.png)
.png)
Perhaps you could help settle an argument I’ve been having with Taxation’s online editor for quite a while. It concerns the comments system on this website. He says we ought to allow all users to post remarks, while I reckon that only subscribers should have the privilege (as is the case now).
Neither side will give quarter in this increasingly barbarous dispute – which can’t even be solved by fisticuffs given that my opponent and I are one and the same person.
So, we turn to you, the reader, for suggestions on how to proceed. Currently, only visitors with paid-for logins can become involved in commenting on Taxation.co.uk. Indeed, non-subscribers can’t even see users’ contributions. This aspect is the one on which my divided mind can agree: everyone should at least be able to read the comments.
But who should leave them? There are sound opinions on either side…
A comment free-for-all can lead to a world of hurt, especially if users are not required to identify themselves. It can create the potential for floods of material that site administrators have to moderate – either pre-posting or retrospectively – and it can lead to submissions that are irrelevant, nonsensical or even highly offensive. (See, for example, the cowardly filth posted by some Mail Online readers, none of whom are required to use their real name.)
Such a set-up does, however, present some advantages, the first of which is the same as the first drawback: input. An open comments section creates the likelihood of a greater number of submissions, which can be a pain (see above) but it also leads to greater, and frequently interesting, interaction between readers, adding value to the site.
This site needs more user-generated content. Last year, Taxation.co.uk offered a monthly prize for the best comment. The hope had been that the lure of a bottle of vintage Champagne in a presentation box would be great enough to encourage subscribers to be more forthcoming with their views. After several months, we dropped the matter, not because we weren’t getting enough comments but because we weren’t getting enough to make a strong contest.
Perhaps the reason for the apparent lack of interest was the one we’ve often joked about in the office: our readers are just too darn busy to be spouting off on websites. I’m not sure that’s entirely true, though. The explanation is more likely a combination of factors that include time restraints, lack of awareness of this site (you’d be surprised how often people express surprise that Taxation is online), not knowing/remembering login details (for a reminder of yours, email additionalusers@lexisnexis.co.uk) and a sort of e-shyness that prevents individuals from expressing opinions for the world to judge.
Then there’s the matter of professional standing. Some web users hesitate to get involved because they don’t wish to express views that might be at odds with those of their employer and/or clients – which is where the argument in favour of anonymous posting stands up.
And the argument against: accountability. If users are required to provide their real names they will be more civil to one another and be less keen to post the sort of loathsome drivel that came anonymously in response to, say, the sexual assault in Egypt on CBS reporter Lara Logan.
At least, that’s the idea. Another way of thinking is that some people are just horrid, and don’t mind their manners no matter what moniker they are posting under, making transparency a moot point. That’s not a problem under Taxation.co.uk’s current system; subscribers are always polite to everyone – and were we to open up our comments set-up, we would apply our moderation policy vigorously.
That said, abusive and irrelevant contributions would be less of a concern than those that lack rigour; with our subscribers all being tax experts, we can be confident that comments will be evidence of technical nous – something that the average punter is lacking.
It would be churlish of us, however, to censor someone for not being a chartered tax adviser – but we don’t want our news stories (for it would be only they that would be open to all visitors) to be accompanied by multiple variations of the crass “I blame the government”.
An intelligent perspective from a non-pro would be refreshing, though, and, as I said before, it would add extra value to the site. Also – and this is entirely selfish from our point of view – Taxation.co.uk’s search optimisation would be significantly improved.
You can understand now how this disagreement between me and myself won’t be easily resolved. I’d appreciate readers’ views on the matter, although given the aforementioned reluctance by some people to comment…
