Years in the past, New York Occasions columnist Gail Collins visited The Seattle Occasions newsroom whereas on the town for a talking engagement. It was on the peak of the institution of the Doctrine in opposition to Commenting Aggression, when newsrooms nationwide had been going all-in on digital publishing and making an attempt to seize a few of the on-line dialog.
Half and parcel of that was including remark sections to tales to present readers methods to work together with journalists and one another, providing concepts for protection and fostering neighborhood and transparency. Customers had grown accustomed to having their say on social media posts and chatting with different customers. (Nonetheless, it will end up, some weren’t really individuals in any respect.)
A Seattle Occasions journalist requested his New York Occasions counterpart: What do you consider on-line remark sections? Don’t learn the feedback, Collins shot again; we by no means do. (Cue the snickering from a few of the reporters and furrowed eyebrows from the bosses.)
The Seattle Occasions has allowed commenting on most tales because the late 2000s. A new system was established in 2019 to facilitate self-policing amongst commenters and steer remark threads again to the subject at hand.
Some end-of-year stats, since we stay in a data-driven society: In 2025, your entire seattletimes.com website obtained a median of 1,330 feedback per day. Right here within the editorial division, we common about 127 feedback per day on our editorials and op-eds. The opinion piece that garnered probably the most feedback in 2025 was the Aug. 24 editorial, “Gov. Ferguson rightly defends WA as federal strain ramps up,” with 729 defenses/offenses. All of us within the division are answerable for monitoring/moderating feedback on opinion content material.
Right here’s some unscientific knowledge: Commenters are getting meaner, presumably reflecting the nationwide temper. A small group is doubling down, lashing out on the writers of editorials and op-eds, different staffers and tales we’re not answerable for, in addition to different commenters, as an alternative of the opinions expressed. Extra commenters are being warned and suspended for violating our code of conduct. We’re extra typically closing remark threads after a number of hours and on some items earlier than they even go stay, as a result of nobody has time to babysit a stream of nastiness. There’s additionally a staggering lack of instinct concerned when some ask why their pearl of knowledge was eliminated. (Trace: Being abusive not solely to different commenters but additionally a moderator will not be the important thing to commenting success.)
Let me be clear: The vast majority of commenters perceive the project. You wish to opine and also you wish to see what others opine in return. It’s apparent a few of you have got been commenting “at” one another for years. A Thanksgiving op-ed elicited heartwarming messages about how grateful readers are for each other and for the remark part. We recognize readers who look ahead to what we submit every day. If you all concentrate on the opinions, we get good questions, solutions and the prospect to clear up inaccurate data, at our finish and yours. (Because of all you eagle-eyed readers who rapidly alert us while you spot an error.) Feedback allow us to “meet” a few of our readers this fashion — readers we’d not in any other case encounter.
Now there are you sad few, you band of keyboardists who’re all the time urgent the boundaries. I’m you, those that performed the “whatabout” card with most cancers sufferers and demeaned highschool writers. And the commenter who referred to as a younger girl “dearie” and one other who referred to as a doctor “little physician” after which accused moderators of being “nefarious” and “ideologues.” It’s unhealthy sufficient that workers need to learn it; individuals who volunteer their time and expertise and get printed shouldn’t need to.
In case you don’t imagine me concerning the meanness, listed below are excerpts from actual feedback, flagged as violations of our phrases of service.
When commenters assault:
— “Your phonyism is as odious and objectionable because the rank carcasses of salmon which line the banks of streams after their annual run.”
— “I can solely think about how tough every day life is for you.”
— “Is it exhausting being so narcissistic and condescending?”
— “As soon as a liar, all the time a liar. You have got misplaced all credibility and may go to church this Sunday and beg for forgiveness.”
— “The feedback part all the time jogs my memory of the dumb youngsters in school.”
— “What a dumb remark! There isn’t any different phrase to explain it, and I hope the moderators permit it.” (I didn’t.)
This trade did make me snort:
— “Many distributors [at Pike Place Market] have been uncovered as money-laundering fronts and precise gross sales are irrelevant.”
— “If you wish to launder cash, I’d purchase a laundromat.”
The workers will get abuse, too:
— “The STEB is a group of unserious clowns.”
— “The editorial board is a bunch of pointy-headed doofuses.”
— “You’re all inbred like fruit flies in a jar.”
— “The feckless coward moderators will stealth-delete dissenting feedback that don’t violate phrases of service, whereas leaving others up, in accordance with ideology.”
So, now what? Within the curiosity of friendlier threads, right here’s an FAQ:
Q: Why received’t you let me submit URLs in my feedback? Does it assist if I enter a follow-up remark complaining about it in all caps?
A: Hyperlinks need to be preapproved earlier than they seem in the primary remark thread. That is to maintain out spam and different unhealthy stuff. And, no.
Q: Aren’t feedback moderated by fish-killing, power-guzzling AI bots quite than people?
A: No. Feedback are moderated by individuals. The bots are busy elsewhere.
Q: Why are all my feedback about Hunter Biden’s laptop computer, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Jay Inslee being eliminated as off-topic?
A: As a result of they’re on articles that don’t point out Hunter Biden’s laptop computer, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Jay Inslee.
Another suggestions from our code of conduct that make issues higher for everybody: Learn your entire article earlier than commenting. Ask questions which are associated to what’s within the article. Reply to the substance of a remark, not the individual making it. Watch out when using sarcasm; tone doesn’t all the time come throughout in writing. Learn the entire rule e-book right here: st.news/conduct
