HuffPost Moderates Comments To Please Advertisers [Updated: Or Not]
from the that-doesn't-actually-help-advertisers dept
Update: After hearing from a few people at Huffington Post, it appears that the original explanation from Isaf was unclear, and led us to believe they were moderating comments based on advertiser preferences. However, Huffington Post has now clarified that they use the same AI just to determine how to post ads on certain content -- and that's what Isaf meant with his remarks. Not that they moderate comments based on advertiser preferences.We've been somewhat excited that we're rapidly approaching one million total comments on Techdirt. We thought it was quite a nice milestone. But we feel a bit small to learn that the Huffington Post already has over 70 million comments just this year alone. Over at Poynter, Jeff Sonderman has a fascinating interview with the site's director of community, Justin Isaf, about how they manage all those comments. Apparently they have a staff of 30 full time comment moderators, helped along by some artificial intelligence (named Julia) from a company they bought just for this technology.
Now, obviously, sites have lots of different philosophies on moderating comments. Our own is pretty open. We have a spam filter that tries to cut out obvious spam (of which we get about 1,000 per day, last I checked) and other than that comments are basically unmoderated. We do have a system that allows the community to vote on funny and insightful comments (which we then round up in a weekly "best of" post). We also, just recently, introduced our first word/last word feature, which lets the community promote certain comments. Finally the community can also "report" comments they find problematic, which then minimizes those comments, though they remain available for anyone to see with one click. We've found that this system of trusting the community works pretty damn well overall.
HuffPo, on the other hand, between the technology and the moderators, seems more focused on nudging the conversation themselves. I can understand and respect that choice, but there was one detail that struck me as a bit questionable:
I’m a big fan of having machines help us with the lower level tasks, freeing up time, resources and brain power for more interesting and complex tasks. Julia [the artificial intelligence system that HuffPo owns] takes that a few steps further and helps us with a lot of other aspects of HuffPost in addition to helping weed out abusive members, including identifying intelligent conversations for promotion, and content that is a mismatch for our advertisers. She has allowed us to do a lot more with a lot less.(Note: see update at the top). I recognize that these are all advertising businesses, but I'm a bit surprised to see HuffPo so blatantly admit that they moderate comments if they're "a mismatch for our advertisers." I've seen plenty of sites say they'll moderate inappropriate commentary, but leave reasonable commentary alone even if it's critical. But HuffPo is basically saying that if advertisers aren't likely to like the comments, they may moderate them. It's their system, and they can do what they want with that, but personally, that makes me feel uncomfortable. We've always tried to promote the fact that our own community is very opinionated (and not shy about it) when we've spoken to advertisers, and we use that as a way of explaining why things they do should be authentic and real, rather than forced and phony. And, because of that, we'd like to think that we're able to drive more interesting engagement. If you leave open the possibility of moderating comments that advertisers won't like, that seems to only encourage bogus and annoying advertising, since marketers may never learn that people don't actually like that kind of thing.
In the end, HuffPo's position is obviously self-serving, even as they pretend that it's best for advertisers. What they may end up doing is hiding the fact that the advertisements are bad, rather than improving the quality of the advertising. Now, obviously, I'm sure AOL does quite fine with HuffPo's ad selling (and they're a hell of a lot bigger than us), but it still struck me as interesting to see the company so blatantly admit how it reacts to content their advertisers might think is "a mismatch."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertisers, comments, moderation
Companies: aol, huffington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is indeed vague, but I believe that it works in the way you described.
Say something bad about advertiser = modded comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is a simple fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whose bread I eat, his song I sing.
It's as if somebody running a golf course in New York could shut down warnings about Sandy because "they're bad for business."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paywall!
If you're not paying, you're the product. People jump up and down while refusing to pay for the content. This site constantly mocks sites that set up paywalls. If the readers would just open up their purses, the news sites would bend over backwards to please them. Instead they take care of the advertisers because without them, the news would disappear.
What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
No...that hasn't happened. I've been a customer to many corporations and most of them treat me like dirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paywall!
Because it has stopped advertisers for: Television service (paid), subscription-only channels (paid), Paid-for satellite radio,magazines, sporting events that charge admission, and...printed newspapers.
So how much information and entertainment media is ad-free just because it's paid for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
Almost every business niche supports two kinds of media: free, ad-driven vehicle filled with puff pieces and serious, ad-free newsletters.
There are plenty of ad-free media sources. Don't let yourself be colored by the fact that cable TV charges you and sells advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
HBO is largely ad free? DVDs are largely ad free? So what you're saying is they don't have advestisments except for the advertisments?
Well you still haven't named one that's actually ad-free so keep going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
And I don't think of the trailers for other movies on DVDs or at the movies as ads although that's what they are. And I don't think the audience thinks of them as being in the same class as the endless interruptions on broadcast TV. In any case, it's usually possible to fast-forward through them or even skip them.
Public TV and Radio are also essentially ad-free.
And again, look at the newsletter business. There are thousands of great newsletters that don't show any ads.
And books are ad-free.
Where do you get off claiming that I didn't list any ads? Just because one public TV station show put on one ad in one show doesn't mean that the viewing experience isn't close to 99% ad-free.
Face it. There's a big difference between media behind a paywall and media that's broadcast and ad-driven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
"Public TV and Radio are also essentially ad-free."
Obviously, you've NEVER watched public tv or listed to radio. EVER. They are nothing but ads. A 30 minute show has at least 10 minutes of ads. If you get one solid hour of music on the radio, you'll pay for it with 5-10 minutes of ads. Which is not counting the usual 3 songs, 2-3 minutes of ads (as is usual).
"And I don't think of the trailers for other movies on DVDs or at the movies as ads although that's what they are."
Again, what you think is irrelevant. Trailers on DVD or at the theater are ads. The audience thinks of them as such. Also, you're ignoring the ads that run BEFORE the movie is even going, as in while you sit there waiting for it to start in the theater. Then the ads that run once the lights go down.
However, you neglect, purposefully I think, to realize that people have said one reason they pirate or pay and get a pirated version is to avoid UNSKIPPABLE ads. Meaning no fast forward. So again, you're wrong.
"And again, look at the newsletter business. There are thousands of great newsletters that don't show any ads."
Newsletters? Wtf are you talking about? Newspapers, magazines, comics, etc ALL feature ads. Some even have product placement (much like television and movies) in the source themselves. Which is another form of advertisement.
"And books are ad-free."
Generally. But there is occasional product placement, which qualifies as not ad-free.
"Where do you get off claiming that I didn't list any ads? Just because one public TV station show put on one ad in one show doesn't mean that the viewing experience isn't close to 99% ad-free."
He got off making that claim because you didn't list anything that didn't have ads. You just said, "here are plenty of ad-free media sources." No list equals you made a claim that didn't list anything. And a claim that is demonstrably false. Even your claims that movies are ad free is false. Anyone with a DVD or a ticket to a showing at their local theater can testify to that.
Sorry bob, but the viewing experience on television is nowhere near 99% ad free. In fact, it's reasonable to say AT LEAST half of the viewing experience is ads.
"Face it. There's a big difference between media behind a paywall and media that's broadcast and ad-driven."
No, there is no difference. And that's ignoring that you still have no idea what the word "paywall" actually means.
You're still an idiot. Stop talking already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
Oh, except you missed:
Well, I don't get HBO, not being in the US and everything so I can't comment on the amount of overt advertising, though I'd imagine they spend a lot of time in self-promotion at least. On the other hand, since TV programmes are just as full of product placements as films, nope I'll go with still not ad-free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
I no longer have HBO, but when I do (on "for free weekends") it is as you say it is. Lots of self-promotion. And again, product placement contained therein is a huge deal. So in no way is it ad-free.
I mean basically, the whole point of cable television, originally, was you pay to NOT see ads. Then, it became you pay to see ONLY SOME ads. Now it's the same as non-paid for television.
And the sheer fact that bob has the gall to say that 99% of entertainment is ad-free says that he either lives in a cave or is a complete fucking moron. But since he's on the internet saying what he is, I'm gonna go with the latter.
Also, please tell me I'm not the only one who laughed when he wrote " I just put in the word "largely" to cover my butt." Especially after all the rest he had so wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
"And I don't think of the trailers for other movies on DVDs or at the movies as ads although that's what they are."
*shakes head and laughs*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
There's a pair of sayings that I'm sure everyone, including bob, have heard before. I only wish bob would learn from one or both of these.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
"Think twice, speak once."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
I grant that their pledge drives are 10-15 minutes at a time mostly hard sell to become a member, but at 2-3 times per year, that is relative small price to pay.
I do wonder about NOVA and the Koch brothers support influencing (ie. self-censorship) topics, but that is probably a remote chance of real impact (at least I hope it is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paywall!
It used to be that way,but "sponsor acknowledgements" have expanded tremendously over recent years. Frequently on PBS you will see full minute long commercials produced by the sponsors at the beginning and end of shows. Even the voice overs at the beginning and end of radio programs now include reading long stretches of ad copy written by the sponsors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
Do you know why DVR is so popular with television audiences?
Do you?
It's because we can...
*Gasp*
SKIP THE COMMERCIALS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paywall!
You need to do better at firing your vendors.
I have several companies on a month-long ban (annoying advertising, Carl's Jr gets on here a lot for objectifying women, and Nissan's new annoying noises ad campaign crossed them right off my list for the next car I buy), year-long ban (NBC for holding Olympic coverage until almost midnight every night got them banned from my TVs for the rest of the year), 10-year ban (Apple just got on a second one for problems with my daughter's iPod syncing and suing everyone for stupid stuff) and a lifetime ban (AT&T, Citibank and Sony, for institutionalized theft on multiple occasions).
You may argue that it doesn't matter to them, but if everyone refused to accept institutionalized theft, poor treatment and poor service, these companies would go out of business overnight. And the companies that make great products and treat the customer well would win out in the marketplace.
In any event, these corporations don't bother me anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
bob: Paywall!
daddy: no bob, it's a rock. repeat, rock.
bob: paywall!!!
daddy: Jesus, I thought you'd learn another word after 10 years!
bob: PIRATE MIKE!
daddy: !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
Bullshit. Individual readers can't and won't shell out enough money to make up for what individual companies pay for advertising, therefore, the website with the paywall is not going to pay much attention to individual readers unless their financial contributions to the income of the site is as substantial as that of the companies.
A news site pissing one reader off is nothing. A news site pissing one company off with tens of thousands of advertising dollars invested is significant to that site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paywall!
I'm just saying that cheap readers shouldn't be surprised to hear that the sites they frequent are bending over to backwards to help the advertisers.
When they're done being outraged, they should look around for a paywalled site that doesn't take ads. Consumer Reports is just one of the more prominent ones. There are plenty of good newsletters in many area and I suspect there will be more coming along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
Here's a little history lesson for you, bob...
Webcomics, for a long time, were paywall only.
One of which was losing so much money that they were going to go under in less than a month.
So, they decided 'screw it, this is the last month, everyone can see for free'.
Shockingly, against all odds...
They started making money.
So much money that, in under 2 months, they were completely in the black and were able to keep the website open.
So, see?
Paywall = loss of revenue
Free viewing = lots of revenue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
bob's worse than a zealot.
At least zealots have reference material to cite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
Free Lunch Crowd, eh? And how much did YOU pay to partake of this site where you are commenting on? How much did you pay to read this article? How much did you pay to be allowed to share your shill rhetoric?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paywall!
You're as bad as the SOPA supporters who blame Google for organizing opposition to it. Hint: people don't naturally want the internet that they know and love fucked with by officious legislators and they're also used to not paying for news online since before Google even existed.
News is information. It's much more highly susceptible to the analog hole than other forms of media. I don't have to subscribe to a paywalled newspaper site to read their articles. Google has nothing to do with that.
"I'm just saying that cheap readers shouldn't be surprised to hear that the sites they frequent are bending over to backwards to help the advertisers."
Readers aren't cheap. They're just not stupid. Paying for paywalled news content is like paying for bottled water when your municipal water supply is clean and well filtered. You're just throwing away money for the illusion of quality.
"When they're done being outraged, they should look around for a paywalled site that doesn't take ads. Consumer Reports is just one of the more prominent ones. There are plenty of good newsletters in many area and I suspect there will be more coming along."
Consumer Reports also releases a lot of their content for free via the Consumerist blog they acquired from Gawker. Even paywalled sites know there's a different market for "cheap"/smart readers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paywall!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sooo...they can pay 30 people to mod comments but can't pay their **writers**??????
HuffPo seems an even bigger rip off now than ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sooo...they can pay 30 people to mod comments but can't pay their **writers**??????
Huffpo has a pretty large staff of paid reporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sooo...they can pay 30 people to mod comments but can't pay their **writers**??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sooo...they can pay 30 people to mod comments but can't pay their **writers**??????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sooo...they can pay 30 people to mod comments but can't pay their **writers**??????
Sure, but it's also been used sincerely by people who were actually offering valuable exposure to others who then used it to launch a career.
Exposure is a genuinely valuable commodity -- but it's obviously very difficult to quantify. "Audience size" is such a small part of the equation -- the nature of the audience, the nature of the work, the size of the creator's existing fan-base/audience, and plenty of other factors all effect how valuable exposure is. The value of a creator's time is similarly nebulous -- there's no "this is how much economic return i should get for each hour i spend working on anything" metric that applies to all writers, or that even remains consistent for one writer.
In any area where you have something that is undoubtedly valuable but is also difficult to count and compare, you have the possibility for exploitation. Start setting up trades between two hard-to-quantify things -- exposure and creation -- and it really does come down to the ability of individuals to make wise decisions and estimates. It's not as easy as selling widgets for cash, and it is potentially easier for some people to exploit others, but none of that invalidates the value on either side of the equation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the writers?
Moderating what 'the great unwashed' (e.g. the general public) says on your website is just good business. Keeps the lawyers at bay. I'm sure Techdirt's had to pay lawyers regarding user comments on more than one occasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the writers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the writers?
Interesting, why are you so sure of that? I know they've mentioned how they responded to some legal threats they got, and it sure wasn't with money. Given how Mike feels about third party liability and anti-SLAPP laws, I find it very unlikely they would settle any such lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As these mismatches can seem insensitive to consumers and damaging to advertisers it is pretty much in everyones' interest to avoid them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"She reads everything submitted to HuffPost and helps the moderators do their jobs faster and more accurately. We’ve really done a lot with machine-assisted moderation, allowing us to pre-moderate 9.5 million comments a month, and Julia is core to that."
It really sounds to me like they're talking about user comments, not articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a result of lacking that info, my gaming purchased dropped dramatically. I had found that trial and error just gave me crap games I was no longer willing to buy that way. Since the lack of good sources of honest evaluation became rampant, the only way to know what was good or not was to try it before buying it.
I'm also very much against the wild west of advertising. I know where to look to search for what I want when I want it. Any other time does not convince me to buy but rather convinces me to consider when I go to purchase a product if I've been pestered by that company lately with ads. If I have I'll seek another product than that one. The cost of advertising tacked on to the total cost of the product raises it's expense but does not improve the product. Advertising in it's many forms has become an annoyance of all of them clamoring for that grabbing your attention in a 5 second span. As much of it as there is you are exposed to, that's your whole day if you pay attention to it.
It has become a pest industry much the same as spam. I see little or no difference between the two. If it is advertised, something is wrong with the product it will not sell on it's own merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't know it was possible to have a rampant absence of something. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costume idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HuffPost AOL death kiss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tech dirt does it right...
huffpoo ? not so much...
forget about any 'ad related' CENSORSHIP, they just plain CENSOR ALL the freaking time...
besides the tabloidy feel it rapidly evolved into, i don't go there because they CENSORED others for simply being contrary to the received wisdom they espoused...
really, it is just a left-ish wing-ish echo chamber, not unlike any reichwing site you visit who never allows a discouraging word to be heard...
(of course, reichwing sites will allow nutjob libtards to spout crazy-talk, 'cause they can then laugh and point at the crazy libtard...)
don't step in the huffpoo ! !!
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to defuse the anger in the Trayvon Martin case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]