comments in good faith, and have complied with our comments policy, it seems very harsh to do that to them, and adds greater difficulty to the job of the Editorial Team – how do you ensure that style and intent are preserved?
On the question of where moderated comments are inserted, again that’s slightly more difficult. Any moderated comment makes sense if it is posted at the point when intervention was intended by the writer. However, by breaching the comments policy, or by establishing a record of frequently breaching the comments policy – the reason for placing the writer in auto-moderation – the writer creates an additional barrier to publication, one that requires human intervention.
Given that humans are… human, and volunteers should not, and cannot, be expected to be on line 24/7, the lesson is, if in doubt, read the comments policy and stick to it.
But why not add it at the point that it is moderated? Well, a number of comments may have been made in the intervening period, and the discussion will probably have moved on, making a moderated comment look potentially awkward or irrelevant.
But I’ll be looking at some other ideas on Saturday, which you may, or may not like, so do read that article when it is published.
OK.
Basically, I now see the problem of inserting comments in places other than where the commenter intended, so thanks for clarifying that, however I take offence at the line “if in doubt read the comments policy and stick to it”, because like I have pointed out countless times: it is not being applied fairly.
Eddie,
There is a problem with the use of the word ‘fairly’, in that its definition is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I’m not a big fan of the seemingly indiscriminate use of the word in the political arena for that reason.
Ultimately, the Editorial Team must, having set a policy, attempt to apply it as best they can, and whilst it is entirely right and proper that our readers test it, object to it or propose changes to it as they see fit, ultimately those in charge, so to speak, must retain the right to apply the approach of their choice.
So, there is no intent to offend in my earlier comment, merely a recognition that, if the Editorial Team are generally felt to be taking a reasonable approach in terms of their application of the policy – a point that again is in the eye of the beholder but appears to be demonstrated by the consistent readership figures – the onus is on those making comments to comply, not on the Editorial Team to change their stance.
Thanks Mark. I understand.