What makes an online community?

Dan asked a good question this morning. It stemmed from Jodi’s story about the woman who lost her money-filled purse in a Bozeman parking lot and had it returned by a Good Samaritan.

Dan noted that while our Web copy had only one comment, the pared-down AP version on the Billings Gazette’s Web site had almost a dozen comments and counting. Why the difference, especially considering that the AP version stripped out most of the story’s color?The simplest answer is that the Gazette’s Web site gets a lot more visitors than ours. It’s run by a bigger paper with more staff members, and it’s clear from the staff’s choice of stories that the Web site is targeting a statewide audience. Thanks to sheer scale, the Gazette’s going to get more comments on any given story than we will.

My second answer deals more with building a solid, respectful community online, and the example I used was Bozeman Talks.

I don’t know how many of you have visited Bozeman Talks lately (or ever), but if you watch it for very long, you learn that it’s a pretty closed-off community. Substantial comments from new people or outsiders are often met with derision and criticism from the site’s regulars. Even regulars bicker and argue with each other.

The result is a hostile environment, an unfriendly environment that doesn’t welcome new people and new ideas unless new commenters are persistent and belligerent enough to hammer out a space for themselves in the community.

It’s a path full of resistance, and while veteran forum users and Internet users might be used to that kind of vitriol, the casual user will probably not come back to the site.

What could have been done to avoid this situation? As I see it, when Bozeman Talks started, we basically turned the site on and let it run, expecting the community members to do all the work. That’s like building all the infrastructure for a city and inviting people to come build all the buildings themselves, without any help, regulation or government.

It’s a mess.

A better approach would have been to have moderators actively involved in the site from the start, participating in the conversations and shutting down people who cross the line.

Yes, heavy handed governance might stifle a few people who are looking for an open forum for whatever idiotic thing might pass through their minds, but in the long run it will make for a more friendly online community where constructive conversations can happen without being derailed by trolls.

How does all this apply to comments on news stories? Well, those comment systems are miniature communities that need moderation. A good moderator turns what would have otherwise been 10 disparate, shouted comments into a civil conversation.

Who does the moderating? Obviously, it should be someone familiar with the story. Yes, it could be an editor; that’s why a lot of newspapers these days are hiring communities editors, but the best moderation job will be done by — you guessed it — the reporters themselves.

A reporter should take part in the conversation about the news. A reporter should respond to commenters, line out people who are wrong, ask questions and answer questions. In other words, a reporter should be more than a faceless byline.

Yes, it’s more work. Yes, it takes a little time. And yes, the payoff is hard to see because it’s a long-term strategy. But if you reinforce in your readers’ minds that you’re a human being too, you’re likely to draw more civil comments; and if you stick at it, people will start to want to help you, to provide you with information and sources when you ask for them.

You can’t expect a healthy community to grow out of a one-way relationship. It doesn’t matter whether that community is online or in real life. Civility starts with equal participation.

Related posts:

1. A cooling off period in Bloomington, Ill.
2. Things to know about online news
3. Print headlines don’t always work online
4. Comment moderation: How far is too far?
5. Web first or not?