I guess the point is that Jezebel and the other sites aren't forums, but I feel like my sporadic efforts to contribute to the site are going to dry up now. I frankly don't think my opinions are good enough to be promoted to the visible tier, much less to earn me a star. Not that it really matters... I like the comments here, but they're not why I read the blog. It just was nice, sometimes, to read what everyone else had to say. I don't think I'll do that now that there's no point in responding.
I agree the editors are probably called onto defending a commenting system they had no part in shaping - but in my opinion you can do that more respectfully.
'We run the site' is a rich thing to say, considering that the whole endeavour relies on pageviews just as a magazine relies on readers.
Of course you can publish anything you want in any way you want, but if you alienate your readership you will soon have NO product.
One can refute almost every single argument made in favour of the new system.
'But we DO read all / will promote thoughtful comments' is not a logical or helpful response to the argument: 'I do not want and should not have to appeal to a group of chosen few to partake in a community.' Most people jump through this type of hoops enough at work and in school - a leisure activity is supposed to be a reprieve from the competition (unless you actively choose it, i.e. in team-sports).
The problem of many 'greys' on this site is that they neither chose this format, nor did they perceive Jezebel to be the place where this type of activity was necessary - whether you choose to call it 'bringing your A-game' or 'sucking up to the cool kids'.
Just as an observation: I can count the times I saw an unstarred comment go promoted this past week on the fingers of my hands. Most (although not all) starred people engaged in their own discussions, often punning away and inside-joking - while many worthwile discussions went on completely in gray.
There were positive exceptions, but this was the tendency.
This is the first thread where some of that changed, I will have to see if that is a trend or not.
I could go on, but seeing as my comment is already incredibly verbose, incredibly late and probably greyed out anyway, I will stop for now.
The new commenting system violates Jezebel's ethos of equality and of not squelching (any) woman's voice (or at least of not systematically privileging any given one over any other to this extent).
Because of that off-putting "class system"/Heathers aspect, and because it's simply unwieldy, of course it has a chilling effect on the MAJORITY of would-be commenters.
So I hate it.
But:
- I know it wasn't the Jezebel editors' choice. They don't exactly sound hyper-enthused about it, and I'm not blaming them. But I also have the right to express my annoyance about it and to not enjoy being patted on the head and given the consolation lollipop of "Oh 'lots of people' will still read your peon comments!'"
The de facto percentage of people who "really will read" all the greyed-out posts, whatever it may be, is not the point. The fact of the de jure differential treatment is the point, and I repeat that I fully understand the Jez editorial oligarchy *cannot control that* so I don't need it defended to me by them with the de facto argument.
- I have loved Jezebel for the choices of posters' subject matter - it has been thought-provoking, challenging and eye-opening - and its intense concentration of quality writing and expression by both the posters and commenters. (Most of them anyway - certainly by far the highest percentage of any site I visit.) In that order.
So I'll keep coming. But I'm going to make an aggressive effort to focus more on greyed-out comments than the 'real', black-font ones, and to reply more (or only) to them. No offense to the 'real' commenters, many of whose contributions I love. But I'll be exercising my freedom to act affirmatively.
I'm not angry about the new system - but it has made commenting so pointlessly complicated and just... not fun. This will be my last comment here. No anger, it's just not worth the effort anymore.
I still receive the "do you want to run scripts? Yes or No" message. I think this happens when there is a heavy amount of commenting and if there are photos and videos in the post. Regarding #9 this feature does not work and I cannot collapse the comments no matter how many times I click on the minus sign. To that end I would really like it if the comments were already collapsed (I know too much like the old version) for obvious reasons. Regarding #10 it would be nice to have our options outlined sooner than later please. It would be nice to have some method of filtering so that I can view the comments a little better. I'm trying really hard not to sound whinny here because overall I feel pretty neutral about the changes but I, obviously, miss some of the old features that allowed me have a little control over how I veiwed the comments.
I've for the most part just stopped commenting, mostly because a lot of the time the comments won't load or I won't see the 'Got Something to Say" box pop up on the screen. I am using a year old Mac and I'm in Firefox, though Safari doesn't really like it either...
And...because for some reason aforementioned box appeared on this thread, I felt the need to post the fact that I'm SO very happy that a good majority that are "featured commenters" are loving the new system. Because that's what really counts, right? (Not like there is a high probability of anyone seeing this without someone having to dig. OH well!)
@vuitton: I don't know how many more times we can say "WE READ ALL THE COMMENTS" but we read all the comments. A ton of commenters on here have said they click "show all comments" every time they are on a thread, meaning your comments are NOT being buried. People are reading your comments. I read your comment and replied to it. Let's put that argument to rest.
(I already wrote this all out once, but then clicked outside of the box and it disappeared. Can we have that addressed, please?)
I think some of the editors (and commenters) are missing the point when it comes to the "This is like high school" comparison. The point is that "popularity" in high school was rarely determined by the number of people that actually liked you--instead, it was decided by a small group of like-minded but fairly arbitrarily chosen people who were then given the ability to make your presence either relevant or irrelevant. In that sense, the new commenting system is exactly like high school--much more than the old commenting system, which was based on the number of people who legitimately liked you and gave no one power over anyone else.
I can see how the new commenting system makes sense for some of the other Gawker sites (I'm thinking, specifically, of Deadspin, where the average commenter seems to be someone posting irrelevant, stupid, or mean commentary just for the hell of it), but it seems like applying it to Jezebel is a mistake. The commenters here, on the whole, are insightful and interesting and relevant most of the time, and thus the division between starred and non-starred commenters seems much more arbitrary than it does elsewhere in the Gawker world. I don't think there would be nearly as much uproar if the starred commenters here were a small group of people that inevitably posted thoughtful, discussion-provoking commentary, but they're not. In fact--and this thread is a perfect example--I often find that the unstarred commenters are the ones posting the thoughtful, discussion-provoking commentary, but it's largely being overlooked because it's buried on Tier 2. The Tier 1 posters seem to post a lot of jokes, puns, silly stuff and "Awww, wish I could heart you all over again!"s, and while there's nothing wrong with that in moderation, and their sense of humor is likely what made them well-liked and earned them their stars in the first place . . . clearly you're going to lose posters if that's the stuff under the featured commentary, and those who spend the time to put together an insightful, interesting comment just get ignored. On the whole, I've found that, instead of doing what it's purported to be aiming for--shedding a light on the best discussions--the new commenting system actually buries them.
Hopefully the new group of mini-mods will be able to address that imbalance. I have no issues with spotlighting the best discussions, but that's hardly what's been happening so far.
@nora charles: i totally agree with you. The new system doesn't anger me, i just think it's sorta a shame. I used to love the comments section on jezebel and now that, in my view, they're gone I find myself visiting the site less and less (this is also because of the endless tech problems as a result of the new comments). I now know for a fact that comments I make (unless replies) will basically never be read.
And you brought up one thing that has always been an annoyance here, the bizarre over-appreciation of puns. It seems to be pretty much the number one most-loved sense of humor here. It's weird, cos puns are normally treated with eye-rolling sighs, on par with the bad jokes one gets in xmas crackers or bazooka gum. Yet here, it's the only humor that matters really. I guess that's not a bad thing, and I guess that's just the kind of humor that reigns on jezebel, it's just a shame is all. I'll have to save my boring ole grown up humor for elsewhere I guess!
@nora charles: I have to agree with what you have said. I have observed much of the same and am holding on in hopes that there will be some improvement on that front. At this point I just click "show all comments" and then wade through to find a discussion that interests me or a comment that I find fun or interesting I think if we could have a little more control over our veiwing options then it could help this issue a little. I think the concept that the jezzie editors are trying to promote is legit its just unfourtunate that the message is muddled and comes across as "starred people are more intelligent than greys and much funnier so they get top billing. Now you greys step up your game and impress (that is the kicker having to impress somebody that may not impress you) a star or stay in the nosebleed section". I don't think that is really what the editors are saying they are just trying their best to maintain the quailty and integrity of their site. Besides Gawker Media came up with this whole commenting re-haul and it had to applied to a multitude of sites and service many needs. I'm guessing this is the best they could come up with (it feels kind like how we do things here at work).
@nora charles: I totally agree about the high school comparison and I was someone who loved high school. Before people were friended or followed truly based on what they were saying too. Unless someone came out and said it you had no idea what their race, gender, religion, body type, socio-economic status, etc. was. People were liked truly based on their ways of thinking and how they voiced their opinions. The people who commented a lot were never the ones I found had something truly great to add to a conversation. I don't mind puns on the internet, they're a lot more annoying in real life, but I definitely don't think finding a way to squeeze every candy name into one sentence on a post about candy is the most clever option and a lot of it was just a giant inside joke which is never fun for the people not into it. I read Jez every day but I've never found the hilarity in every commenter asking where another was in a post about someone they know she has a crush on or the whole "cute shoes" joke/obsession. I did however find it awesome when I posted something on a post about parents with addiction and found some other people who I could relate to or when I asked people about a haircut I wanted in a weekend roundup and got some great advice, went ahead with it, and now have the greatest hairstyle of my life. Now even though "a lot" of people will still check out the grey comments it just isn't the same. I went to a high school where we sat at "harkness" tables and everyone was on an equal plane, including my teachers. It sort of sucks this feels like a step back.
(This glitch that destroys the comment if you click outside of the box is driving me crazy.)
More substantively, I know starred commenters who are afraid to promote the "wrong" comment because they don't want to lose their stars and have their comments sent to the vast abyss of grayness.
Jezebel has never been all that open to dissenting opinions and this system only makes it worse.
"Arbitrary" is the operative word. "High School" is a very apt comparison.
@chancentrate: I said it in the thread above and I will say it again here, people are reading the tier 2 comments. How many people on this thread have said the go to "read all comments" every time they are on an article? How many times do commenters have to reassure us that they read all the comments before we put this tired issue of "but my comments won't get read if I'm tier 2" to bed?
I made lots of intelligent, insightful, substantive, sometimes amusing comments and I was de-starred for making the fairly obvious observation that threatening commenters is not a good strategy.
The claim that this system promotes meritocracy is complete and utter bullshit.
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: I guess no matter how many times you say it - for those of us non-starred commenters - it doesn't feel that way. Or won't feel that way until one of their comments gets approved.
You'll simply exhaust yourself writing it over and over again...
@Vivelafat says Sweep the leg, Johnny.: I read all the comments, and I suspect most people do. So why, then, do I have to click a button to do that? Why promote this baloney about "featured comments" when everybody is reading ALL OF THE COMMENTS?
@dreamypisces: So there is nothing, short of going back to the old system, that can be done to appease you. Is that what you are saying? Look, I'm a starred commenter and the majority of my comments don't get responded to. Sometimes you don't get responses this doesn't mean no one is reading your comments.
@cmd: Nick actually answered this about half way down the thread but I'll repost a portion of it (because it's so damn hard to find comments with out a hyperlink)
But here's the thing. We do want to shape the discussion here. And we want to encourage comments from the smartest contributors, even if they're only occasional visitors.
The old system -- by giving priority to commenters who hung around the site all day, made friends, and jumped quickly into each discussion -- encouraged a clique. The goal in these changes is to open up the site to new voices -- interviewees, the subjects of stories, other journalists, authors themselves who might have been deterred before. Mixing up the crowd should be to everybody's benefit.
@1.1.1.: I have seen you mention that before and it must of slipped my mind when I responded above and I've got to admit that is unfair treatment. I can't argue that. Also I do enjoy your comments and I for one am glad to see you on the grey list with the rest of us as I now only read the grey comments and (with a few exceptions) skip the black. Glad to be in your company.
I am very late to this discussion, and I doubt that anyone will get to this 700-somethingth comment. But in case the powers that be are paying attention, I'd like to raise my hand and say I am not a fan of the new system. My main issues are:
1) The gray is really, really hard to read. The fact that this issue is not going to be fixed just adds to the feeling that second-tier comments are not encouraged or welcome.
2) When I click read all, I honestly don't see much of a difference between the gray and black comments. I can understand the desire to up the quality of the comments that are displayed, but I really don't see that happening here. It just makes it cumbersome and irritating to read.
In conclusion, I find myself spending much less time on this site and enjoying it less since the new system was introduced. Oh well, I have become more productive at work!
(Also, I had to come back and edit my comment to say that (horror of horrors) I've found myself over at XX more than Jezebel in the past few days. Sign of the times, I guess.)
@mayfly: The editor of Lifehacker published a user script last week that deals with the gray text issue: http://lifehacker.com/5311321/lifehacker-enhanced-comments-user-script-fixes-some-comment-20-annoyances (I read for a living all day and my eyes are very tired by the time I get to Jezebel, so I know what you mean.) If you use Firefox, I highly recommend it.
Edit: Sigh, sorry for the non-hyperlink. The comments are still really buggy over here.
Theory: Though we are lucky that on Jezebel, most all of the comments are relevant and respectable (thanks to us following the editors' policies and in general, being awesome), I suspect that not every Gawker site is like that.
We like this site because we find the community easy to relate to and similar in mindset.
SO, in order for a site with a less-cohesive community to create an environment for intelligent discussion, the moderators/editors who manage the content will be able use stars to promote members that further the goal and concept of the site.
Do WE "need" it? No, not in my opinion, but that's because we are already much more in line with the result the new system wants to achieve anyway. It will get better, we will get used to it, and, I believe, we will begin to appreciate a more concise list of comments to read...or we'll just click "View all" and continue as normal.
@la_periodista: You're right--I think this new commenting system will really benefit places like Deadspin or the original Gawker site, where the default commenter often goes for snark over substance. But that has never really been the case at Jezebel, where I think that 90 percent of the posts are relevant, and most of them interesting, on any given thread. So instead of the stars dividing the worthwhile commentary from the stupid bullshit, on Jezebel, it seems to just divide the "popular opinions" from the "unpopular opinions," or something equally arbitrary. In fact, I've found that a lot of the best, most insightful posts get buried in the second tier, because the stuff that's getting promoted to the first tier is jokey, punny stuff that everyone wants to contribute to but doesn't really add a whole lot to the thread.
Hmmm...I thought the new system was supposed to encourage more visitors and page views? (and peoples enjoyment of the sites?)
If that is the case Looking at Gawkers own metrics for Jezebel I would say it is a big failure. As in a 40% decline or so in visits and page views since the new comment system was implemented. Its funny to see how the graph was trending up nicely with new highs just before the system was implemented. (But of course we must print the "Official Party View": the old system was bad!)
And considering the decline doesn't look to be stabilizing I wonder how low and for how long this can go before they realize hey maybe those gray people were right, this new commenting system stinks and is driving far more people away than gaining.
@Tmoney02:
Not to be nitpicky, but it's showing the total for the month... since we're about 2/3rds through the month you could expect that views would be at least around may levels.
@notheretomakefriends: When you promote a reply, and both it and the original comment are 2nd tier, the system promotes both comments for the integrity of the thread.
@Her Grace: aaaah, I get it now. although I think I have just lost my comment promoting privileges. I'm sure it's just a technical glitch *** fingers crossed ****
It still feels like the unstarred commenters have to get to the back of the bus blog.
I never commented that much, but the whole point of Jezebel was that you could say what you wanted to say on topics of varied interest, be it politics or fashion or La Lohan, without being judged or attacked, unlike sites dedicated to those topics that are just forums for arguments and negativity.
Now everything comment you say is being held up for judgment.
But really, it's your site! We're just the readers. I would take my toys and go home, but it seems you've already done that.
(4. Why do only a few selected people get to decide what is "good"?
We run the site.) Thanks! It was good while it lasted.
Well, pooh. I wasn't as up in arms about the commenting changes as others. Do I like it much? Nope, but I've been through changes to commenting on other sites and it always causes a dust-up. But I will say as someone who liked to start reading with the first post of the day and then use the navigation arrows to "page" through them, I will greatly miss them. It is taking too damn long to get through all of the posts, always having to return to the Jezebel main page and then click on the next one in line, and I find I'm skipping quite a few now to save time.
And trying to type a comment takes FOREVER, damn it is slow. Must not like my XP computer running Firefox.
@Faster.Pussycat: I'm really hoping it's a bug that gets worked out. It's incredibly frustrating. I've noticed the slowdown in busy posts, but hello those are the funnest to respond to. Sigh. Also, I've had trouble with my hearts (I'm coming 'Lizbeth, I'm coming!)
Except the featured comments aren't the best ones. It would be a full time job for all the starred commenters to go through and fairly promote/demote the best/worst comments. Most people don't care about 150 comments and weeding through them, and they shouldn't. That's psychotic. With the old system, readers could read the comments THEY FIND most interesting and relevant.
A lot is getting censored now out of laziness. Your idea is as practical as communism.
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
'We run the site' is a rich thing to say, considering that the whole endeavour relies on pageviews just as a magazine relies on readers.
Of course you can publish anything you want in any way you want, but if you alienate your readership you will soon have NO product.
One can refute almost every single argument made in favour of the new system.
'But we DO read all / will promote thoughtful comments' is not a logical or helpful response to the argument: 'I do not want and should not have to appeal to a group of chosen few to partake in a community.' Most people jump through this type of hoops enough at work and in school - a leisure activity is supposed to be a reprieve from the competition (unless you actively choose it, i.e. in team-sports).
The problem of many 'greys' on this site is that they neither chose this format, nor did they perceive Jezebel to be the place where this type of activity was necessary - whether you choose to call it 'bringing your A-game' or 'sucking up to the cool kids'.
Just as an observation: I can count the times I saw an unstarred comment go promoted this past week on the fingers of my hands. Most (although not all) starred people engaged in their own discussions, often punning away and inside-joking - while many worthwile discussions went on completely in gray.
There were positive exceptions, but this was the tendency.
This is the first thread where some of that changed, I will have to see if that is a trend or not.
I could go on, but seeing as my comment is already incredibly verbose, incredibly late and probably greyed out anyway, I will stop for now.
07/21/09
Because of that off-putting "class system"/Heathers aspect, and because it's simply unwieldy, of course it has a chilling effect on the MAJORITY of would-be commenters.
So I hate it.
But:
- I know it wasn't the Jezebel editors' choice. They don't exactly sound hyper-enthused about it, and I'm not blaming them. But I also have the right to express my annoyance about it and to not enjoy being patted on the head and given the consolation lollipop of "Oh 'lots of people' will still read your peon comments!'"
The de facto percentage of people who "really will read" all the greyed-out posts, whatever it may be, is not the point. The fact of the de jure differential treatment is the point, and I repeat that I fully understand the Jez editorial oligarchy *cannot control that* so I don't need it defended to me by them with the de facto argument.
- I have loved Jezebel for the choices of posters' subject matter - it has been thought-provoking, challenging and eye-opening - and its intense concentration of quality writing and expression by both the posters and commenters. (Most of them anyway - certainly by far the highest percentage of any site I visit.) In that order.
So I'll keep coming. But I'm going to make an aggressive effort to focus more on greyed-out comments than the 'real', black-font ones, and to reply more (or only) to them. No offense to the 'real' commenters, many of whose contributions I love. But I'll be exercising my freedom to act affirmatively.
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
And...because for some reason aforementioned box appeared on this thread, I felt the need to post the fact that I'm SO very happy that a good majority that are "featured commenters" are loving the new system. Because that's what really counts, right? (Not like there is a high probability of anyone seeing this without someone having to dig. OH well!)
07/21/09
07/21/09
I think some of the editors (and commenters) are missing the point when it comes to the "This is like high school" comparison. The point is that "popularity" in high school was rarely determined by the number of people that actually liked you--instead, it was decided by a small group of like-minded but fairly arbitrarily chosen people who were then given the ability to make your presence either relevant or irrelevant. In that sense, the new commenting system is exactly like high school--much more than the old commenting system, which was based on the number of people who legitimately liked you and gave no one power over anyone else.
I can see how the new commenting system makes sense for some of the other Gawker sites (I'm thinking, specifically, of Deadspin, where the average commenter seems to be someone posting irrelevant, stupid, or mean commentary just for the hell of it), but it seems like applying it to Jezebel is a mistake. The commenters here, on the whole, are insightful and interesting and relevant most of the time, and thus the division between starred and non-starred commenters seems much more arbitrary than it does elsewhere in the Gawker world. I don't think there would be nearly as much uproar if the starred commenters here were a small group of people that inevitably posted thoughtful, discussion-provoking commentary, but they're not. In fact--and this thread is a perfect example--I often find that the unstarred commenters are the ones posting the thoughtful, discussion-provoking commentary, but it's largely being overlooked because it's buried on Tier 2. The Tier 1 posters seem to post a lot of jokes, puns, silly stuff and "Awww, wish I could heart you all over again!"s, and while there's nothing wrong with that in moderation, and their sense of humor is likely what made them well-liked and earned them their stars in the first place . . . clearly you're going to lose posters if that's the stuff under the featured commentary, and those who spend the time to put together an insightful, interesting comment just get ignored. On the whole, I've found that, instead of doing what it's purported to be aiming for--shedding a light on the best discussions--the new commenting system actually buries them.
Hopefully the new group of mini-mods will be able to address that imbalance. I have no issues with spotlighting the best discussions, but that's hardly what's been happening so far.
07/21/09
And you brought up one thing that has always been an annoyance here, the bizarre over-appreciation of puns. It seems to be pretty much the number one most-loved sense of humor here. It's weird, cos puns are normally treated with eye-rolling sighs, on par with the bad jokes one gets in xmas crackers or bazooka gum. Yet here, it's the only humor that matters really. I guess that's not a bad thing, and I guess that's just the kind of humor that reigns on jezebel, it's just a shame is all. I'll have to save my boring ole grown up humor for elsewhere I guess!
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
(This glitch that destroys the comment if you click outside of the box is driving me crazy.)
More substantively, I know starred commenters who are afraid to promote the "wrong" comment because they don't want to lose their stars and have their comments sent to the vast abyss of grayness.
Jezebel has never been all that open to dissenting opinions and this system only makes it worse.
"Arbitrary" is the operative word. "High School" is a very apt comparison.
07/21/09
07/21/09
I made lots of intelligent, insightful, substantive, sometimes amusing comments and I was de-starred for making the fairly obvious observation that threatening commenters is not a good strategy.
The claim that this system promotes meritocracy is complete and utter bullshit.
Half the time I can't find my replies.
07/21/09
Half the time I can't even find my replies.
[Unable to edit three minutes after posting.]
07/21/09
You'll simply exhaust yourself writing it over and over again...
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/21/09
But here's the thing. We do want to shape the discussion here. And we want to encourage comments from the smartest contributors, even if they're only occasional visitors.
The old system -- by giving priority to commenters who hung around the site all day, made friends, and jumped quickly into each discussion -- encouraged a clique. The goal in these changes is to open up the site to new voices -- interviewees, the subjects of stories, other journalists, authors themselves who might have been deterred before. Mixing up the crowd should be to everybody's benefit.
07/21/09
07/21/09
1) The gray is really, really hard to read. The fact that this issue is not going to be fixed just adds to the feeling that second-tier comments are not encouraged or welcome.
2) When I click read all, I honestly don't see much of a difference between the gray and black comments. I can understand the desire to up the quality of the comments that are displayed, but I really don't see that happening here. It just makes it cumbersome and irritating to read.
In conclusion, I find myself spending much less time on this site and enjoying it less since the new system was introduced. Oh well, I have become more productive at work!
(Also, I had to come back and edit my comment to say that (horror of horrors) I've found myself over at XX more than Jezebel in the past few days. Sign of the times, I guess.)
07/21/09
Edit: Sigh, sorry for the non-hyperlink. The comments are still really buggy over here.
07/21/09
We like this site because we find the community easy to relate to and similar in mindset.
SO, in order for a site with a less-cohesive community to create an environment for intelligent discussion, the moderators/editors who manage the content will be able use stars to promote members that further the goal and concept of the site.
Do WE "need" it? No, not in my opinion, but that's because we are already much more in line with the result the new system wants to achieve anyway. It will get better, we will get used to it, and, I believe, we will begin to appreciate a more concise list of comments to read...or we'll just click "View all" and continue as normal.
07/21/09
07/21/09
If that is the case Looking at Gawkers own metrics for Jezebel I would say it is a big failure. As in a 40% decline or so in visits and page views since the new comment system was implemented. Its funny to see how the graph was trending up nicely with new highs just before the system was implemented. (But of course we must print the "Official Party View": the old system was bad!)
And considering the decline doesn't look to be stabilizing I wonder how low and for how long this can go before they realize hey maybe those gray people were right, this new commenting system stinks and is driving far more people away than gaining.
http://advertising.gawker.com/titles/jezebel
07/21/09
Not to be nitpicky, but it's showing the total for the month... since we're about 2/3rds through the month you could expect that views would be at least around may levels.
07/21/09
07/21/09
07/22/09
07/21/09
I never commented that much, but the whole point of Jezebel was that you could say what you wanted to say on topics of varied interest, be it politics or fashion or La Lohan, without being judged or attacked, unlike sites dedicated to those topics that are just forums for arguments and negativity.
Now everything comment you say is being held up for judgment.
But really, it's your site! We're just the readers. I would take my toys and go home, but it seems you've already done that.
(4. Why do only a few selected people get to decide what is "good"?
We run the site.) Thanks! It was good while it lasted.
07/20/09
And trying to type a comment takes FOREVER, damn it is slow. Must not like my XP computer running Firefox.
07/20/09
07/21/09
07/20/09
A lot is getting censored now out of laziness. Your idea is as practical as communism.