Theoretically speaking, the big advantage of automated message boards is that little production work is required once the system has been put in place. And, of course, there is the added bonus of immediate gratification for your users -- that's no small thing.

Now for the problems:

1. The cursing, name-calling, inappropriate comments and all-around meanness that will almost inevitably result.

Our entertainment subsite, accessAtlanta.com, hosts automated message boards for restaurants and movies which we inherited from the site's previous parent. A message on the restaurant board was brought to our attention not long ago, a message which contained language so foul that its immediate removal became a team affair and not one person in a room full of journalist-types would repeat it. "You don't want to know," they said. "It's really bad." (But I did want to know! It's OK, I only look 12! I'm a gritty journalist with the mouth of a sailor too! Argh!) I never did find out, but it must have been terribly inappropriate to cause such uproar in a place where your standard FCC-regulated words are regularly thrown about and removed from those same boards without a second thought.

The rest of our forums -- including all ajc.com forums -- are purposefully not automated. Our users submit messages and we post all that we judge to be appropriate, editing out information where needed. For most forums, we end up posting 100 percent of submissions or close to it, but some topics just set off the ugliness and you can't always predict which ones they'll be. (For example, our Harry Potter and American Idol forums both took unexpectedly ugly turns and certain threads had to be curtailed.) After having spent entire days reading through hundreds of messages on those occasions when we hit upon a hot topic, I can say with no hesitation that some people are truly just evil, venomously racist or otherwise bigoted jerks who simply don't deserve a voice on your site to randomly inflict their hatred onto others. We absolutely welcome edgy comments or unpopular viewpoints, but only if a message is truly relevant to the topic, adds something valuable to the discussion and is expressed in a civil, non-attacking tone. This is rarely the case.

2. Let's not forget libel.

Some topics draw responses that are not ill-intentioned or otherwise inappropriate except that they cross over the limits of sharing. We've seen it all. Perfectly well-meaning people writing out of a natural desire to tell their stories, but their stories often involve and identify others in a bad light. Examples? The ex-boyfriends/husbands who beat them, the sister who had the abortion, the girlfriend who used to shoplift, the friend accused of rape…. Get the picture? How long do you think it will take those unwitting participants to file the lawsuit once they hear from an old friend who saw that "there was this message board on yournewspaper.com and hey, isn't that Jane talking about you?" It's a small world after all, people.

3. Registration doesn't solve your problems

Did I mention that our automated boards require registration? The problem with relying on registration to quell problems is that ...

a) for the most part it does nothing to dissuade the bullies, potty-mouths and know-it-alls who hide behind the anonymity of the Web. You know who I mean. The ones who set up camp on a board and either snipe, overwhelm or intimidate any lurker or newbie who dares try to participate on their board. Even those who are not malicious in their intent can inhibit the participation of others. Automated boards geared toward the general public tend to either degenerate into mean-spirited sniping or become inhabited by a small, tight-knit group of regulars who clearly "know" one another, often to the point where many others don't feel comfortable jumping in to participate.

b) it doesn't stop those people from posting inappropriate comments, you just know who they are. So you've removed the comment, but what do you do if they don't stop? Ban them? How do you stop them from signing up under a new handle? Generally, you don't, but now you've turned it into a battle of wills and they're more likely than ever to keep behaving badly just to prove the point that you can't stop them. The result? They're unhappy with you and their messages are just clogging up the board, at best wasting your more desirable users' time, at worst highly offending them and now they're unhappy with you.

So what's the solution?

I'm not saying automated boards are never the right answer, but it seems to me that they aren't really the *best* answer for news sites. You end up either a) spending as much time "babysitting" the boards as you would just sticking to minimal editing and manual posting or b) having inappropriate material on your site. For me the bottom line is that message boards on a newspaper site should provide an arena in which readers can interact, discuss topics and share information in a non-hostile environment that is by-and-large appropriate even for school-aged children.

Hands-on monitoring of forums also serves the dual purpose of letting users know someone, a real live person, is on the other end of "the machine." Your readers know someone at the paper has heard their voice -- and not only that, has found their opinion sufficient to share with other readers.

It's a tradeoff to be sure. Is it a tradeoff I'd be willing to make? On a newspaper site, you bet.

October 9, 2003