Toward a more thoughtful conversation on stories

September 27, 2010

Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.

I’ve become increasingly concerned about the quality of discourse in comments on news stories on and on other major news sites.  On some stories,  the “conversation”  has been little more than  partisans slinging invective at each other under  the cloak of anonymity.

I believe our time-challenged, professional readers want to see a more rewarding conversation—and my colleagues who lead are introducing a new process for comments that I believe will help bring that about.

The new process, which gives special status to readers whose comments have passed muster in the past, won’t address the anonymity issue, but I do think it is an important step toward a more civil and thoughtful conversation.

Let me introduce Richard Baum, Reuters Global Editor for Consumer Media, to tell you about the new process:


Like many major news publishers, we’ve agonized over how to balance our enthusiasm for reader comments on stories with our belief that few people would benefit from a free-for-all. Most of our readers respect our request for comments that “advance the story,” by submitting relevant anecdotes, links and data or by challenging our reporting when they think we’ve fallen short of our editorial standards. It’s rewarding, sometimes even exhilarating, to see the way our audience builds on our coverage.

Where we struggle is with comments that we believe contribute nothing useful to the conversation. I’m not talking about obscenities and spam — we have software that aims to block the publication of those — but something more subjective. Most of our readers are business professionals who value their time highly. We believe they want comments that are as rewarding to read as they are to write. The challenge is how we deliver that experience in a way that doesn’t delay the publication of good comments nor use up resources that might be better deployed on other parts of the site.

I’ll explain how we’re tackling that shortly. But first, here are some examples of the type of comments that fall foul of our moderators:
– racism and other hate language that isn’t caught by our software filters
– obscene words with letters substituted to get around the software filters
– semi-literate spelling; we’re not looking for perfection, but people shouldn’t have to struggle to determine the meaning
– uncivil behavior towards other commentators; debate is welcome, schoolyard taunts are not
– incitement to violence
– comments that have nothing to do with the story
– comments that have been pasted across multiple stories
– comments that are unusually long, unless they’re very well written
– excessive use of capital letters

Some of the guidelines for our moderators are hard to define precisely. Mocking of public people can be fair sport, for example, but a moderator that has just approved 30 comments calling someone an idiot can rightly decide that there’s little incremental value in publishing the 31st. When we block comments of this nature, it’s because of issues of repetition, taste or legal risk, not political bias.

Until recently, our moderation process involved editors going through a basket of all incoming comments, publishing the ones that met our standards and blocking the others. (It’s a binary decision: we don’t have the resources to edit comments.)

This was unsatisfactory because it delayed the publication of good comments, especially overnight and at weekends when our staffing is lighter.

Our new process grants a kind of VIP status on people who have had comments approved previously. When you register to comment on, our moderation software tags you as a new user. Your comments go through the same moderation process as before, but every time we approve a comment, you score a point.

Once you’ve reached a certain number of points, you become a recognized user. Congratulations: your comments will be published instantly from now on. Our editors will still review your comments after they’ve been published and will remove them if they don’t meet our standards. When that happens, you’ll lose points. Lose enough points and you’ll revert to new user status.

The highest scoring commentators will be classified as expert users, earning additional privileges that we’ll implement in future. You can see approval statistics for each reader on public profile pages like this, accessed by clicking on the name next to a comment.

It’s not a perfect system, but we believe it’s a foundation for facilitating a civil and rewarding discussion that’s open to the widest range of people. Let me know what you think.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

As an odd note, it seems somewhat strange that i’m able to reply to some stories, or articles, but some i’m not able to.
Is there some reason for this?

Posted by Laster | Report as abusive

I have to say that I am in total agreement with this policy, and it is a shame that other leading news agencies have not adopted similar methods. I am a firm proponent of the right to free speech, however as a privately owned and operated website, I do not agree that this policy in any ways violates this most sacred of natural human rights, any more than the opinion and editorial sections of a broadsheet do.
More than anything I believe that such a policy will empower regular users, by encouraging them to give adequate thought and care in composing their comments.
The internet is littered with news sites and articles with scores of meaningless comments, it will not hurt to have one with slightly fewer.

Posted by scoult | Report as abusive

LOL “Fast Bill”…

We it’s supposed to be an issue of being civil, but it’s likely not. The people posting on this thread are probably writing civil posts.

Also, you say it’s an issue of whether the comments have any value…..

Apparently you haven’t had any posts rejected. Are you actually reading the excellent points these posters are making, in a very civil way? What makes you think that these unhappy readers opinions were ever given in a way that is unsavory? Opinion shouldn’t be open to censorship.

Posted by ChalupaHell | Report as abusive

I really don´t agree with the current policy on this website. It seams like 50% of my comments are blocked from being posted, and these comments are only in disagreement with mainstream media´s opinion on any given current issue. If I comment about something that is political incorrect or is in strong disagreement with an article my comment is usually blocked from being posted.

Posted by BEANSnGRAVY | Report as abusive

Moderator – please read last sentance thanks
Does Reuters know that its own website has a really clunky feature – when you log in, you need a screen name, and there is no inline correction – it isn’t untill after you type in a name that the program tells you no special characters (without telling you that a space is a special character)
glad to see that Reuters, which bills itself as an information technology company, is in the 1990s when it comes to its own blog software…
Not only that, there is no “contact the webmaster” link, which is where this comment should have gone

Posted by joeenuf | Report as abusive

One thing I like about Reuters, is it seems they are relatively honest, and they enjoy keeping the peace.

Posted by flylikeaneagle | Report as abusive

How do you know when your comment is no longer “pending approval” and has been posted?

Posted by CloudyNuageux | Report as abusive

Is there a way to see the Twitter feeds on the comment page? Or must you join Twitter to see them? I can’t do that from my work computer, and I usually read at lunch.

Posted by starleaf | Report as abusive

It’s Reuters site – they’re free to run it however they want. It’s designed by Reuters for a specific audience, as they point out. It’s a private site, not a public service. If you fail to contribute to enhancing the site, Reuters has every right to cut you off. You’re free to create your own site where you can say whatever you want. I don’t see why I should have my time wasted by having to read lies, nonsense, prejudice, name calling and interminable boring repetitions of the same diatribe. You’re free to exercise your freedom of speech whereever else you find someone willing to hand you a megaphone and where there is an audience interested in hearing what you have to say. At Twitter, you’re free to say whatever you want to whoever is willing to listen.

Posted by WhooHoo | Report as abusive

People constantly throw out that word “biased.” I am certain it’s used way entirely too much. Now that’s my opinion…Even if it’s biased.

Posted by notyouinhere | Report as abusive

I’m fairly certain that adding a feature to ‘ignore all’ by a given user (cookie controlled) would allow users to censor comments themselves. Some people enjoy thought-provoking discussion, or even a little witty reparte, while others don’t like to read comments that disagree with their own ideas.

Allowing users more control of this process would take the pressure reuters seems to feel in trying to keep a civil discourse.

Posted by Kad | Report as abusive

This points “system” is clearly designed to favor those who support Reuters and their biased reporting. Be favorable, and you’ll get a point. Criticize, and there’s no points for you. Of late, Reuters reporting on the economy, and particularly on unemployment issues, has been clearly biased and factually incorrect. And, the articles have suspiciously appeared when the market is faltering. But any attempts to point this out have been quashed by corporate censors. Honest critique exposes these issues for open discussion, but Reuters does not allow this. Oops, I did it again – Dang, am I ever going to earn any points?

Posted by Last13Weeks | Report as abusive

This is rational makes tremendous sense. It is also recognized that publications and media from companies such a reuters is not obligated to publish things they don’t approve of. They are not government, they are private businesses. However, I do worry that with the power of the press, if comments by the average person are filtered, then the average joe will get a false reading on the ‘pulse’ of the community. During times of frustration and concern, are we limited to posting fliers at the town square? What obligation does the press have to allow the common voice when it is possible? Should everything, including comments, be reviewed for marketing and branding purposes? Who does the press represent? The press? The people? The Advertisers? It’s paying (direct & indirect) customers? Also, would you see these rules being applied differently during times of plenty when everyone is satisfied than during times of strife where people need to be heard and tough discourse need to be permitted? As I said, these rules are rational and sensical. Perhaps these comment sections are truly the wrong place to express opinions, I’ll buy that. And perhaps we need to find better methods to communicate with each other. But in this world of media soundbites, what are they?

Posted by SeaWa | Report as abusive

It is Reuters site. And they can do as they choose. However, as the “Press”, they have moral and ethical obligations to the community in which they serve. Yes, they serve. This should be true for the other news agencies as well. Frankly, I haven’t seen a problem, Reuters appears to be doing a good job.

Posted by SeaWa | Report as abusive

Virtually every author believes that their latest peace (sic) offering is the most important piece of wisdom needed to complete the puzzle. Likewise every editor has a moral responsibility to their readers and fudiciary obligations to the publication.
No one likes being rejected but unlike Last13Weeks I am not so naive as to blame honest people for having an opinion. Considering the large volume of blogs and venues plus the almost infinite number of channels available publishing a good piece is not a problem. Getting folks to read past the fold is.
So I support the points system with two minor changes.

1) an automated email reply containing a permalink to the article and a copy of the “proposed comment.” That way the poster would “know” it at least hit the desk;


2) notification of it acceptance or the reasons for rejection. It is understood that editorial comments would create an excessive workload but simply numbering the list shown above having the moderator hitting the buzzer for each offense – kinda like they do on America/Britain’s Got talent!

Posted by GLsword | Report as abusive

Well…The justification for censorship is just delightful…NOT. Then if one wants to read trash where does one go?
The problem that Reuters is facing is the understanding that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
If I want to read trash then I have many different venues on the Internet to read from. I understand that the editorial staff of Reuters is attempting to exude the treasure from the trash and publish “worthy” comments. But just who is to judge what is trash and what is treasure? In the final analysis it is the reader who determines if the product is trash or treasure.
If the reader is not the one to do the final analysis then all Reuters is doing is publishing that which is agreeable to the editorial staff of Reuters. That does not give justice, it does not lend to a full and accurate pulse of the reading public.

Posted by trippintom | Report as abusive

This article fails to provide: 1) any timeline for when decisions will be made regarding comments and 2) any information about whether Reuters will contact the commenter with their decision.

Posted by Carlottamg | Report as abusive

so we have to agree with the editor? or we get the boot? yep sounds like censorship to me an to think i came here because i didn’t like bloomberg.

Posted by RDH | Report as abusive

censorship is the first step toward the ignorance. If editor is not after comments on his or her story then the comments box should be removed.
A true journalist should not be afraid if some people do object to his or her story, and an honest editor should honestly only edit parts which are not written with a respect toward other’s belief.
Other wise the whole thing becomes like other extreme opinionated media outlet pages where you are allowed to write a bunch of stuff and expect no response.
so you can finally agree to pad yourself on the back. see no one disagreed.!! Hurray good thinking.

Posted by Falkon110 | Report as abusive

Are you really at legal risk for what commenters say?

This all sounds well-and-good, provided that my own thoughtful invective isn’t hushed over.

Posted by stat_arb | Report as abusive

The ability to up-vote comments would be helpful. I feel like I haven’t left my mark if I can’t up-vote a good comment — especially if it disagrees with an opinion piece.

Posted by stat_arb | Report as abusive

I thought Reuters freedom from bias and impartiality are the wave crests which other media organisations aspire to ride on, clearly there’s been a huge splash in the seas of objectiveness and those traits that Churchill and the Reuters’ trust firmly established during the world war, have now sunk with titanic effect. Is there any difference between what Reuters allows in terms of user comments againt what say, News corp. allows? Both have agendas which they wish to re-affirm through user comments

Posted by jase_prasad | Report as abusive

Finding an algorithm based application that screens sales tactics, profanities, name calling and disconnected matter but lets the rest (including typos) fly is almost impossible. Here’s an somewhat amusing example from another blog expressing a previous frustrating experience with a Google-based software based screening app.(even as smartly written as most Googles apps are):
“Please be careful about the language context, especially if you’re doing i18n. I once tried to set up a Google Group for the course I was giving called “Sanal ortamda görselleĹźtirme” which is turkish for “Visualization in virtual media”. Google was stupid enough to reject it because the title contained the word “anal”. Sanal[tr]=Virtual[en] and Google shamelessly accused me of profanity! :D Please don’t let weird things like this happen. – edgerunner Sep 19 ’10 at 12:05″
I suggest simply allowing other blog members to report offensive posts in the same fashion craigslist does.It works for the most part. Cheers!

Posted by pantognoni | Report as abusive

Wow! So much for America being a free country! Communism at it’s best

Posted by Jackiethek | Report as abusive

What ever happened to free speech? Your control on comments is only a veiled attempt to hide the real truths, and limit free speech. One would think the media would understand the importance of free speech, but it appears YOU only want free speech for the press. If you don’t like the heat then get out of the kitchen. Translation…if you can’t tell the truth in the news then stop doing it.

Posted by KJinAZ | Report as abusive

If you are paying humans to perform this activity I think you need to rethink your technology strategy or just stop allowing comment on your stories. The main point of allowing comment is to get reader loyalty, however, the reality of online interaction does not fit that model. You cannot shape public discourse, merely record it shut it off. Your policy seems to be trying to enforce a little bit of both while allowing views that agree with whomever is censoring the material to bleed through. The result will be a stilted form of news reporting and your reputation will eventually become connected to that practice.

Posted by Bagwa | Report as abusive

Dean Wright wrote, “Visitors to this space may recall that I wrote this summer about the issues Reuters and other news organizations face in dealing with reader comments on stories.” You began your summer article argument with the issue of not knowing the name of the those posting. Why do you care? Your registration does not even recommend this and commonly rejects it. There is so much technology and community participant censorship you don’t need to treat this like we’re living in 1984.

In your summer article you reinforced your antiquated know the name concern with, “Print newspapers and magazines only publish signed letters to the editor and almost all verify the sender’s identity before publication.” Really? . . . Print newspapers and magazines. This is the Internet.

I say censorship, restriction, and moderator bias. You say “. . . open to the widest range of people.” With your policy, it is not.

Posted by Riverview98 | Report as abusive

If your readers are reading comments, it’s stands to reason they have the time to do so. Your “saving our readers time” argument is obviously bogus. I understand not wanting to publish the comments of trolls, but it would be more honest to say, “we won’t publish highly abusive or irrelevant comments.”

As for comments that may be submitted word for word to multiple articles. Before blowing them off as spam, you should consider that they may be relevant to more than one article. For instance, a comment regarding Rick Perry’s fitness for POTUS may be relevant in virtually any article that involves Republican candidates for President. Readers are smart. Chances are if they’ve read a comment before they’ll just skip it if they see it again. There’s no need for this censorship.

Posted by R.Henry | Report as abusive

How do I access approval statistics – particularly for my own posts? I can’t seem to get access to anything.

I do agree with some of the commentators here that there is a risk of Reuters refusing approval of comments that disagree with their bias.

Posted by ActionDan | Report as abusive

Perhaps a more fair system (rather than Reuters approving each comment) would be one that allows readers to rate the comments that are added to articles.

Posted by ActionDan | Report as abusive

I respectfully disagree with this policy. Part of a free press is to present all sides. If someone does go off-topic or is abusive i can see a warning, a suspension and then expulsion, but not fiat censorship.

Mr. Reuters would be displeased.

Posted by ComputerExpert | Report as abusive

I do not see a problem with Reuters’ policy. They are a private business and they are not forcing you to read their articles or make comments. If you do not agree with their policy, you have the absolute freedom to read articles and comment somewhere else.

Posted by TinyLee | Report as abusive

moderators are censors, let’s not be disingenuous. You would be better served with modeling intellectual integrity by being more forthright about your position.

By the way, I do not think it is indefensible. I think you can make a reasonable case for censorship on a forum based on a clear cut criteria that is designed to support the expression of divergent perspectives in the most respectful manner possible.

I suspect that Reuters (which btw has a very public history of bias in regards to content) is more than likely using the opportunity to filter out the contributions that do not support the status quo of Reuter’s owners. Like any substantial questions or concerns nuclear power, for example, or armament production and sales all around the world.

Posted by 33SBT33 | Report as abusive

Reuters is undoubtedly one of the best news sources the west has. Keep up the good work, and be brave. The world desperately needs to be kept informed as we head into the social and economic maelstrom.

Posted by Tiu | Report as abusive

committing to the full and effective dissemination of news, facts and social ephemera that creates our ‘living society’ should include all hints and reaction of those who can and do actually read what is written.

comment creator’s are seeking link to the world, their own and others, via the many commercialized news outlets (crafted by scholarly and seasoned writers) as well as the heady and often raw comments of readers alone.

do not expect Puritanism, cleansed comments unless you are willing to exclude (and offend) a bulk of readers who’s only real participation in nation-making may be a few words uttered (written) in response to another.

it is the very core of our free society, TO EXPRESS, without suppression, coercion and contempt from others!

i agree with the ‘fiat censorship’ statement from ComputerExpert. a method of limitation, cooldown or other is much more effective than an outright ban.

we’re not all here creating our Post Doctorate Thesis, that’s for dang sure.

Posted by PhreeB4God | Report as abusive

People just do not go off randomly without a reason? I am sure someone took his children just like all the other suicides in this country never give the right reason but cover it up! Police use people like this for target practice deadly force to shut the doors on the objecting problem, and cover it over with madness, ang mayhem that our government is causing.(CPS) Allot of mothers and fathers grandpa’s and aunts are going crazy i wonder why I am ashamed of this kind of answer trained police could have shot him in the leg or what the hell is a dart gun invented to tranquilize a animal for when they cannot even use them on people! My sick world Armageddon is rearing it’s ugly head on the children of naughty a…. All comments need posted routers I hate your sevice!

Posted by Myst8040 | Report as abusive

I totally agree with your policy as explained, but remain a little confused about a few things. 6/idUS337705365820110926

I posted a comment on this article (comment was long but well written in my opinion, politely disagreeing with the author on some points) and subsequently returned to the article to find that ALL comments on that article had been deleted! Article says 0 (zero) comments. Totally confused. Did I do something wrong? And the others who posted, did they do something wrong too?
If you can, please send me a private message explaining one or two things I can do better when commenting. I got blocked from commenting on the old for some reason, and could never figure out why (I have a feeling I was blocked out by retaliatory “abuse reports” from people whose real [spam] abuse I had reported… If you could somehow prevent this kind of petty retaliation, that would be most welcome.)

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive

It’s a shame that the less-than-stellar people who can’t convey opinions and ideas without resorting to name-calling and using txt spk wen tieping cuz its kool 2 do now are filtered.

I think it will actually be nice to read comments that have value and not have to decipher what the meaning is or deal with spam comments.

Posted by FlamingLiberal | Report as abusive

Apparently, the writers gets to practice freedom of speech, while the readers are subject to censorship. I like all the comments. May as well be a book store who only sells one book because most of their customers are professional one book readers. I will be sure this is the last time I respond to the censor police.

Posted by voxin2 | Report as abusive

The policy is just more evidence of the elitist mindset of journalism schools and the journalism profession these days. They think they know better than the reader what the reader wants and “needs.”

Posted by RealEstateSEO | Report as abusive

This is truly a great policy… I probably got my first comment booted already for too many capital letters! Guess I need to find a better way to get someone’s attention when I can’t grab their arm and tell them they are in danger! (I just erased two exclamation points, lol) But thanks for the opportunity to have voice without having first to endure reading through utter impertinence in order to get to the good stuff(:

Posted by 1irishrainbow | Report as abusive

Why is it I always face the onus of not participating in Facebook or Tweet, etc., no matter where I go?

I really appreciate Reuters for a) not sinking to tabloid level and b) for allowing me to comment without adherence to the said memberships.

And of course it’s an unparalleled privilege that all of us are allowed to comment, though too many of us do not merit the attention…

Posted by w.burton | Report as abusive

As 33SBT33 said earlier, you need “clear cut criteria” to ensure discrimination does not occur by editors, as it is commonplace, and is in fact the reason I and others stopped using Yahoo! News – anyone reading the articles can see complaints about editorial bias have been frequent. The concern is not about such a system, I would love to see a WELL-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEM – however, if the criteria are not clearly defined and comprehensively spelled out, there exists major potential for editorial discrimination and bias, particularly if you also lack a clear disciplinary policy for abusive editors, so that they cannot simply sweet-talk their way out of discipline after their discrimination occurs.

Finally, I would recommend that you, when implementing such a policy, clearly present it in its entirety to the commenting public, placing it on the site so it is easy to find by commenters (probably below the comment box), so that there is no confusion about the rules and safeguards in place by those commenting. Transparency does in fact have good value in preventing abuse so long as it is used logically and with common sense, rather than simply as a political buzzword/talking point.

Posted by Jzyehoshua | Report as abusive

Mr. Wright:

I attempted to submit the follow comment to the story below.

Obviously, for “past transgressions” of telling you what I thought of your editorial staff and policies I have been completely banned from posting comments at all, no matter how well they comply with your “rules of ethics,” which simply proves that my original charges are correct — you engage in yellow sheet “journalism” with no integrity at all, and misuse the media you supposedly offer for reasonable rebuttal of articles.

I quit posting for a long time, but decided to give it another try recently, but I can see there is no point, since you have “blacklisted” me from your worthless, one-sided reporting for daring to disagree — preferring instead to listen only to toadies who promote the liberal line.

I am a retired CPA, MBA and think I have sufficient education and experience in finance and economics to contribute to your discussion meaningfully.

Otherwise quit pussyfooting around by blocking my access without telling me. At least tell me why you are suppressing my right to free speech. At the very least, please simply remove my login and I will know not to waste my time either reading or reply to your slanted articles.

Your deliberate blocking of my access, without any reason to me, is not only not professional, but extremely childish as well.

How about acting like a grownup working for a real news organization for change? I challenge you to prove me wrong and post this reply to the article on China jobs, just to prove me wrong.

Gordon T DeBaker

“Punishing China no boon for U.S. manufacturing jobs”

What US manufacturing jobs would those be — exactly?

You state “by far the most value embedded in the device accrues to Apple and sustains thousands of well-paid design, software, management and marketing jobs in the United States,” which may very will be true.

But the ugly truth is that most people filling those “US” jobs you describe are often cheap-labor imports from other countries, not “real” American jobs.

How do I know?

I worked as a Plant Controller in the high-tech industry since it began in the 1980s, for some of the largest chip and software companies in the world, and I have seen the drift to cheap labor from overseas firsthand as soon as the internet became capable of “virtual control” over distant manufacturing facilities.

I had to take “early retirement” because my job was “outsourced” to someone in Asia a few years ago. Am I bitter, and does this influence what I am saying? Yes, it most certainly does.

But it is also happens to be the absolute truth, which is far from what your article doe

Posted by Gordon2352 | Report as abusive

My thoughts on actual help for our economy.

1. Open the Oil Reserves for at least two (2) years – This can lower our gas prices to under $2.50 giving a HUGE jump start to our economy.

2. Require all Corporations to INVEST IN AMERICA (like FRANCE’s ELITE DID) by remitting a “Pay America Tax” to help jump start the economy. With the corporation’s unbelievable record profits – a one-time “Pay America Tax” could help reduce our 14T deficit. This “Pay America Tax” is to be paid solely toward paying down our current 14T deficit!

3. Since the news organizations state the World in now a GLOBAL entity – Create a “Professional Work Program” where all countries will be economically rewarded for hiring professionals to fill these positions in their countries. Make it policy for these professionals to mentor the countries citizens. Mentoring for these positions would help elevate the profitability of a company with a constant flow of ready educated and trained employees that can start the job with little to no training down time!

4. New start-up companies by having free market conventions that encourage nationals from different countries to work together to start new companies that will have a global effect for both countries!

Posted by Anonymous | Report as abusive

Hey, sounds like kindergarten rules. I can do that.

Posted by appratchik | Report as abusive

Yes my friend welcome to international bank coliseum forget state banks?rolling debts at other countries expenses!!!
Gordon Gekko says !!Hello.

Posted by Jokes | Report as abusive

You come across as an arrogant, censoring twit. Try to get over yourself. Humans express themselves and at times the spice of human emotion:disgust, anger, joy, fear needs to be openly expressed. Must be nice to sit in a cubicle with your stomach full and your mind deadened.

Posted by johnpatrick46 | Report as abusive

Sounds like censorship to me? So you decide what you tell us, and also, what we can hear from each other? You are defeating the whole purpose of freedom of speech, but I guess if that’s your solution, go for it. I myself will also go someplace else for peoples “real” opinions on the issue. If I want a politically correct answer I now know where to come. If i want real opinions I will go else where.

Posted by itsallwrong | Report as abusive

I’ve just read over this and it’s basically the same principle I have applied to many of the blogs I own.

Once I see a user leave several good comments on my blog I know I can trust them for leaving more useful comments.

It’s an excellent system and I think it will work quite well, especially with a well recognized website like

Posted by DarioM | Report as abusive