Site Policy / Off-topic Comments

40 comments on “Site Policy / Off-topic Comments”

1. “I believe that the site would be very dry and dull if comments were restricted to only directly relevant observations about the puzzle under discussion. This would be very impersonal and would lead to no insight into a commenter’s viewpoint, no memories or feelings a particular clue/entry evoked and no links to interesting, if somewhat off-topic, references.”

   Too flipping right!

2. So who’s going to be watching the Royal wedding?

3. Doofs @2

   You may find your comment amusing but I didn’t. This is intended to be a serious post to discuss a concern/issue that has been raised several times during the past few months.

4. Many apologies,

   I am with you all the way. Please feel free to delete my post.

5. I’m surprised this is an issue for fifteensquared. Using a rough eyeball analysis, the FT comments average about 10 daily, the Indy perhaps a few more and the Guardian 50 ish. It’s extremely unusual for a G puzzle to attract more than 70 comments and this normally happens when there is controversy regarding the specific content of the puzzle so these comments are rarely off-topic. Moreover, comments are seldom long and rambling.

   I’ve never found myself having to wade through a load of irrelevant comments to reach the nucleus of what I want to read, and I’ve never been deterred from visiting the site. But then again I read the Guardian politics blog which can on occasion attract 10,000 comments in a single day.

   best wishes, Rob

6. Gaufrid

   Your message is timely. I am well aware that Clause 3 has been a focus of interest and concern on the Guardian pages for those who wish to have meaningful social exchanges on possibly tangential topics inspired by clues or answers in the crossword as well as for those who prefer to stick to what is directly relevant to the crossword. (And relevance is key to how Clause 3 is now worded.)

   I will declare my interest in wishing to see a loosening of Clause 3 to allow for tangential views and observations to be expressed if they have been inspired by something in the crossword. Solvers should be expected to understand that anything that is so off-topic as to be irrelevant is not allowed, and that an exchange (or ‘mini-discussion’) on a tangential topic should be kept within reasonable limits. (I won’t try to say what those limits should be, but thank you anyway, Gaufrid, for suggesting possible ratios.)

   My attitude to the blogs is very much the same as baerchen’s (@5), but of course I am aware that many comments on the Guardian blogs (nearly all of which I read if not contribute to) appear to flout Clause 3 on the issue of relevance. Hence my suggestion to reword that clause so that the kinds of blogs we read most of the time, if not quite all the time, fall within its scope rather than outside it!

   There is one other point inspired by your post, albeit tangential to it, and that is about the use of brackets [] to write something that may be strictly irrelevant to the crossword but conveys a simple message – for example, to draw another contributor’s attention to something that could otherwise be missed. Perhaps that convention could be mentioned explicitly.

7. I’m not a daily reader by any means, I don’t know any of the other regualrs on here IRL or virtually – but I have been a regular on various other blogs/message boards and I have always found the scroll wheel to be quite useful.

   I appreciate that a blog for cryptic crossword solvers is likely to be more pedantic than most, but I agree with Alan B at 6. – a flag of some sort to reference an off-topic post [] should suffice.

8. I think your comments are spot on gaufrid. I don’t mind ocassional off-topic conversation, though I think it might not be nice for the setter to end up discussing a different puzzle.

   I don’t see a major issue, a bit of tolerance allowing everyone to express views would be good. I’d hesitate to suggest there are absolute rights and wrongs here. I for one am very interested in what people think.

   If a puzzle generates off-topic conversation, perhaps through associations people have with the clues or answers – well, isn’t that an entertainment success? But I think your rough guidelines are, er, a good guide.

   Thanks for looking after this site

9. Cruciberbofile@1 extracts the key essence of your excellent heartfelt post for me Gaufrid. We are a community of consenting adults and interacting beyond the technical evaluations of the clues is what makes it worthwhile being part of to me.
   An occasional reminder of site policy 3 to bring things back in balance is a good thing – as would a reminder of site policy 1 which deems “aggressive, insulting or inflammatory comments…..not acceptable” as there have been examples recently which I believe fall close to, if not over, this line.
   I like AlanB’s suggestion of [ ] to indicate tangential discussions so those who don’t enjoy this aspect can skim past them.
   You do a great job Gaufrid and must have enough on your plate with the technical
   aspect of site management without having to arbitrate between the contributors.

10. My vote is to PLEASE keep it tightly moderated to be on topic, and don’t let it go even slightly in the direction of the BTL comments on the Guardian cryptic crossword page.

11. I’m with Gaufrid on this matter. It would be very sterile if comments were restricted solely to forensic examination of the day’s clues and solutions.

12. Gaufrid, I agree with most of what you say, but like baerchen @5, I don’t feel there is much of a problem to start with, which suggests that you are doing fine – and I can’t say more about recent controversies without fanning the flames.

13. Yes please keep the comments either directly relevant to the puzzle or tangentially arising from the puzzle.

    Doofs comment @2 illustrates the issue well for me.  A few flippant/irrelevant or off-topic comments don’t do any harm at all, but the site only works also long as everyone else shows restraint.  But if everyone decides to chip their own quip then the site becomes swamped very rapidly.  The question is: who are the lucky ones who gets post what they like and who shows the restraint?  Everyone has to show restraint otherwise the site falls apart.

    There is no shortage of social networking sites on the Internet that people can go for a chat with friends.  How about having a link on every puzzle to Twitter or somewhere to direct people to a communal place to go to have chat?

    On the topic of using [] to indicate off-topic chat: it seems a counter-productive to me.  If you think what you are going to write deserves to be on the site then, tangential or not, go ahead and write it.  If you think it does not deserve to be here then don’t write it.  Putting brackets round something doesn’t make it more relevant or take up any less space.

    @Doofs – I’m sure you have no ill intentions in you post @2.  I’m only using you comment as an example, absolutely no personal criticism intended.

14. I entirely agree with beery hiker @12: I really don’t think this is a serious problem, despite the vocal protests of a few about any off-topic comments.  Most posts do relate directly to the puzzle of the day, and the incidental asides, jokes, reminiscences and so on in my opinion very much add to the attraction of the site.  I don’t think a numerical or percentage rule is needed – just a bit of common sense.

    A more important problem I think is attacks on and derogatory comments made about individual contributors, of which we’ve seen a few recently.  I would much rather you cracked down on this, Gaufrid.

15. Something to note: as many people say this isn’t a big problem for fifteensquared at the moment.  That doesn’t mean that Gaufrid can safely ignore it; it isn’t a big problem at the moment precisely because Geoff doesn’t ignore it.  I think he is asking for validation that he should continue to not ignore it, and that no more than 20% of comments being completely off-topic is the right yardstick.

16. I find some of the comments going into many paragraphs of forensic clue dissection much more off putting than the occasional off topic igression. But I don’t have to read either if I don’t want to. Please keep the balance as it is and moderate the personal attacks.

17. Many thanks Gaufrid for keeping an eye on this excellent site.

    I think the current balance is about right. Obviously, when people start talking about how nice a part of a country is to visit etc this could easily be put in General Discussion. I wouldn’t favour using []; common sense should prevail.

18. Of course no-one wants to see personal attacks or insults on any thread but then again I don’t want to read insufferably pompous twaddle from self-important bores, either.

    If a swiftly-administered cyber clip round the earhole gets the job done quickly, I’m all for it myself

19. Another thing to bear in mind is that we need to distinguish between gratuitous abuse and constructive criticism. I don’t see anything wrong with pointing out logical errors in (or alternative interpretations to) others’ posts as long as it is done in a civilised manner, and sometimes this kind of background chat can be very helpful to less experienced solvers.

20. I agree with several posters here, that a sensible balance and self-restraint is preferable to strict policing and application of Clause 3.

    (Having said that, most of my blogs seem to attract very few comments, so the chances of anything going too far off topic are fairly slim!…And whilst I do cast the occasional jealous glances at those Grauniad blogs, with their 50+ comments, I very rarely wade through them all to see what is going on…)

    But it isn’t just down to Gaufrid as site admin…bloggers must have some responsibility for their babies, and should be willing to issue a gentle nudging reminder, or even the aforementioned ‘cyber-clip-round-the-ear’, if necessary, to remind posters to remain on, or at least closer to, the topic, and to nip in the bud any potential escalation towards flouting of Clause 1.

    The blogger does have the option to turn comments off on an individual blog, if things are getting out of hand…a sanction I have only had to resort to once.

21. In the last year and a half, I can’t remember a single example of a day’s comments which suffered from excess digression.  I like reading all the posts, whatever the subject, and the volume is so low that even the long posts don’t take more than a few seconds to get through. Your general tactic of having fuzzy guidelines that can be cited if required but stay in the background so long as there’s no difficulty is a good one, I think.  Having firmer rules would allow the complainers to set themselves up as policemen.

    I agree with Lord Jim@14 that the main aim should be to keep it civilised.  Does lightly restricting off-topic discussion help with that?  Probably, yes; if the twaddle’s only about the crossword, it’s easier to let it go.

22. I agree with Gladys@16. I don’t really mind if people go off topic. I know I do this myself so I suppose I’m not one to criticize. I’m not sure about those contributions which are inordinately long but I don’t read these in their entirety so it’s by no means a big problem for me. If I didn’t like this site I wouldn’t bother reading it or contributing to it! I think it works well.

23. I’ve commented already, but I would just like to endorse what Gladys @16 said: it is very easy to ignore (or skim over) comments that I don’t want to read on a subject I have no interest in, and I can just as easily stop to read and enjoy what someone has to say on a topic that does interest me.

    That’s why I would like Clause 3 to be tweaked, or perhaps clarified, so that it does not prevent well-mannered and well-intentioned comments ‘inspired by’ or ‘tangential to’ the crossword from appearing.

    Clauses 1 and 2 are more important, and the way infractions are monitored and ‘policed’ should continue as now.  Despite some recent comments that have challenged the rules, this site is clearly very well run and rarely abused,  and is a credit to this community as well as the site administrator.

24. I’m in full agreement with Peedee @ 13/15, and by implication I thoroughly support Gaufrid.

    So 20% to one third seems about right as a maximum. Less if I think it’s an irritating irrelevence; more if I think it’s an interesting tangent!

25. I like the way this blog is run and don’t see the need for major changes. If I get here very late in the day in UK time, I can still read-skim through 50 or more messages without difficulty (and skimming through texts when necessary is part of my training). Recently I’ve been using the FT blog as well where the number of entries can be very small (6 today, including mine, for an excellent Goliath-Philistine puzzle). I think we are lucky to have the variety of commenters and the overall civility in their posts in the current set-up. I suspect that Gaufrid’s work behind the scenes has a lot to do with my reaction.

26. As one of the prime movers for the tightest of interpretations of site policy 3, I would still not have a problem with any comment that was inspired by the relevant crossword. We all seem to have different views on what is inspirational, though. The great success of this site (for which much thanks) means that it has a wide community with only two guaranteed things in common – an enthusiasm for crosswords and an interest is hearing others’ views on them. Step outside this narrow band and posters risk engendering ennui as much as enchantment across the community.

    If the site owner wishes to push the community in a particular direction, that is their prerogative. My concern has been that a growing group of posters have determined to do this pushing by regularly talking about their particular interests amongst themselves, and largely about themselves.  The quality of debate on this site has definitely declined, because as soon as someone makes a comment that is worthy of contemplation there is no hope of a thread developing as it is instead swallowed up by five or six posts taking advantage of the fact that one of the solutions was SEMOLINA to reminisce about school puddings. So, I disagree that digression is not yet a problem.

    My own rules would be that posters should think before writing a post that doesn’t have the reasonable expectation of a reaction of “that’s an interesting point you make about the crossword” and that there should be an advisory limit of not more than five uses of the first person singular in any post.

27. If I may make a further comment, I think that Doofs’ joke @2 brilliantly illustrates the point.  If there really were lots of posts like this, with no connection whatsoever to the puzzle of the day, then there would be a problem.  But this is simply not the case.

    Fifteensquared is a tremendously successful site (and many thanks are due to Gaufrid for this).  This success is partly due to the fact that the discussion of the crosswords is leavened with other tangential comments, creating a feeling of community.  It would be a great shame to mess with this winning formula because of the complaints of a few.

    Sadly I fear that some contributors may already have been driven away by the hostile remarks aimed at them.

28. Thanks for raising this question, Gaufrid.  I’d make a point that no-one has touched on so far: the main aim of the 225 blogs is to provide a review of the crossword so that everyone – from beginner to expert – can have explained to them by the blogger (often with the welcome assistance of contributors) how each clue worked.  If that engages folk with our pastime, encourages them to keep on keeping on, and grows our community, then happy days.  Gaufrid can no doubt give us the visitor stats, but I’d guess the people who comment on the puzzles are a very small minority of those who access the site each day – lurkers will be the majority, and I’m sure most, if they could be asked, would say that they find 225 enormously helpful.

    I’m pretty much with Van Winkle in comment 26.  I look forward to reading interesting and relevant points about the crossword, or perhaps the theme if there is one, or some particular usage that I hadn’t come across before.  I’m completely uninterested in (for example) the fact that a contributor has a brother in Maryland, is interested in starting a discussion about whether others are Marmite haters or Marmite lovers, or has just been to a music festival; more importantly, most inquisitive lurkers will be uninterested too.  I don’t find those comments offensive, just boring – I visit the site to try to find out what others thought of the crossword.  There has definitely been more of that recently on the Guardian thread, together – as others have said – with a little too much from contributors who are over-fond of the first person singular.  I haven’t contributed to the Guardian thread for a while now, mainly because, for these reasons, I don’t find it as engaging as I used to.  In the overall context of my life, is that important?  Not at all – it’s only a crossword blog, although a very well run and administered one, which is generally extremely polite by internet standards.  And as a suggestion for those who want to indulge in the first person singular stuff, it includes a General Discussion page, where you won’t have to worry about whether to use square brackets.

     

     

29. Contributors comments are sometimes addressed directly, or indirectly, to the setter, and I think that occasionally  these  may seem irrelevant, or off-topic,  to other contributors.  For instance, on the Everyman site there is often little to comment on as regards the clues, but one can express thanks by appreciation of the memories the answers elicit.  I find the Fifteensquared site perfect, thanks to Gaufrid.

30. I have to say I thought doofs comment @2 was entirely appropriate and made his point in a humorous and human way. If that kind of comment were to be excluded this site would be all the poorer.

31. what baerchen@18 said

32. Many users of the site will be familiar with the regular posters so it’s good to have the odd personal insight into the their lives and personalities. A little bit of tangential reference leavens the blog so a 20% to 30% content isn’t excessive. I assume one function of the blog is feedback to setters – usually a pat on the back for the enjoyment provided – but posts that merely list ones clues of the day, I could do without.

33. Thank you for your update.
    In the second paragraph of your update you have clarified, for me, how Clause 3 is to be interpreted with regard to the relevance of a comment, and I for one am satisfied with your conclusion – and grateful that you aired the subject in this way.

34. Thanks for the update Gaufrid, I am glad we aren’t going to see a clampdown, as that could easily turn into a witch hunt.

35. Thank you Gaufrid for giving us the opportunity to discuss this.

    The second paragraph from K’s Dad @28 pretty well sums up my views. However the occasional comment referring to a co-incidental event or location is OK by me as long as it is very brief (6 words??) and does not invite further discussion on the event or location for example.

    In my view you are right to allow a certain amount of leeway and your suggested 20% figure is ample (a third being too generous).

    I also agree with PeeDee (@13) regarding [] counter productive.

    Finally, as others have said, we mostly show restraint and keep the site on track ourselves and its good that you rarely need to intervene.

    Thank you again for all you do.

     

36. pex @35

    You say

    “I also agree with PeeDee (@13) regarding [] counter productive.”

    Because I was the one who first mentioned the use of the ‘square brackets’ convention I would just like to point out that PeeDee @13, while apparently following the point I made earlier (@6), was actually describing a different practice, namely, writing any amount of off-topic chat and putting square brackets round it to indicate that people can ignore it.  Kathryn’s Dad’s ironic comment at the end of his post @28 (“… where you won’t have to worry about whether to use square brackets.”) was more likely echoing PeeDee’s comment than answering mine.

    There is a convention whereby one can leave a message to some-one in particular, or to people in general, that cannot easily be left in any other way – hence the use of square brackets.  There are countless examples of the proper use of this convention on the pages of fifteensquared, including some excellent examples on today’s Nutmeg blog.  This practice should continue, in my opinion.

    I was actually tolerant of the practice of putting relatively bulky off-topic comments that amount to chat rather than a simple message, because I found it so easy to see the brackets and immediately jump to the nect comment.  However, I happily move with the times and fully support the ‘outlawing’ (if it is that) of the practice of putting stuff in square brackets that should go elsewhere (the General Discussion page, for example) – a bracketed comment could then be used to point to where the chat content is located.

37. Me @36
    In the third paragraph, I meant to write ‘putting square brackets round’, not just ‘putting’; and ‘next’ for ‘nect’. Apologies for these careless errors.

38. Alan B: I’m afraid I cannot fathom quite what you are saying that I wasn’t. I was agreeing with PeeDee’s [] paragraph in its entirety.

    Putting it another way, I would not like to see licence to write whatever the contributor felt like writing on the basis that it was OK because it was in brackets. The shorter the posts, the easier to read and move onto the next one. Hey! how about a word limit??

    The use of brackets as one would normally use them should not be affected – [{(which is what I think you might be saying.)}]

     

39. pex @38, I do not think a word limit would work unless contributors were only allowed to post once – heaven forbid.

40. I think you’re right Cookie. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Comments are closed.