Popular Science Shut Off Comments Because They Failed to Adapt
Mathew Ingram published a great perspective on Popular Science's recent move to turn-off comments on their website content. I agree with Mathew: the moment I read the article I immediately wondered why the magazine made no attempt to fix their commenting framework, resulting in a more curated and factually sound conversation.
Popular Science argues that the general audience conversation can still take place on Twitter and other earned platforms--but really, what's the point? The same issue they're trying to prevent will continue to take place and grow within the channels Popular Science can't control.
The Guardian's Social & Communities Editor, Joanna Geary also made a great point:
@popsci shouldn't be saying "comments don't work" but "our implementation of comments hasn't worked".
Popular Science isn't the only publication to completely shun the value of comments within their websites. And it is important to note that many websites have been experimenting with their commenting systems to evolve the framework.
I've worked with a number of publications and news organizations that simply see no value in the comments section of their content. Here are my thoughts directly related to the Popular Science announcement, with some insight into what I've experienced when working with other content organizations to see value in their comments section:
To those who are "applauding" Popular Science's move
You're completely missing the picture. The goal of their content is to educate the masses on why the research that is conducted is so important to our existence. This includes fostering discussion among those who support, and those who disagree with what's being studied. To restrict the flow of information and discussion that is happening is to do the same thing opponents of scientific fact are doing. If there's one thing science suffers from, it's the elitist attitude that is projected on the discipline by opponents for not immersing all levels of intellect into the debate. Shutting off just distances the majority from what's being discovered. They'll go elsewhere for their news, and they'll get it from sources who shun facts for sensationalist perspectives.
You're blaming technology for actions that humans are conducting
It is very typical to blame technology as the source of our woes. It's because of commenting that trolls are appearing, it's because of Facebook that cyber-bullying exists, and it's because of the Internet that newspapers are going extinct. Blaming the very tools that are meant to foster dialogue is a cop out from evolving the way these tools work to facilitate the right actions. We shouldn't be running away from what's happening, we should be embracing and learning from this activity to design a better experience.
The Solution? Curate the conversation
Very few websites do this. In the midst of all the noise that's happening in the bottom of a piece of content, you're bound to find the handful of people who are creating thoughtful perspectives on what's been published. The Huffington Post in one way, does this by curating and elevating active commenters that are rated by the audience for not just the volume of participation, but for the context of their participation.
Highlight the right people and elevate their opinion. However, it's crucial to include all sides of the conversation to keep the debate healthy. Filter out the noise and define the types of participation your community should be condoning--really, it's in your best interest to set the tone and nature of the actions you want to accomplish.
Bring in experts to cultivate the right discussions
We are in an era where the live chat has become a great tool to extend the message and unearth fresh perspectives. Content can now live longer than its publishing time through Google Hangouts and Webex and other "right now" applications. These organizations can benefit from bringing in the right experts to facilitate the right discussions--whether it's taking a page from Reddit's AMA's, or hosting a prominent science professor to discuss the outcomes of a new study within the walls of Popular Science's website.
Content itself has become more social. Rather than simply doing social, be social. Yes, access to so much information has resulted in everyone becoming experts--but it's on us to unearth the right opinions and shape the right social behaviours that occur from that activity.
Nobody wants to hire the moderator turned "comments editor"
We're in a transition where roles are increasingly becoming a fusion of many different disciplines and skills. Journalism is no different. To continue on a path of silo-type roles and structures in organizations is ultimately going to be the death of a lot of jobs. We need to embrace the culture of multi-skill roles, and evolve the job title to adapt with what's happening. Much like newspapers must adapt to become news sources--changing how they view content and their role in society--content creation even in the digital age needs to adapt to the ways audiences consume and participate with your offering.
And that's the TL;DR takeaway: ADAPT. Too often do I see brands, organizations, disciplines, skills, and people fail to adapt to what's happening around them. Our failure to adapt is what's weeding out so many THINGS in culture because we're to quick to respond with a "no", rather than a "let's try a different approach".