MyTake June 11, 2008, 12:01AM EST

The Reader Comment Conundrum

Web sites are all about user feedback, but what's a Webmaster to do when it gets nasty, cliquish, or just plain dull?

BusinessWeek.com reader Greg Fish was invited to write a guest column, the first in a series of essays penned by dedicated members of the BusinessWeek.com online community. Fish is an IT analyst in Columbus, Ohio

Story Tools

"What a @#$%!," you might find yourself saying when reading user comments on blogs, forums, or news sites. Outbursts and angry diatribes are nothing new for interactive Web sites, and as the current generation of sites is being increasingly defined by showcasing feedback from the approximately 10% of Web surfers who actively participate in online discussions and debates, it seems like more and more vitriol is appearing on Web pages everywhere.

Shielded by a screen name and a computer, irate commentators let insults fly. Calling those who draw their ire everything from "bleeding heart commies" to "plutocratic religio-fascists" and asking if they suffer from moderate to severe brain damage are by now staples of online rage fits. Consider an exchange from Gather.com:

Reader 1: "The only way to deal with idiots like you is condescension. You don't deserve anything better."

Reader 2: "Well, thanks for letting everyone know what a brain-dead [expletive] you are."

It's not just the actions of a random few using the Web as a vehicle to let go of their inhibitions and be as bold and vociferous as they would like. We all do it at least once in a while when provoked, insulted, or just caught in the "you really wanna know what I think?!" mood that generates long, passionate, and frustrated monologues. Sigmund Freud would've loved reading the resulting ranting to see what happens when we tear off the reserved, proper mask of society to reveal the firestorms raging beneath.

The In Crowd

As we spread these verbal firefights to virtually any place that allows users to sound off, Webmasters are caught in the crossfire and have to make important decisions as to how they're going to run their sites. Should they moderate their sites to remove comments they find offensive? Should they allow users to fight things out until they lose interest and stop? Should they promote controversies to get big hits? Or should they encourage their user community to police itself?

Heavily moderated and user-policed sites such as those for TV shows tend to become insular communities where visitors can feel left out and unwelcome in a digital landscape shaped by cliques of regulars who set the unspoken standards for the sites' content and user interaction. There's no telling what will prompt their complaints or bring down the wrath of the moderators. That turns new users away, limiting the reach and accessibility of the site. People don't want to walk on eggshells and have to fight their way past regulars—who often see the site as at least partly theirs in the making—to start contributing and interacting on a meaningful level.

Take This E-Rage and...

At the other extreme are political blogs like DailyKos.com and Redstate.com, which like to showcase conflicts and long, passionate essays. But they also tend to have high user turnover. Most people don't want to be angry all the time, and they get tired of communicating in rants, barbs, and insults. Somewhere down the line, they'll want to talk about something controversial and profound in a civil setting. At the end of the day, a Webmaster trying to get hits by controversy and heated debate will discourage some potential users from participating. And quite a few of those who jump into the fray will burn out and leave in search of a calmer environment.

Perhaps the best recourse for Webmasters to deal with e-rage is to take the path of least resistance like Digg.com and Arstechnica.com. Cliques won't have as much influence as they would on a moderated or self-policed site, because they'll get no official endorsements and new users will be able to challenge their self-appointed police actions. And while tempers will flare and ardent debates that generate plenty of hits will appear on a regular basis, they won't define the site.

Rather than police or provoke, Webmasters should sit back and watch how their users will create a stable hierarchy that controls itself. An online community is a living, breathing organism. It has patterns, standards, and mood swings. Left to grow on its own, it has the best chance to blossom into something fun and interesting. A great online community is what underpins a stable, successful, long-lived Web 2.0 site. Angry debates will always be there, but let your community decide how to handle them—without taking charge, empowering only certain users, or trying to stoke the flames in search of big hits.