Engadget editor: Why I turned off comments

There is an inherit problem when a white gentlemen starts commenting on feelings of shame for another country he is not a part of. Personally, I didn't have an issue with it, but the comments quickly became filled with racial slurs and ethnically motivated negative commentary.

I AGREE TOTALLY!! ENGADGET SUCKS!

Which is why I started an Engadget Sucks page on facebook. Just search engadget sucks on facebook. We need to start rallying/planning to get this dang site down.

Engadget is gay and so are you...

But Macs are gay! Freedom of speech anyone?

actually, a good tech-blog is downloadsquad. admittedly, they focus on software, but it is really an enjoyable experience when articles are somewhat conservative, but most importantly, they're quite informative.

To all the self-important jackasses threatening to leave Engadget just because you won't get to vent your irrelevant opinions for the next couple days: You won't be missed.

Engadget will be a better place without you. Nobody cares what you have to say. Nobody wants to read your 3000 character diatribes about how Engadget sucks, or this sucks, or that sucks, or how everybody is stupid and gay but you. You're not clever or cool. You are just a bunch of screeching monkeys.

This isn't a conspiracy. There isn't some secret reason for closing comments. Nobody is in anybody's pocket. There isn't anything wrong with Engadget. The only problem here is you. The sooner you leave, the sooner the rest of us can go back to having reasonable discussions about technology.

"To all the self-important jackasses threatening to leave Engadget just because you won't get to vent your irrelevant opinions for the next couple days: You won't be missed."

Right back at ya.

Although I don't recall anyone saying Engadget sucks. If it did, I don't think anyone would care if they turned off comments because no one would read it. And I definitely don't recall anyone saying they are the only one who is not "stupid and gay" (and that quote reveals that you're, what? 16? Or that your emotional development stopped there, at least). And although a majority of people are basically stupid, gays are a minority, so whoever said they are the only one who isn't gay was certainly misinformed (assuming anyone ever said that at all).

I believe you have a problem dealing with complexity. Just because someone points out that a certain part of a whole "sucks," doesn't mean that person thinks the whole thing sucks. The fact that someone cares enough to put some thought into what they think could make something better or keep it from worsening shows that they don't think the whole thing sucks.

And since they have turned off comments, I haven't left my RSS reader once to visit their site. Before, I would see an article that interests me then go to check out the comments. The only reason I visited this site more than once is because of the comments. I'd never even heard of VentureBeat before this. Now I've been back a few times and might even be back again. So if Engadget wants to keep me off of their site, then so be it. They'll be like a newspaper (that right there should send a chill down their spines), with one-way communication with readers. And we all know how well newspapers are doing.

To quote the average /b/tard: You are the cancer. Stop drinking the kool-aid.

Much ado about nothing: iPad
All the hype for a product without a market.
Compare this to the no-hype for the Netbook (by Asus) 2.5 years ago.
Now every vendor in the market proposes at least one netbook - there was clearly a market and no hype.

Only Ingloruous Bloggers write about the iPad.

Misinformation is being spread by Engadget staff regarding the root cause of disabling comments.

While I choose to use a Mac, I’m comfortable using my XP work laptop as well, and like to get a “balanced diet” of gadget news.

Engadget has historically provided both, which I naturally enjoyed. But recently Engadget was posting nothing but dozens of hollow adoring iPad articles for weeks, at the sacrifice of other content, and the few non-iPad articles were littered with pointless references to the iPad or iPhone in some way, with flame bait such as citing (actually quite unjustified) why Windows 7 is a poor operating system for tablets and slates. This caused the “regulars” (even myself) to voice annoyance over the trend.

“Enough already” was the sound of the chorus.

Their “solution” was to insult the readership and create an “iPad” free version of the website, only to kick up the ridiculous iPad over-coverage and adulation, which of course only invoked more poor commentary.

If you could actually see which comments were up and down ranked, the up-ranked comments were quite understandable in their complaints and not “trolls”.

Engadget's comment system invites trollish behavior. They have the worst of both worlds:

- like a traditional newspaper site, they have a very large audience, most of whom are not the least bit connected to their "Engadget" identity.
- like a tech website, most of their audience are maladjusted computer nerds.

Either they try to cultivate a real community, like Slashdot and Reddit, in which users feel that their Engadget community identity has some worth, or they give up on comments altogether, like I wish a lot of newspaper sites would.

Engadget might try experiment with allowing comments only from registered users whose real names are visible. This wold mean far fewer people would be willing to sign up to comment (and have their identity verified perhaps with a small credit card charge, just enough to cover the cost of verification.) However, the signal to noise ratio might improve, and after all, as thngs stand now they have no comments being posted.

I agree with @Flang on this one. Maybe Engadget couldn't put up anymore with so much criticism landing on its iPad-posting-marathon. Besides, what kind of decision is turning off comments? Give people (even despicable trolls) some credit. You know what they are going to do? Just wait. As soon as they turn them back on things are going right back to where they were before this stunt.
Flang makes a good point when he says that users do a good job filtering comments through the rating system.
It's not that flaming has risen all of the sudden, I hardly even noticed any difference lately. Now editors and posters have become all sensitive?
Moreover, what I usually enjoy the most and spend more time at are comments. Not the articles. So I guess that I'll be visiting Gizmodo a lot more often until Engadget gets their stuff together.
Engadget as a whole should man up and if they feel that flamming has gotten off the charts then they should think about real solutions instead of temporary patches that will change nothing... [conspiracy alert] or maybe, once they give all the "good publicity" they want to the iPad by censoring criticism they'll turn them back on.

I've been an Engadget reader for a long time. And I think the main problem at Engadget isn't the readers comments or even the trolls and spammers. Its the editor and head shill Joshua Topolsky and today's actions confirm that he's not up to the task and needs to be removed. He is nowhere near the caliber of his predecessors and I really wonder how he got the job in the first place. If AOL wants to keep any credibility the site has there needs to be some house cleaning at Engadget.

Indeed. Surprised no one has suggested that Topolsky's sole reason for turning off comments was to appease the obviously thin-skinned female editor (Laura June) he mentions. She is, after all, HIS WIFE.

Whoa. Wasn't me -- we do have other editors. Female ones, too.

So basically, Josh is stating that the Engadget Staff isn't smart enough to know how to put word filter software on their blog to block out such offensive words such as "fuck you bitch"?
And they aren't tech-savvy enough to figure out how to go in, ban a user (since you have to be registered to comment anyways) and block that persons IP address from being able to access the site again?
No wonder Engadget has gone to shit since Block and Rojas left.

“I can handle the flamewars. But in the past few days we’ve had attacks against our readers and our staff that were personal. One guy posted page after page of ‘fuck you, bitch’ to one of our female editors.”

They can't simply filter out the F and B words because the editors themselves use it occasionally in their posts. "iPad is so fucking sexy" they could say..and most of the genuine comments too use the language and neither of them is trying to be a troll...

The iPad trolls have got pretty annoying just the other day I was reading a blog relating to the iPad and there was a load of irrelevant comments like "iPad sucks because it doesn't run flash". I haven't seen such passionate hate of a product in a long time.

I would say that's a relevant comment, and not trolling at all.

Why not just require people to register before posting? That would cut out a lot of the trolls and keep the dedicated fans on the site.

I've noticed before that high-traffic sites that require registration manage to have high-quality comment threads. A little bit of friction goes a long way to discourage the trolls.

they should try and adopt a totally new comment system to something more like gizmodo's

@Flang +infinity for the utter truth of the matter. I never commented over at Engadget but I all but stop going there for my gadget news, because of how unprofessional it was. And after the iPad [and if we're being honest it actually started with the invitation] Engadget DID become Applegadget. And I noticed the comment section did become progressively angrier, while still trying to be civil. Them cutting off the comment section was literally them saying. "F You, we're not going to change." And THAT'S troll behavior.

Edit: And they DID post that Steve Jobs called the iPad the most important thing he's ever done.

it's not trolling when it's your own site. It's editorial discretion. Freedom of the press starts with owning the press. If you're ever responsible for anything you'll come to understand this.

This is ridiculous. I've been following the whole iPad coverage debacle over there and the editors throw a hissy fit anytime someone has a critical opinion of their (over)coverage. I like how they're painting it as trolling, replete with racism, sexism (OK, I'll give them that one, it's all over the internet), and just plain mindless spamming. Aside from the rampant sexism found on pretty much all tech sites (and, by the way, those are most often the ones left to stand without getting deleted by Engadget), the reason they are shutting down commenting isn't because of "trolling." I would say take a look at the comments, but they're blocked right now.

If they come back at some point, take a look and you'll see some actual critique and logic there. Readers pointed out that there were something like 50 articles within 24-48 hours about the iPad. One editor replied that they reported with the same level of "granularity" on the Pre and Droid. Another commenter added up the Pre and Droid coverage within the same time frame and found it was not even half of what the iPad got. The editor's response? "We stick to our claim that the same level of coverage was applied." Next time the comments come back on, take a look at what gets downranked and upranked. In general, although there are of course exceptions, there is a sort of logic to what goes up or down. A comment on an article about a Windows Phone or Android phone that goes something like, "Yeah, still isn't as good as the iPhone, LOL!!!" will get decimated. A comment on an iPad article that says that Engadget is going way overboard with their coverage and says it in a decently intelligent way will soon find itself with a "Highest Ranked" tag. Take, for example, this comment (from a similar Gizmodo article in which they tell their readers to go eff themselves):

"So when we see a product that is clearly inferiour being touted as a game changer, magical and revolutionary, it has two effects: it makes us question the sanity of the person making that claim (and some will no doubt question the writer's professionalism, often quite verbally), and it prompts us to try and get the other view represented because the same writers fail SO badly at presenting that view."

That's what Engadget doesn't like. The comments aren't being removed because there are thousands of 12-year-olds writing the f word 3,000 times. They are being removed because they make actually pretty good points that are critical of Engadget. And yeah, it must be tough getting owned by your readers in the comments section article after article, with "Highest Ranked" hovering above each critique, but would they prefer everyone who cares enough about the site to constructively comment on what they see as deficiencies to just leave? Because I think that's really the message they are sending here.

Now if this were YouTube shutting off its comments, then I would have a totally different view. Rarely do I rush down to the comments on a YouTube video to get further insight. They could permanently shut off commenting and I'd be OK with it. But as someone pointed out above, the comments are often more useful than the article itself. And their uprank, downrank system usually is actually pretty good at filtering out the crap, and that's just the commenters and readers doing the filtering.

Lastly, if you want to see that there really is a bit of Apple bias over there, check out any review of any non-iPhone phone. Especially the HTC HD2. In fact, when the comments come back on (if they ever do), look at what the readers said. You'll find they make better, more balanced points than the author of the review.

Your post describes the problem head on. I have seen tech blogs such as Gizmodo and Engadget behave irresponsibly and blame it all on the commenters. In fact, just today Giz put out an article explaining why their commenting system, which is more of an ass-licking competition, is better than Engadget's.

The fall in publishing standards and quality is even worse at Gizmodo, where editors treat the blog as a personal dumping ground.

Even before the iPad coverage, people from different camps are already flaming each other like there's no tomorrow..

Ah yes, even before the Nexus One strikes... This happens too: http://bit.ly/nexus-one-detailed-problems

I guess we just can't stop trollers, from blurting out their emotions, can we?

The fall in publishing standards and quality is even worse at Gizmodo, where editors treat the blog as a personal dumping ground.

I have a question for you.

Why are you posting bit.ly links when a direct link would work much better? This, and other web forums don't have the 140 character limit the URL shorterners were invented for, therefore there is absolutely no need whatsoever to use them here.

It's REALLY annoying to not know where the link goes to. And it's impossible to figure out whether it's just some spam link to a porn or phish site. As a consequence I don't follow the links.

Please stop doing this.

The fall in publishing standards and quality is even worse at Gizmodo, where editors treat the blog as a personal dumping ground.

Worst community on the web! Started with Ryan Block creating fights between members. Topolsky just took it to a different level $$$.

This is an experiment. How does Engadget know that a majority of their readers come to their blog to read other people's comments? One way to find out is to turn off comments and see. This is a great experiment that gives them the opportunity to watch whether or not turning off comments affect traffic.

They've done it before (turn off comments), and I'm sure they more or less know how much traffic the comments section drive.

Even if only 5% that view comments actually post, it does help the site because it drives more impressions, people come back to the site to check and reply to comments (like I have here at Venturebeat).

Another thing is, if users get into the habit of commenting on a particular site then they have the propensity to come back to the site more often. More clicks, more impressions.

The problem for Engadget is that if the community becomes rotten like most of the other AOL Weblogs comment section, people no longer return to the site as often, people that are invested in the community woud check multiple times a day, people that are not may check once a week or less.

Gizmodo/Gawker is another interesting to one. They have a star system that keeps trolls away, but at the same time opinons and comments of non-starred people are marginalized, which discourages comments from some folks. So its a double-edged sword.

Of course, the best and easiest way to have a good comment section is merely to moderate it tightly and build a community around it.

Honestly, the more I consider this decision by Joshua Topolsky, the more it feels like a publicity stunt. On a positive note, though, if most of Engadget's readers do not participate or are unaware of the comment areas, this news may direct their attention to the community aspects of the medium.

wow. you're either hired or have a vendetta. great hobby, better if you can make money at it though.

Why not disable comments for just new members that joined in the past week?

Usually these kinda things don't really bother me.
(and for the record, I've never commented on engadget's site before)

But completely TURNING OFF comments just shows what a poor job engadget editors are doing in maintaining a community environment over there. Could you imagine if a place like Gawker shut down their commenting section because of a few bad apples?

This really reflects poorly on engadget's overall ability to manage their website. Instead of just throwing the lock & chain on the comments section, maybe they should consider revising their comment policy?

I mean honestly, you can't rely on computers to solve all your problems (i.e. disabling comments) - sometimes you gotta use your noggin and think.

For now, engadget is definitely outta my favourites...

if you want a site run a certain way, run it.. If you want a better gadget, build it. If you want to whine about how important your opinion isn't, none of us care. Say something smart or listen.

After their recent redesign, I actually find Engadget's comment system to be arduous to look at and read through, too. Another sign of exactly what you're talking about. Poor management decisions.

It's a shame to see a measure like this being necessary. As an avid blog reader and occasional commenter, I find that the discussions by readers are often more interesting than the articles themselves. In fact, in some instances, I'll read a headline and jump to the comments to see what's happening in public opinion.

Gizmodo has taken an interesting approach with its system of staring commenters who have proven themselves to be beneficial to the reader community by offering knowledge and intelligent humor to the discussion. Those commenters are displayed more prominently than others.

And then there's the common trend of empowering the community to downrank comments that are unproductive and of poor taste. I actually thought Engadget had something like that in place.

What's most unfortunate, though, is that a few bad apples apparently really DO have the power to ruin a good thing for everyone. That may be the very message Engadget is sending with this course of action. There must be a better way. . . .

concern trolling is rampant. It worries me too.

Interesting response to a growing problem.

Has anyone tried other solutions besides a total ban? I agree its this site's content that draws its audience. Some sites seem to generate productive comments, but clearly not always the case.

@Lavventura - interesting proposal. I've seen some sites let users give thumbs up/down. Maybe let that allow good ones to float to the top, bad ones to the bottom and those with too many flags get nixed.

"free and open" on the Internet always shows its dark underside. happy to see sites taking some action.

IP blocking works pretty well, but obviously is going to have collateral damage. You can't IP block AOL proxies, for example.

"The Apple flamewars go both ways on the site, with Topolsky’s trolls coming from both pro and anti-Apple camps. In fact, a common insult hurled in the comments is that Engadget is being paid by Apple"

I'm pro Apple, and have some experience with Engaget, I usually avoid the site because I believe it's "MO" is to feed a vast army of PC gamers the daily dose of Apple hatred they live for. As far as I can tell, NO real Mac people post comments on Engaget, It's 100% GAMERS, or pretty close to it.A few Linux guys, maybe. Topolsky above tries to suggest that Mac people are part of the problem. He knows VERY WELL that is BS, He knows how he gets his CLICKS, and WHO he gets them from.

No way. It goes both ways. I seen some pretty bad Apple trolls (one I remember is clak) in both Engadget and Gizmodo. It seems they have been forced out recently and we have more anti-Apple trolls now. But in between the trolls (usually there are only a couple of them) are a lot of reasonable people who rightly point out that the Apple coverage is a bit overboard. I tuned out most of the iPad coverage, but I think they had a new article for every single little thing that popped up about it. I don't think recently the troll situation got any worst, it's just people started criticizing the editors directly and they couldn't take the heat.

I read their blog many times during the week.

No side of the Digital Curtian is innocent. There are plenty of Apple/Mac fanboys that are always starting flamewars, and yes the Engadget editors fed that fire until I guess it started to burn their house down.

I hope they ban the extreme fanboys on both sides and bring some balance to their post commentary.

You know very well Apple fanbois are only 10% of the market, er, problem.

I sympathize with Engadget, but at the same time a lot of Engadget's own stories can be frequently considered 'trollish' as well. Its an attempt at being 'edgy', I understand, but the editors frequently set the tone for the comment section.

One particular example I remember is :
"...robot dance routine fills us with shame for humanity, but mostly Japan"
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/30/doka-harumis...
There is an inherit problem when a white gentlemen starts commenting on feelings of shame for another country he is not a part of. Personally, I didn't have an issue with it, but the comments quickly became filled with racial slurs and ethnically motivated negative commentary.

One particular heinous example is "This is what happens when you give monkey-races like Gooks and Chinks technology." (comment section is turned off but the comment is still viewable in Google cache)

With that said, Engadget, as well as Weblogs sister-site Autoblog do have a serious comment section problem. And its good that Engadget is taking steps. Autoblog can be much worse then Engaget.

Perhaps a system similar to Gawker Media, new comments first, old comments get bumped down can be beneficial? You don't have the first few commenters setting the tone for the entire comment section, and bad comments can be quickly bumped down.

This is very, very true. Perhaps it's conspiratorial of me to say this, but I think there's a fair amount of flame baiting going on in the blogosphere. Blogs WANT to trigger heated discussions and controversy. . . it's how they get page views - which is how they get revenue.

Engadget is among the top offenders when it comes to flame baiting. And as a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this 'comment killing' stunt is more about making news than actually making a point.

It's the world we've created.

we who? speak for yourself.

Good. Something had to be done.

Google should do something about YouTube text comments. They are the most depressing out there.

Yeah, there definitely needs to be something done with Youtube comments. People these days are just so rude and ignorant on Youtube. So again, I concur!

YouTube's comments make me cry on the inside. I avoid reading them at all costs - because I don't want to believe that there are that many ignorant people in the world.

Same here. There's a great greasemonkey script for hiding youtube comments:

http://userscripts.org/scripts/review/14530

No comment

Good. After all, it's their content, and commenting isn't a right.

lol, yes it's their site and they have right to stop commentators.

It is, however, what builds community - and an active reader community may very well be a blog's greatest asset.