According to a story in today’s New York Times, more news organizations are moving away—or considering moving away—from the practice of allowing hidden-identity “commentary” on their websites.
Implications: I, for one, have been paying much less attention to the comment section of my local newspaper, as it fails to create the healthy debate and public dialogue one might hope for in such a space. (Perhaps this is an unfair opinion, but it seems to me that the commentary page is frequently taken-over by small groups of people who use the space to argue amongst themselves—even argue with each other—or engage in the sometimes rude practice of commenting on other comments, rather than the story itself.)
Perhaps by requiring people to take public credit for their opinions—or by giving a higher profile to contributors that do—these websites can thin the rhetoric a bit… and lead to a more thoughtful, relevant exchange. But perhaps the move could also make people with a legitimate opinion reluctant to join the conversation. (And who decides what is or is not a relevant opinion?)
Does your company allow or even encourage customers to leave comments about their experience with your products or services? Are consumers allowed to leave their remarks anonymously? Are those which are signed/identified given more credence than remarks offered anonymously? Comments can be a valuable way of gauging customer sentiment and improving your service or product line, or the overall purchase experience.
Mike Anderson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment