Change is hard, and a fair number of people are feeling miffed over the change in commenting structure. Thing is, the system has been implemented across all of the Gawker sites, and it won't be changing in any significant way anytime soon. That said, many of you had questions and concerns - technical and otherwise - that we want to address.

1. Who will be the commenter/moderators?
We are happy to announce that 5 commenters will be taking on some moderator responsibilities: AndBegorrah, BrutallyHonestBabes, MorningGloria, Khruschev, and BabyJane will be helping out when they can with account approvals, comment promotions/demotions and other assorted and sundry activities. Please give them a warm welcome.

2. Is the culling of the stars over?
No. It's a work in progress, and always will be. That said, it will probably wind down a bit in the next few weeks. If commenters want to alert us to readers they feel provide consistently excellent contributions and may benefit from "featured commenter" status, they can email us and let us know, but again, we are currently in the process of reducing – not increasing – the number of starred commenters. A few notes for those who already have stars: Using your status to indiscriminately, "democratically" promote any comment that rises above the level of "troll" is strongly frowned upon and may result in the removal of a star. In addition, everyone should know that starred commenters are not above having their comments demoted to the "unfeatured comments" page: the featured comments are supposed to provide a snapshot of the best conversations relevant to the post at hand, and, although I don't think that commenters should refrain from engaging in mildly off-topic conversational and or/jokey threads, those types of contributions don't really belong on the featured comments page. Shorter: Every commenter - starred or unstarred - has the opportunity to be "featured" and "unfeatured", depending on the nature of the contribution. (If your comment is demoted, please, don't take it personally. It's impossible for every commenter to bring her A-game 100% of the time, and the "featured" comments should only be the best/funniest/most insightful/most interesting.)

3. Who decides who and why some commenters get a star and others don't?
The decisions regarding stars are made by our "moderators": the site's editors and the five commenters we have given additional administrative access to. Decisions are based on any number of factors, including but not limited to: longevity (people who have made a ‘name' for themselves with an established comment history are yes, going to be trusted more than those who have not); quality of contributions; and use or abuse of commenting privileges. Quantity of comments is not of particular concern: there are many starred commenters who, although they comment infrequently, comment intelligently and responsibly when they do. Obviously, our judgments are subjective; it would be impossible for them not to be.

4. Why do only a few selected people get to decide what is "good"?
We run the site.

5. Isn't the star/non-star system just a popularity contest?
Nope. Comparing the current commenting structure to a "popularity contest" or complaining about its supposed resemblance to "high school" is your prerogative, but, in my opinion, both over the top and self-serving. In fact, the previous star system – which was based on number of followers – was more a "popularity contest" than the current structure, which, as I outlined above, will change and grow over time and allows everyone a chance at composing a featured comment. Again: Quantity of comments and number of followers is NOT a prerequisite for becoming a starred commenter.

6. Are the stars good across the Gawker network?
No. They are specific to each site. Meaning: A star can be awarded, or rescinded, on one site without it affecting the commenter's status on another.

7. Is there a way to change settings so that, by default, all comments are visible? Can the "show all comments" link be at the top rather than at the bottom of the first page of featured comments?
Yes, the first option will be available later this week. As for the link to "show all comments," it will remain at the bottom of the featured comment thread.

8. Is it possible for you to have the unfeatured comments show up in black text rather than grey?
There are no plans to implement this.

9. Will we eventually be able to collapse and expand all the individual thread discussions?
You can do that right now. Just click on the plus sign associated with each thread divide.

10. Will we see the return of links that control the chronological order of the comments or enable us to sort them by "newest", "oldest" and "most popular"?
There will be no return of clearly marked sorting functions/links, but there will be another method in order to view the comments in few different ways; we'll share that info in the Help section at some point in the not-too-distant future.

11. What happened to the "next" navigation arrows/links in the posts?
They're gone, sadly.

12. What happened to the permalinks to specific threads or comments, and how do I respond to more than one person at once in a comment?
The permalinks to specific comments/threads will be back shortly. As for responding to more than one person, you can type out an "@" sign before a commenter name or you can simply write a separate comment for each response.

13. When I click "show all comments" is it showing all the comments, both featured and non, on that page of comments, or all the comments overall?
The former.

14. Can you explain the point of the new system? It seems very [insert "unegalitarian", "Orwellian," "antifeminist," "censoring", other descriptor here].
The new system – which is, again, active on all Gawker Media sites – was created to give editors and moderators the ability to curate and highlight the best and most relevant comments on any given post by designating them as "featured comments", thereby providing a snapshot of the most interesting, engaging ideas/discussions currently going on. No comment system that includes auditions and moderation for quality control can ever be truly democratic or egalitarian; in fact, with regards to the comments on Gawker Media sites, egalitarianism was never the point. There are plenty of sites on the web with unmoderated comments, if that's what floats your boat.

15. The open threads are difficult to navigate with this tiered system; can anything be done about it?
One solution is to "view all comments" when participating in open threads. (See #5, above.)

That's all, folks. We won't be putting up any more posts about the comments after this, but you can always email us at tips@jezebel.com regarding issues - particularly technical ones - we didn't address. Thanks for all your queries...and your patience.

[Image via lemonysarah's Flickr]

1. How do I nominate a comment for best or worst comment of the day?

You can send our commenter moderator, Hortense, an email at commenters@jezebel.com. You can also reach the editors themselves by emailing our tips email (tips@jezebel.com). Someone will see the nomination, we promise.

2. How do I apply for an internship?

The site's Managing Editor, Anna Holmes, looks for new interns periodically (most internships last 6-12 months, and the site has a maximum of 2 interns at a time). She will post calls for interns when she is looking for them, and goes through responses at that time. This means that if you are applying for an internship at a time when they are not being sought, its likely that your email will not be read and/or saved. Internships are awarded to applicants currently attending college; her decisions are based on applicants' writing abilities, passions, interests, and availability (most interns work 20 hours a week).

3. Why haven't you responded to my email?

The site as a whole (and the editors personally) receive upwards of 500 emails a day. Some of these are tips from readers. Some of them are questions from readers. Most all of them are read, but, due to our high workload and lack of free time, we are not able to respond to most of them. The best description of the situation that we have seen was posted on Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan's site late last month.

Believe us: We appreciate each and every email. With the exception of PR pitches (see below) we read every email. We simply cannot respond to all (or even most) of them because if we did, we would not be able to do our jobs, which is to collectively post 60+ items a day.

4. I work for a company or PR agency and I want you to write about a product or event; how do I submit requests or ideas?

PR people can send us emails via our tips email but be warned: There is little to no chance that we will pay attention to or pick up on what you're pushing. In fact, 99% of the PR pitches we get are deleted immediately – without being read. We're simply not interested in this sort of stuff; most PR people do not understand our readership and its interests at all, and we regard our own sources (and our readers) as more pure in intent than anything coming from a marketing entity. Sorry.

5. How do I send in tips about stories I've read or heard about? Do you get sick of being sent tips?

Tips about stories you think may be of interest to the editors can be sent via our tips email (tips@jezebel.com). We do not get sick of being sent tips - that's what the tips email is for! - but we do ask that you send a brief description of the story along with a pertinent web address/URL. Tips that come in with only URLs and no description are likely to be put aside and eventually forgotten because we do not have the time or energy to click through and read tips without any accompanying description.

6. Is there any way we can get our commenter accounts/profiles deleted or banned?

You can request to have your commenter account banned/disabled but Gawker Media websites do not, and will not, delete profiles or comments. This means it is important that you be extra careful when choosing a screenname and to only say things you are comfortable with existing on the internet in perpetuity, because even if your account is disabled, it will still be visible to others.

7. How many followers do I need to get a star on my commenter account?

You need 40 followers in order to get a star on your account. Sometimes readers with the requisite number of followers do not receive stars for whatever reason; in that case, you can feel free to email our commenter moderator, Hortense (commenters@jezebel.com) to alert her to the situation. You must include a link to your profile page in your email to her.

8. What is the difference between a "follower" and a "friend"?

You can "friend" someone by clicking on the little heart icon next to their name, after which that commenter will show up on your profile as a friend. You will then show up as a "follower" on their profile.

9. Who do we email if we see a grammatical or factual mistake in a post?

You can email the post's author (bylines are visible to the right of any post) or you can send an email to the site's Managing Editor, Anna Holmes. All staff emails are linked to the staff names in the masthead in the column to the left on the main page. Getting mistakes corrected is much more likely if you email an editor(s) than if you put a note in the comments, as we do not have time to follow the comments on the site with any sort of regularity or thoroughness.

10. How do I add HTML tags to my comments, insert images, links or video?

See here and here.

11. What is the usual cutoff for submitting comments of the day?

The post containing the Best/Worst comments for the day goes up between 4:30 and 5:00pm EST every day; it is often written and scheduled long before then (by about 3:30pm) so it's important to send your nominations to Hortense (commenters@jezebel.com) by that time.

12. What is your editorial process? How many hours do you guys work and what is a normal workday like? Where do you work from?

This is a very involved, complex and difficult question but here's the short version: Editors rise and start working between 6-8am every day, and work for 8-10 hours while we are posting (we post from 9am to 7pm every day) and often after posting hours (when we are preparing posts for the next day; watching television for clips, dealing with technical issues; reading magazines, etc.). Most editors post 8-10 items a day and work at a breakneck pace with little or no rest.

For those interested in a more fleshed out description of A Day in the Life of a Jezebel editor, we are thinking about doing a post now and again in which an editor "liveblogs" her day as she works. Readers would then be able to refresh the post to see new entries and get a better understanding of what is going through her head, in her lips (most of us eat at our desks) and into her keyboard.

13. How do you decide what to post, and what not to post about?

Decisions about what is going up on the site - and in what order - on any given day are made by the Managing Editor Anna Holmes or, when she is off for the day, her deputy, Dodai Stewart. Decisions are made by weighing newsworthiness, personal preference/curiosity, reader request (often times the sheer number of tips about a story pushes us over the edge from "maybe we'll write about it" territory to "must write about it" territory), and the general mood of the editors that day. Sometimes posts are suggested by the editors and then discussed with/approved by Anna; sometimes Anna assigns out specific stories/topics due to her understanding of a particular editor's interests/strengths.

14. Where do you work? How do you communicate with one another?

99% of the time each editor is working from her apartment in New York City - we live in Washington D.C., Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan, and our contributors/interns reside in such locales as Iowa and New England - although sometimes we branch out and set up shop at an internet-enabled cafes or at the Gawker Media HQ in downtown Manhattan. We communicate mainly via instant message, although when the entire staff needs to discuss an issue, email is used. Phone calls are also common when IM proves too difficult a method in which to communicate a particular idea.

15. Who finds the stories that you use in posts?

The site's Managing Editor spends 50% of her time reading a very robust RSS feed - for those who do not know what RSS is, click here or here - that includes 1,500 different websites/blogs, refreshes itself every 30 minutes and then deposits 300-400 new stories she scans and, in some cases, puts aside for later. (When she wakes up in the morning there are usually, 3,000 stories she has to go through.) We also hear about interesting stories/come up with post ideas via tips from our readers (tips@jezebel.com). Editors also come up with ideas via their life experiences, what they're reading at the moment, and any other number or manner of ways.

16. Who is the woman in the Jezebel logo?

We don't know; the Jezebel avatar was "found" and then modified/designed by our site's designer, Patrick King; she probably came from a stock image source. We are interested in creating other avatars that would rotate from time to time and reflect our readership more broadly.

17. What happened to my favorite features (Fine Lines, Pot Psychology, Missdemeanors, etc.)

Due to the much-publicized budget cuts late last fall - and the souring economy - we simply do not have the money to pay contributors as well as we used to. Since some of these features can take many hours/days in order to put together, and staffers/contributors' time is better used on other things, some features have been put on hold indefinitely. We want them back as much as you do, believe us!

18. What are the rules for commenting?

Please see our posts on commenting for answers to this.

19. Why can't we be notified when someone responds to our comments?

The answer: Because this ability has not been created/enabled by our tech team yet. Please know that the tech team is planning on introducing this feature sometime in the next few months.

20. Do you have fun at what you do?

Yes and no. Sometimes we are feeling energetic and full of ideas and amusements; other days we are exhausted and grumpy… just like any other human being. The only difference between this sort of "blogging" job and working a more "regular" job is that there is a unrelenting nature to this that precludes us from taking lunch breaks, shopping excursions, errand running, etc. during the day. The adrenalin rush that comes from trying to stay on top of everything ("everything" = what's going on in the world, on the web, on the site itself) can be addicting but it is also incredibly exhausting. There is no "off" button at Jezebel but what makes it worthwhile are the connections made: There is no better salve for eye strain, carpal tunnel, and the brain rot/mental exhaustion that comes with this job than the sense of discovery, engagement, and humor among the editors and the readers.

*This post will be updated periodically as more questions - and answers - reveal themselves.

Earlier: Questions, Connections: How Stuff Works

In addition to addressing the ongoing issues concerning things like tips and tech issues, we'd like to provide a bit more of a guide as to how things work and answers to common questions — "why didn't you answer my email, assholes?". To that end, we encourage readers to send questions, answers to some of which we'll publish later this week in a FAQ post. Email your FAQ questions/suggestions to me at anna@jezebel.com.

(pieced together from a Gchat conversation, so humor us, thanks.)

Nawaz Sharif
MOE: So what about Nawaz Sharif? I never hear shit about him.
JOSH: He was corrupt and ineffective. He let Musharraf start the Kargil war under his nose, and he didn't know how to end it. He was almost as corrupt as Bhutto, and just kind of a dweeb
MOE: Why did they elect him anyway?
JOSH Because he was less corrupt than Bhutto, would be my guess. Well, he was PM first in 1990, then was thrown out when the President at the time dissolved the national assembly. Then the supreme court overruled the president, then Sharif resigned in a huff during the dispute and then Benazir Bhutto took over in 93. Then in 1997 Sharif came back into power by somehow winning 90% of a national election. So of course everyone was kvetching about it being super corrupt
MOE: Well who fixes an election for a non-incumbent no one really likes in the first place?
JOSH: Exactly. It created the conditions for Musharraf's takeover
MOE: Oh Musharraf IS crafty. But he didn't take over until later, yes?
JOSH: The big kicker was after Kargil, when Sharif prevented Musharraf's plane from landing, and he was then accused of hijacking it from afar or something...
MOE: Okay, let's explain Kargil. It's in the border territory of Kashmir, which is the whole reason India and Pakistan have nukes.

Kashmir
JOSH: Kargil is in Kashmir, which is a disputed border with India resulting from the 1947 partition. They've fought a good three wars over the exact demarcation line, and the "Line of Control" has become the defacto border since the last stalemate. The Kargil conflict was started when Pakistani militias crossed the Line of Control into what India considers its territory in May of 1999.
And it's worth noting, too, that many of the militants sent there were from the same groups that produce the Taliban since Pakistan officially supported the Pakistani madrassas that produced the Taliban because they made good zealous warriors for Kashmir.

It was a big deal because it was, I believe, the highest-altitude conflict ever, it was dumb strategically because the terrain made sound logistics impossible, and when both countries have nuclear weapons starting a war is just stupid, as in: Pakistan could never send enough troops for enough time to secure anything anyway, so it was a big break in protocol. Ever since the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war, both India and Pakistan had abandoned their forward posts during the horrible winter and re-occupied them in the spring. But Pakistan went back ahead of schedule and just seized Indian positions. This was accompanied by heaving shelling of settlements on the Indian side of the border. So no one knew for weeks what had happened on the Indian side.
MOE: And when they found out?
JOSH: Basically, the Indians responded by carpet bombing the entire line of control. Mortar fire, artillery, MiG bombs...and ridge by ridge the Indians got back the territory. Meanwhile the Pakistani army was covertly planning a nuclear strike on India, but Bill Clinton of all people found out and warned Sharif that the results would be tragic for Pakistan.
MOE: Nuke them over Kashmir???
JOSH: Imagine if we didn't have a defined border with Mexico
MOE: hahaahahahahaha
JOSH: and Mexico kept taking our territory, or claiming it wanted Southern California, and then sent bands of violent religious extremists to occupy border towns. We'd be pissed
MOE: Well it's a different problem to have, certainly. Borders cause problems for sure. But most of ours run along relatively flat land, right? Or water. can you blame the british for being like "You know those mountains? fuck figuring out where the border starts and ends up there. let them sort that out for themselves." Ha ha ha by which I mean yes you can blame them for that.
JOSH: Well, the British did put down a border, it's just that no one wanted it. See, the idea behind partition was that India is Hindu, and Pakistan is Muslim, and when the partition happened, there was a mass exodus on both sides of the border. But eastern Pakistan still has Hindus, and western India still has Muslims, and they're violent with each other. Only, Kashmir is almost entirely Muslim. So Pakistan thinks it should be a part of a Muslim nation
That partition really created more problems than it solved, didn't it.
JOSH: esp. considering the rolling waves of murderous pogroms both Hindus and Muslims have put on over the last few decades
sort of. They wouldn't really work as one country. But by leaving the border to them (since it was one political entity when the Brits pulled out), they never had a chance to resolve it, and because a major source of water for both countries flows from the area - the Indus river - neither has been willing to spend the resources for an all-out war of occupation.
JOSH: oh yeah, so after Pakistan lost Kargil, Nawaz Sharif was so angry at Musharraf for starting it that he recommended a court martial
MOE: Wait, so Musharraf STARTED the Kargil conflict?
JOSH: No one really knows. But it's likely, as he was army chief of staff at the time, I think. Lemme double check.

Other reasons they hate Musharraf
JOSH: But in either case, Kargil was an epic disaster, just like Operation Gibraltar in 1965 (which was a similarly failed attempt to seize indian territory), and highlighted some deep structural problems in Pakistani military planning and execution
MOE: Hmmmm. So is Musharraf hated in Kashmir? As much as he's hated by the people who live in the provinces bordering Afghanistan?
JOSH: yes, but for different reasons. They hate him in NWFP because he ignores them then sends in troops when they take matters into their own hands

JOSH: But the people in the northern and northeastern regions hate Musharraf for both the needless war, and for the absolute neglect. I mean, I reviewed a book a little while ago called Three Cups of Tea, about an American guy who is making friends with all sorts of crazies because he builds schools for Pakistani children while the government makes them sit outside and draw in the dirt (no joke)
JOSH: And musharraf is hated by lots of the Pakistani military for being so bad at strategy he lost a war he started with a superior force and the element of surprise

Karma?
MOE: So.... he's bad at military strategy, but a pro at power-consolidation strategy?
JOSH: that's probably a fair assessment
JOSH: more appropriately, he's a good administrator and a good politicker, but not a good general
MOE: so did Bhutto have her brother killed? is this just karma?
JOSH: I don't think so, if I remember he was killed in a gunfight with police
MOE: But that's why his son, her niece Fatima hates her so much, right? Because she thinks he was assassinated?
JOSH: Yes.
MOE: How do you say "oy" in Urdu?