I'm sorry to have to spell out what is probably obvious to most people, but it does seem that out of every group of a certain size, there will be one or two that just don't "get it." In the case of Blogcritics posters, the ratio seems to be one out of every 200 so far. Perhaps this post will help change that ratio for the better.
When a Blogcritics member posts something here, that member retains copyright over the content of the post. This is indicated in the copyright message that should be found at the bottom of every page. Those words belong to you, dear poster, and we will never sell them or drastically modify them beyond the normal editorial process of fixing spelling and egregious grammatical errors.
We do have an arrangement with another group of sites in which some product reviews from Blogcritics are cross-published there, but:
1. There is no money involved
2. Each post contains a link back to your original post, increasing traffic for you
3. If you do not want us to include your reviews, just send an email to ecolsen2003@cs.com and let Eric know.
So the member retains copyright of the content of the post, but that's it. Once you've posted something here, you have become a contributor to a great site. Currently there are a good bit over 400 contributors, and the number grows every month. On any particular month, a subset of that total number actually post, around 150 lately. Some people post more than others (Eric, Marty, etc), and some people post very rarely. All of that's fine. Posting every day doesn't give anyone any more status at Blogcritics than posting once each month. You can develop a following and a reputation and build traffic to your own site, but you still don't get to dictate terms for the other 400+ members.
In order to emphasize this point, I've made a few technical changes to the site. Individual posters are not allowed to delete posts or edit comments or disable comments or much else, frankly. However, just because I haven't yet disabled access to certain things on the site doesn't mean that you should necessarily have control over them. Perhaps, as has been the case with many of the changes I've made, it has simply never occurred to me that anybody would even think of doing "that," whatever "that" is.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
Thanks P, very helpful
2 - BB
I have seen many instances of comments being closed by writers and in fact that is how I found out about the option to begin with.
So here are my questions kind sir:
If there is an option for NO comments and the writer expressly states in his post that he or she does NOT want any comments, do you have the right to arbitrarily change that?
If so, would it not be considerate of you to at least discuss with the writer his or her reasons before considering taking any such action? Or would that be considered too much to ask?
3 - Tom Johnson
Don't want comments? Don't post. It's that simple. If you can't handle some disagreement, you're better off not posting it at all. This site isn't just about the reviews/rants, it's about the reaction to them and the interaction between commenters. What's the point of you posting something that no one can comment upon? That's a post that serves no point.
4 - Phillip Winn
BB, if you read this post at all, I think it was pretty clear. You retain copyright of the content, and nothing else. It isn't a question of whether "we" have rights, it's a question of what control each individual poster has over the audience of Blogcritics. As has been obvious to 99.5% of posters, no poster should expect to be able to make proclamations and shut off or delete responses. If you want to make proclamations without feedback, feel free to make them on your own blog, but not here.
As they have always been, comments are on by default and we don't turn them off. In fact, since you left, I've removed the option for anyone to turn them off, so it is no longer an issue. You quit, so you haven't seen this.
If there are posts on this site with comments disabled, I don't know of them (save one I disabled myself), but since you mention it, I'll run a search and check.
Other than that, kindly grow up or bugger off.
5 - BB
Tom, there is a difference between making a statement or opening up a post for discussion. This is a publishing mechanism not unlike paper. When you pick up a magazine you will find static news and commentary, or letters to the Editor. Only the latter is open for discussion. Why do you think MovableType has that option? Should it not to be up to the discretion of the writer which format he or she so chooses?
All things considered Phill I don't think this issue is as black and white as you would suggest. Wouldn't it have been prudent for you to show a little more tact rather than ignore me or attempt to hide the truth that only served to fan the flames?
6 - Phillip Winn
For the record, I just checked, and there were exactly thirteen posts with comments either off or closed: Jan Herman's bio was one, and I did that on purpose. Two others were created while I was in the process of tweaking things to disable the option, so that's probably my fault, and one of those is as yet unpublished. I fixed them both. That left ten posts where the comments were marked "closed." 10 out of 12824!
One of those was BB's petulant Dear John letter, one was the Ja Rule post which was closed by Eric, and then comes another post by BB, from the last time he acted out. Then there was a post of my own that was obviously done in error, so I fixed that. Then there were another five posts, all of which were marked closed, and none of them obviously so. That is, there is no indication that it was anything other than an accident, so I have corrected them.
For now, we've gone from thirteen down to three, and over time those might easily find themselves open to receiving comments again someday, too. It's like anybody other than you-know-who will remember any of this a month from now.
7 - Phillip Winn
It just occurred to me why most of those posts have comments disabled - before recent upgrades to MovableType provided for better spam-protection, I believe Eric would identify heavily-spammed posts and close comments on them. Of course, that's no longer so much of an issue, since it is both slightly harder and much less profitable to post spammy comments here.
8 - Phillip Winn
As an example of the sort of things Eric and I might do that posters can expect, occasionally we will disable comments on a post to allow people who should know better some time to cool down, maybe have a beer or a glass of wine, and relax. As Eric mentioned on another post, we tend to re-enable comments on those eventually, once we think a reasonable amount of time has passed.
Gosh, I'm really tired of having to explain to all the children that they can't touch everything they see! Fortunately the youngest of my own real-life children is three, so he knows better now. <grin>
9 - BB
Your records are in error and I will see what I can dig up. In the mean I will appreciate that you cease from making "petulant" comments and provide a reasonable response to my questions above. And, above all.. peace bro :-)
10 - Tom Johnson
BB, it's really selfish and self-important to assume that you can come to a site like Blogcritics, which is a community and built upon interaction, and demand that you be given a soapbox with no ability for others to criticize (or even offer their support.) A post like that serves no one but yourself, and it gives far too much power to the individual contributors. Why should you need this site to make a statement like that? Why would you care if anyone commented or not? If you don't like what people are saying, your choice is to either ignore the comments or leave, if you can't handle it. You've chosen the latter. Let it go - it's over and done with. Move on. You're making a huge deal out of nothing - in a week no one is going to care about this.
11 - Tom Johnson
Phillip, are you aware that comments are not available on most of the newest posts right now? Check Mark Saleski's Craig Taborn review, I know that one's definitely not working, and the video and etc. top-posts are not commentable either.
12 - Phillip Winn
So much for my l33t haxx0r s3i11z. Or my ability to read the word "hidden" for that matter! Shoudl be fixed for new posts, will now go fix the ones that are set incorrectly. Sorry about that.
13 - BB
Tom it is not a matter of being "selfish" or "self-important". It is a matter of how much control should a writer have over his or her post, freedom of speech, expression and how a publishing mechanism should or should not work. I am merely posing the questions. Have you ever been an editor or published on paper? I have and it is all a matter of negotiation and interpretation. Since the issue has come up it deserves a precise and reasonable response (comment #5) from those who reserve the right to 'edit' so there will be no misunderstanding.
14 - Phillip Winn
Tom, thanks for the heads up. Seven posts managed to escape while my buggy template was in place, but I think I've got it now, and all of those have been fixed.
This time I even - gasp! - tested it!
15 - Phillip Winn
BB, I think all of the current members of Blogcritics who have read this post understand exactly what they can expect. New members will be sent a subset of the post above as well. I'm hoping that means we can get past 600 members before we have another incident like we had around 200 and 400. Thanks, and have a nice day.
16 - BB
No sir I beg to differ. We haven't heard from all Blogcritics, only the outspoken few that can't get beyond a sentence without resorting to stupid expletives.
Obviously you don't have the courage to answer my questions which in itself speaks volumes.
17 - Tom Johnson
Phillip and Eric don't need to answer your question, BB. It's their site. If you don't like how it's handled you can go elsewhere. Personally, if I'm given the privelege of posting on their site, I'm going to bow to their demands. I'm happy having the ability to offer my thoughts to thousands of readers a day. Beyond that, I really don't care, as long as my original writing isn't mangled or misrepresented. And that is really all that matters. You're acting like there's a great conspiracy here, when, in fact, what you have is tremendous freedom. With that freedom comes a price - and that is having your writing open to comments. Big deal.
18 - BB
Tom I can appreciate the fact it is their site. If you feel so fortunate as to bury your head in the sand that is your privilege.:-)
But it is also your words, mine or anybody else that posts here and that accounts for something does it not? Amongst other things they have pledged non-interference and impartiality and there are unfortunately inconsistencies.
All that I have requested is clarification in comment #5 that are issues ALL writers have a right to know. They are reasonable questions and deserve a reasonable response.
19 - Phillip Winn
Wow, BB, I didn't think you were quite that stupid, but I'll type really, really slowly so that you can understand the answers to your questions, okay?
Why do you think MovableType has that option? MovableType is "personal publishing software" that is used in many different ways by many different people. On some sites, no posts ever allow comments. On other sites, some do and some don't. Even on this site, Eric or I might occasionally close comments on a post to let things cool down, as I suggested earlier, or because a post isn't even being used as a post but as a bio, as I also suggested earlier. MovableType wasn't designed specifically just for us, and so the available features don't mean anything. Does the availability of a huge number of categories mean that you can pick any one of them and still end up with your post on the front page? No, they simply mean that this software isn't quite perfect for our needs, that's all. As I've already mentioned, I have modified the software so that option no longer appears, so this isn't even an issue any more. Golly, it seems I've already answered all of this, and now I'm quoting myself. I suppose it is convenient to have it all in one place so you don't have to bother reading, though.
Should it not to be up to the discretion of the writer which format he or she so chooses? No, it shouldn't, for all of the reasons and with all of the considerations I've already spelled out. You don't "own" the post or Blogcritics.org itself. For a while, you were one of 430+ contributors, and now you're not. That's all.
Wouldn't it have been prudent for you to show a little more tact rather than ignore me or attempt to hide the truth that only served to fan the flames? I neither ignored you nor hid anything, and the only fanning of flames that has happened has been a result of your multiple raving posts about a (former-)fellow Blogcritic. It would have been prudent of me to do... well, pretty much exactly what Eric did, removing your posting ability the moment you quit. Out of (I think) 600 past and present Blogcritics, only you and two other people have ever shown any confusion about the "ownership" of posts around here, and they both left the site as well, though came back and has abided by the policy ever since. It comes back to that 1:200 ratio that seems to be consistent so far. I'm hoping we can avoid it next time, and especially this boring old, "Hey, I saw a button, so I must have the divine right to use it and you must all live with the consequences" canard (paraphrased, of course).
Does that thoroughly answer your questions, BB? I get the feeling you won't keep your promise to go away until you're satisfied, so I'm working overtime to satisfy you.
20 - Jim Carruthers
BB, careful or you're going to put somebody's eye out with that. Look, you've already said you want to take your imaginary ball and go home to have mommy get you glass of orange drink. Fine.
But stop whining about it. The thing of doing a huff is that you are supposed to shout, stomp your little feet and THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!
The more you petulantly post, the more I think you are an absolute tool.
You probably encourage your dog to shit on your neighbour's lawn.
21 - BB
Carruthers perhaps you should learn a few more words than "tool", fuck... Is that the "professionalism" Eric keeps talking about? Maybe Eric will loan you his thesaurus. If you don't like it then change the channel fool.
Phillip "WOW", perhaps you are as "stupid" as you appear to be. It's unfortunate you took so long to finally spell it out for us pea-ons, albeit grudgingly. Thank you, thank you and thank you.
Next time read the entire thread bro. This is not just about software but integrity, honesty and such. I sent you several emails yesterday that you conveniently ignored when this all started. Shall I publish them for ya pal? Have you banned me yet?
22 - Phillip Winn
BB, I've answered the questions in comment 5, even though I had already answered all of them before. I've read every inane and immature comment you've written, and I've spelled everything out so many times that other Blogcritics are starting to quote me and answer you themselves. Everybody gets it but you, okay? Have a drink, take a nap, and come back tomorrow, or don't.
You can publish whatever you want — you wrote them — wherever you want, but not here.
I will not ban you unless you violate the comment policy, and you have not done that yet. Nor have I threatened to ban you, so you question is a non sequitir.
You want to talk about integrity and honesty? Try this: you promised to leave, why haven't you? You said that all you wanted were answers to your questions, and I've given them to you, so why are you still whining? What is your problem now?
Anybody (other than BB) who read my post at the top of this page and didn't already know the answer to BB's questions before he even asked them, please speak up. Did anybody find my answers in comment #19 surprising, or did they sound like copy-and-pasts from other comments I had already made?
23 - Jim Carruthers
Good, steadfast, simple, solid Anglo-Saxon words have always been my foundation. And upon that rock I will, well, rock.
So it's good to know you do encourage your dog to shit on your neighbour's lawn. And probably steal his newspaper and Girl Scout cookies, too, since there is nothing too low for a lawyer.
24 - BB
Golly Winn, BUT we legal types are sticklers for details. Sorry if that bugs you. A word to the wise. Be up front at the beginning. And next time respond to your emails in a more timely fashion, especially when you're screwing us around.
And when you (and Eric) respond be sure to get your facts straight the first time. Contradicting yourself doesn't help for credibility. As for immaturity, look in the mirror pally. Have a great day and see you around. :-)
25 - Phillip Winn
Here's a detail: You said you weren't coming back, and you won't stop coming back. Here's another: The only damages anybody has done to anybody else is you to yourself. Every comment you post makes you look more and more immature, as I'm sure you'll recognize in another week when you're the only one revisiting these posts to see if anybody has noticed you're gone. Bug me? Sticklers for detail don't bug me. When people pretend to be incapable of understanding plain and simple English, that bugs me. When you can read the post on this page and still ask questions that are clearly addressed within the post after that, that bugs me. That you're such a smart feller but insist on wasting my time rather than reading already-available information bugs me. But sticklers for detail? Ha!
No, I have not responded to your emails, nor do I see any reason to. You had already been told by Eric that comments would not be deleted, and they will not be no matter how many times you demand it. Sending me and email after Eric has already said no doesn't mean I am obligated or even inclined to answer you in any way. Here's another detail: I don't have to answer any emails of yours, ever, if I don't want to.
My facts have been straight since day one, it is your decisions that change with the shifting wind. You quit, Eric disabled your posting ability, and there is no problem and no contradiction. You called Eric a "hypocrite" because of this, but it seems pretty common sense to me. Did you expect to post about quitting and then go on posting and posting? Was it a bluff that we took seriously, perhaps? Were you hoping for an outpouring of people begging you to stay? Oops! I know, I know, you never intended to even come back once, and yet here you are, with 20 (!) comments since that post.
You read the same comment everyone else did, and you alone thought you saw things Eric didn't say. Stickler for detail? You have consistently jumped to false conclusions, made accusations that were simply untrue (I'm waiting for the list of posts that didn't allow comments.), and continued to go on and on long after everybody else has made it clear that your dramatic death scene has gone on too long. Has anybody stuck up for you? Has anybody suggested that they, too, felt that they had the right to delete other people's comments as you've demanded that we do? Has anybody begged you to come back? No.
I suspect you're a last word freak. Your departing post is prime evidence of that. So I'll give you the last word. From now on, as long you don't ask any questions, your summation can stand on its own. As long as you continue to ask questions, I'll continue to answer them. I certainly don't want you feel as if you've been ignored!