Earlier this week we launched a survey to gain the views of Island Echo readers and, as a result, some immediate changes have been made to the comments section of the website.
Last year we introduced a brand new comments system allowing readers to engage in discussion on individual articles. This has proven to be hugely popular with over 11,000 comments made to date.
Feedback received suggests that whilst the comments section is appreciated, moderation could be improved. As an independent, locally-owned news service we can quickly react to suggestions and changes to the local market.
From today you will notice a ‘flag’ icon next to each comment. Clicking this will allow you to report a comment to the moderation team by indicating why it should be removed. In addition, ‘down voting’ a comment will, at a certain level, trigger an automatic removal of the comment. We also now have the ability to blacklist users.
Away from the moderation, we have also introduced an online/offline status indicator for each guest and heightened security to prevent spam posts.
Other feedback received in our survey will be acted upon in due course as we continue to improve our news service for Islanders.
This is great news. Some people have such horrible views about things.
Snowflake!
down voting a comment does not make it wrong – everyone is entitled to have their voice heard, when forums like these are enabled. The island echo should not be “censoring” by down votes as it is open to manipulation.
By removing posts based on dislikes you are skewing the opinion of the board to the likes only – this is not balanced, nor is it fair.
Island Echo – please remove the idea of automatically removing posts based on dislikes.
I like to read the opinions of those I disagree with – it makes the board a more truer representative of the readers opinions.
100% agree none given
none given…I totally agree,couldn’t have put it better,only thing I will add is I will stop visiting Island Echo if this goes ahead,perhaps Island Echo should read a quote attributed to Voltaire “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
Thanks for the feedback. We will review this moving forward – there are a few options open to us.
@Island Echo – thanks for taking the comments on board
I agree with you, ‘none given’. Down votes can indicate no more than one political point of view having more supporters than another. Or there may be a predominance of those who have strong views on social diversity, who will down-arrow a different point of view. It can be a matter of Free Speech, and it can’t be right for people to be removed simply because their views are disapproved of. I’d say, leave it to the new ‘flag’ button, and then an impartial moderator decides whether it is a case of Free Speech or Hate Speech, for example, regardless of the number of down-arrows. Otherwise it could get very cliquey here.
thanks to all that have commented on my view
Treesa- i agree, if someones post is extremely offensive, then flagging it up, using the flag button, is the most appropriate method of having a post reviewed again by the Island Echo team.
I think this was a planned thing to roll this out by Island Echo anyway,under the pretense that it is wanted by persons answering a survey, and also whats this thing saying your off or online whats that got to do with anything relating to commenting
ISLAND ECHO ADMIN:
IMO easier to just allow people to filter those who ‘seemingly’ offend the ‘delicate’ then those who like to hear others controversial views still can, and those that don’t aren’t spoiling such for others.
If not,this forum will become too sterile. Yes some posters are just nasty for the sake of it, but most, myself included ALWAYS back up my views with valid points when discussing anything contentious. You edit posts anyway, so no problem.
Too many boring people just want to hear something nice, not the truth if painful. That is why the world is in such a mess now, as no-one dare say anything too earthy incase someone gets upset, even if it is true, Yet the snowflakes are in a huge but vocal minority as we see when people voted for Boris, and in the state the Great President Trump, whose characters were known before they were voted in, as the vast majority are sick to death of this curtailment of freedom of speech and people beating about the bush, and not saying how things really are.
Alex Dyke was great and popular on the I.W radio, but the weak snowflakes never liked him for his strong topics and views.
IF strong views because the weak, pathetic few don’t ‘like’ it, you will loose a lot of customers, me included.
I agree that posts shouldn’t be censored just because of what other people think of them,.. (other than truely unacceptable content [extreme language or ‘ism’s & phobics])
However re. “Alex Dyke was great and popular on the I.W radio”,.. popular, yes, great,.. definitely not. Alex (the) Dyke was deliberately controversial to stir things up, just to gain ratings
He was also (despite claiming to be an advocate against it) a bully,..(and a nasty one too,.. I know, I was on the receiving end when I was at school with him!)
Daemy, you likely know, I have strong views, but to me it is ‘wrong’ to name individuals and then accuse them of something online, when we only have your word against them.
I am not saying you are wrong or right, but, not right for a poster to name an individual an accuse of something, as, clearly that could be a case of bullying the accused, if one had a grievance for ‘other reasons’.
Yet I would not want you banned, removed, or flagged, as we are all grown up enough to ‘discuss’ issues, not push the away, where that individual still ‘has’ the views, but they then are never ‘corrected’.
As I say, a ‘filter’ button would be the way to go, as posters who do not like the ‘tone’ the content of certain posters could then filter to never ever again ‘have’ to read their comments.
Others who are stronger or wish to ‘educate’ that offensive poster could still do so freely.
Simple, fair and likely for such reasons will NOT be implemented.
IF NOT WHY NOT?
“but to me it is ‘wrong’ to name individuals and then accuse them of something online”
is there any difference between you naming someone & claiming “…was great and popular on the I.W radio, but the weak snowflakes never liked him for his strong topics and views.”
& me claiming the opposite ?
both are equally unprovable in this context, and potententialy equally as offensive.
What does the red and green dots mean after the person name ?
Jenny I think it shows if they are gay or straight.
Just joshing, before such too is banned.
It shows if they are currently on green, or offline red.
Why we ‘need’ to know that, I don’t know.
Add a filter button would be all that is needed now, (which means you can filter, block,any poster YOU want, NOT have a perhaps ‘biased admin’ do such en masse instead.
I agree with those saying it’s a bad idea to have the public ‘censoring’ posts they don’t like – if you do that, two phrases spring to mind – ‘mob rule’ and ‘lunatics taking over the asylum’. If you’re going to have an open forum on a website like this then it needs to be moderated by the website. If you don’t have the resources to do that then maybe there shouldn’t be a public forum.
forgot to add – posts should be removed if they are offensive and/or abusive – not because the view put forward is unpopular (I’m sure when people started to suggest that slavery was wrong their views were stifled…)