-
Website
Http://www.techflash.com/ -
Original page
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/08/Were_better_than_this_52448067.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
I've been building and working with discussion and forum software since 1994, and just built a custom setup for a site I write and program for. We decided that email verification was a requirement, although accounts (at this point) aren't. We have the absolute and simple ability to delete comments, ban users by email address, and (with very little effort) to restrict all comments from a given domain.
Weeks into the experiment, we've had several hundred comments, about 8 spams, and a couple inappropriate remarks.
I love the Seattle tech community. Meeting and getting to know people involved in the local tech community has been an incredible joy since first moving here three years ago.
I love the reporting of TechFlash but I think there is a universal opinion about the "community" that comes at the end of each post. The interesting comments are drowned out by the haters.
I think karma systems and logins are a great step, but I think John needs to step up and say, "If you are hateful on my blog, I'll kill your comment. As instantly as I can. If you're borderline on my blog anonymously, I'll kill your comment. If you're borderline on my blog and will sign your real name, I'll drop you a note/reply and we can talk about it."
We should all certainly grow up-- but we won't. Anonymous comments CAN be interesting (and lower the barrier to the conversation)-- and sometimes there is good reason to be anonymous (voicing an important opinion that might piss off your boss/investors, for example).
If the assholes get silenced here, there'll either learn their lesson or find somewhere else to spread their bile. But no matter what software solution you put in place, someone has to wade in and moderate.
I like this article, and I too believe in civil, constructive discussion.
However, as someone who is fairly new to the Seattle tech community, I do sometime feel that this is too much like a family. Everything is great. Everyone is great. I wish more people speak their mind. I wish there are more debate, argument, or even constructive confrontations.
I honestly don't think the negative comments are that bad. In fact, I think it's perfectly healthy to hear a different perspective.
Some people have been bashing Ignition. But, are their comments really baseless, and slandering? I don't think so. There are still some truth behind it.
One note on the login system mentioned above - technology can't fix everything. Yes, you can insist people sign-in in order to comment but what that typically does is to drive the comments down - you lose the jerks, but you also lose casual people who comment here and there. Jerky comments aren't a tech issue, they're a social one and the fix is really social. Be involved with the community here vs being simply a reporter. Show that you care. And feel free to delete jerky comments that add no value.
The real name issue is thorny. It's nice, but in an era when people are looking for work or afraid they might lose a job, insisting on a real name might well put people off from expressing opinions. Much is made of the rule "don't say it in a comment if you wouldn't say it to someone's face" but that ignores that when we're face to face, what I say is to just you and anyone in the group. A comment here can be seen by anyone, permanently and I don't know who will read it. So even if it's not a real whistleblowing comment, just a critical comment or strong opinion, one might legitimately be hesitant to use a real name. The other issue with the real name concept is, of course, that you can't know it's really that person's name.
Running a startup is a tough business in the best of times. Picking and investing in what will ultimately be a successful startup is beyond tough. One in many thousands that get funded will ultimately be a financial success. Along this path, many people are told 'no' in various ways and most cannot believe their idea is not the 'one' that deserves VC money.
Ultimately the VC is the evil bad guy. The blog forums now give those who failed a voice and a way to vent. And it does get personal.
We are fortunate in this country to have a venture capital business. It is unique and possible the only equity-based financing available on the planet. There are times (1998-2000) when it seems easy and everything wins. We know where that lead. There are other times, now for example, when market conditions, government regulations and other influences require the VC community face a daunting task: make money for their investors in spite of the lack of exit strategies.
All of the investors I know are good and decent people with a very tough job. They get crap from their limited partners and from anyone they have to say 'no' to. They aren't all zillionaires, for the most part they are working very hard against significant odds against them. Are they all excellent operators? No. Does every company they fund find a positive exit? no. But they do keep trying, and I for one am very glad they do.
Great ideas are still getting funded, great companies are still finding exits. It is very hard to do and the bar is even higher right now. Somehow there is an expectation that it should be easier. It isn't, it never has been and it never will be.
Just my two cents...
I'm not sure why you guys are obsessed with criticism from TechFlash readers. (btw OVP was attacked by someone who signed his full name and that attack was much more harsh than anything I've seen against Ignition).
I've neither criticized Ignition nor OVP, but don't have a problem with seeing criticism directed again them.
If you disagree with any specific criticism, ignore it or address the criticism specifically.
imo that is better than just complaining about criticism.
Ultimately, most people on TechFlash are adults and they're capable of tuning out and ignoring baseless attacks.
If that is the case, guess what, it comes with the territory. Just so happens these blogs make it easy for some to blast away. But guess what, there is a "report abuse" button. I assume it is there for a reason and the moderator manages it.
Glenn, although I understand, I must say your post is a bit surprising. The truth be told anyone that gets their feelings hurt should probably not read these things or be out in front of the pack.
If the purpose of this site is a warm and fuzy support group, it needs a differnet format, and a different audience.
The question is partially what you want. If you just want positive, supportive comments, I would disagree. The purpose of TF shouldn't be to cheer lead but to discuss and the con side is just as legitimate as the pro side. There's no reason dissent can't be reasonable though.
Finally, some posts are almost bait for this... the post about Tobias's house for example. Legitimate or not, anyone could have predicted that post would get comments and that several would be negative. If you write a story about a tech guy selling his house for millions in the middle of a bad recession you're halfway to snark. When it's someone who's prominent... And, no, that doesn't make it write. But don't act like the inspector in Casablanca when he sees gambling.
Nice is not the same as good. The problem I see with Seattle is that too many people confuse those two. Saying something nice doesn't mean you are contributing. I would much rather hear criticisms than affirmations. I know I'm doing something good. I want to hear what I have to change to make it better. Customers won't always tell you what's not working and the non-customers almost never say why they didn't buy.
You want a love-fest or something to help you improve?
@Tony Wright. Tony, we make those decisions all of the time in terms of moderation, and are constantly removing comments. We instituted the "report abuse" function at the end of every comment so that the community can help police language or views that don't belong here.
We're hopeful that the new comment system will make this job even easier and turn TechFlash into a more vibrant community.
I think you are right that moderation needs to occur, and it does. Todd, Eric and I weigh in on posts all of the time, and as Glenn suggests I encourage others to do so too.
If someone signs their name -- but has something negative to say -- I do give more weight to this. But even then, we sometimes take those comments down.
As I am sure you are aware, the challenge is knowing what to remove. It is a slippery slope removing comments as we believe that people have the right to speak their mind and share views that maybe the majority of people don't like.
As Glenn Kelman points out, some of the comments he hates the most usually are "at least half right."
Censoring those comments and trying to choose what is offensive to certain people, I think, goes against the spirit of an open community.
We do try to remove vicious personal attacks, hate speech, SPAM, blatant advertising, foul language, and material that is not connected to the story. Could we do a better job of that? Sure.
But as Glenn Kelman points out, the best way to elevate the conversation, is to actively participate in it with your signed name.
And, if you do see something that should be removed, please hit the report abuse tab at the end of every comment.
Thanks for reading and providing feedback.
We realize this is a sensitive issue, and we are hoping you can help us build TechFlash into a robust, strong community where various voices can be heard.
John Cook
Journalists routinely rely on anonymous sources, and have done so for as long as journalism has existed. In 2009, anonymous comments simply skip directly from source to consumer, just like many other facets of the news. There are fewer filters in between, which means the readers have to do more of the editing themselves. But again, that has more to do with changes in communication technology than it does with there being less quality content available from anonymous sources.
You three most of all. I rarely see you guys post in the comments. You simply can't post the article, move on to the next one, not engage and then wonder what's happening in the comments. PLEASE read Fred's posts (link above) on this as I think it's good info from someone who's been there (albeit not from a journalist's point of view). And real names need to remain an option. Too many times I see people touting them as a panacea when they're just not.
For example- Amazon sells books and a lot of them. They get hounded all the time from different groups who feel that Amazon should carry more, sell more, sell, not sell more, not carry certain subject matters, carry certain subject matters, and the list goes on.
Amazon will always have someone that will complain, and so will every business out there for as long as they’re in business. I don’t know Glenn Kelman more than the guy I drive by on the street. In fact I just had to look to see how he spells his last name, and I was wrong. I thought it was Kleinman!
What I do know is I read a lot of Glenn Kelman bashing and most of it is because John writes articles about him, and Redfin. The question is who cares! Why can’t John write about anyone he wants and how much he wants too! It’s his blog!
The problem with society is people have adopted a self-entitlement attitude.
“Oh, John’s writing about Glenn again! What the hell, my company is better than Glenn’s I should be getting the coverage!”
Yet if someone criticizes their company, or what their doing the attitude changes to-
“Who do they think they are? Trying to tell me how to run my business, or what I should or shouldn’t do! Screw them! Fricking idiots!”
The bottom line is the people that complain on this blog and every other blog are the same people that complain in their home, work, stores, on the telephone, or anywhere they can be heard. They must be miserable stinking people to live with!
I can assure you this. I’m building a business for the mass. Not everyone will agree with what it is. I’m certainly not going to deviate from the core objectives to please a few who are not happy. Anyone who does that enters a vicious cycle that becomes a circle… which never ends.
I do jump into the comments when I feel I can add value. but I'm going to make it a higher priority to be more active. As rick suggests, it's an issue of finding the time, more than anything else.
We want to keep TechFlash a thriving, engaged community where people are free to express their thoughts and opinions, positive and negative -- but we also want people to feel comfortable offering their candid thoughts in guest posts and interviews, without feeling like they're being thrown unprotected into the lion's den.
My exposure to the Seattle Tech community over the past 12 years has been on a mid to lower level. Through the years, I have had maybe 2 or 3 leaders/managers that have impacted my life/career with positive impact. For the most part I have been lied to, abused and less than appreciated.
Myself and fellow peers yearn for the possibility to dedicate our career to a leadership that is intelligent, fair, supportive and offers great value to internal/external customers.
Reading the comments, it has been refreshing to see my expierence is not unique. The Seattle tech circle is incestuous and needs a safe forum to break the family lies without recourse.
Some of the comments could be presented with more fact than feelings, however I would hope the people that have been attacked will push aside the personal side and look to improve as professionals.
As a society we have tried to induce conformity on a number of occasions and in nearly every case we have looked back and regretted it.
So while the piece is interesting to read and the examples are fun, the inherent ability of humans to have a different concept of what behaviors are acceptable has been overlooked. Why should we abhor those who choose to pen their opinions anonymously? There are real problems of retaliation and reputation at stake and if someone feels strongly enough to voice their opinion then we should let them – whether it be anonymous or not.
Anonymity has been a key role in penned pieces and opinions throughout history; Beowulf, The Federalist Papers, Tom Sawyer – all published under anonymity. Look at Plato’s dialogues – masked under the guise of an otherwise unknowable character named Socrates. Some may say an anonymous writing is of more value because it is important enough to say – yet controversial enough to be anonymous. To this day we all know and understand the value of these anonymous writings and despite this are willing to propose a national ID number like registration to comment publicly about the news. I guess that’s the root of the question - is Techflash a news site or an opinion blog?
AVC is one model – but not the only model. Slashdot, Techcrunch, TMZ, CNN, Guy Kawasaki, etc, etc are all different models with varying degrees of regulation in the comments. Techflash is truly unique in it’s attempt to move journalism into the next stage and I sure hope our dreams, memories, and desires for a community
You just wrote about something that I've been complaining about with John, Eric and the TechFlash crew (and others) for months. Lately, I've just decided to not acknowledge the pure-haters at all. I just figure that by paying them little attention, they'll eventually get bored and leave. Or, at least, I won't waste time in an anonymous shouting contest.
However, I'd love if:
* The comment system did have some log-in system. Not that everyone would use it, but there would be some incentive for frequent posters to identify themselves, and it would be easier to identify contributors who you like to follow (i.e. if I like to see your comments). Also, systems like Disqus give you one-click sign-in, which is nice.
* TechFlash and other blogs took a more proactive involvement in the comment streams -- I really do think that a lot of people are turned off by the negativity in the streams. Again, not by fact-based contributions, but by pure vitriol. I was engaged in a pretty active discussion on xConomy this weekend, and I loved it -- but, their comment system is just about as bad as TechFlash's (although they do have subscribe-to-comments)
* Improved commenting (for instance, I can't opt-in to get follow-on comments on this blog -- so, I don't even KNOW that someone has posted a conflicting viewpoint unless I happen to refresh my browser, or if someone tells me -- Subscribe-to-Comments has been a wordpress plugin for years, and Disqus would give this (and other blogs) that functionality immediately
End of day, active commenting and discussion benefits everyone. And, negative comments are fine, really they are. It's just better to know who they are (like the person who stands up at Town Hall Seattle or public forums). As long as a person lays out their opinions, they should be OK with talking a bit against the grain.
Onward,
Dave
Get used to it: business is a tough game, not a friendly one. As enterpreneurs, we all know it starts with making sure we're "covered" (ex: spending $$$ on simple terms of use).
It's pretty surprising to see a CEO has so much time to spend not on increasing profit, but on generalities.
Stop complaining about the complaining. Stop the dumb poetry. Let's focus on BUSINESS.
@Joe the Coder: I agree that nice and good are not the same. We have to be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
@Counter Point: aside once from being titanically pissed about something John Cook posted about Redfin, my feelings haven't been hurt but I do think that sometimes the conversation isn't very constructive. There are other blogs where it is, and I'd like to see TechFlash be more like that.
@JoshMaher, others: I understand your point about anonymity. There are folks with legitimate fear of reprisal, and of course they should continue to be anonymous. I recognize that blogs are a forum to speak truth to power and I am not in favor of censorship.
And no I don't TechFlash to be warm & fuzzy, or like family, or a cheer-leading section.
I think John/Todd/Eric could do a better job at removing irrelevant/unrelated comments. For a while every other post on TechFlash there was a commenter asking "What about Sampa?", or "What about Calbucci?" or sometimes being even more personal attacking me, and those posts had absolutely no relation to me. You guys should just get rid of that.
Sign-in is good, but because there was so much free for all for so long you stimulated this kind of behavior but not cutting it fast and early. Now you'll have an uphill battle.
I was suprised by the 100+ comments I received on TechCrunch for my Guest Post. The civility was at 99% of the comments, even for the people that disagreed with me.
My other suggestion is to simply include the IP address of every commenter. Although it's near impossible to trace an IP to a person, it would create a sense of being anonymous, but cautiously.
TechFlash is neither. It is not like the great blogs because it does not provide its opinion in a direct manner. TechFlash reads more like a newspaper site in a blog format. The great bloggers would boldly just say that they think that Tobias or Ballmer are idiots if they thought so. The TechFlash style is to talk about how lavish the Tobias mansion is but it's obvious why they chose to feature Tobias' home rather than someone else. John and Todd should take better ownership of their own views.
@DEV, anonymity is fine for protecting your source in journalistic pursuits, but is not necessary or required for commentary. If you can't back up what you write with your own name, then perhaps it doesn't belong in a public and professional forum like TechFlash. Pretty simple.
Take away the anonymity and most of the unwanted haters and trolls will go away, I suspect. The registered log-in for comments may be a good solution and start. There's room for criticism here no doubt, but being mean-spirited for the sake of it is truly unnecessary.
Seattle is a small town and if you don't like someone, pick of the phone, give them a call, and resolve it like adults. The rest of us don't need to hear about it. Keep up the good work, John and Todd.
Jim Krouskop
Posting an IP address....are you kidding?
Keep it Anon and add a rating scale including negative scores.
But the lack of civility also isn't healthy for TechFlash, because in the entrepreneurial circles I travel the aggressive personal attacks are discussed as a reason NOT to bother bring news to this outlet - something that did not happen when John was at the PI. Many VCs I know don't come to the site at all anymore - yet there's much they could contribute to the conversation.
Many of us teach our kids that a measure of civility is simply not saying something you wouldn't say to or about someone if they were standing right next to you. Even an anonymous comment should have to pass this simple civility test. Instead I've seen comments about an entrepreneur's looks and weight - W.T.F. is that doing here?
I wrote about this a year ago in a post called a culture of cowards http://vjournal.com/a-culture-of-cowards
Personal attacks should absolutely be deleted - they serve no constructive purpose.
This allows anonymous comments, but they are automatically shown in a less prominent manner. When trusted people mark them as a valuable part of the conversation, they get more prominence.
Then write "It takes big balls to address this crowd"
Do you see the irony? Mixed messages? Perhaps a disservice to "the" cause?
Think about it,
Jenn
But if that point was lost and therefore my comment offended you, than that's the irony, and I apologize.
If we had to err on the side of too much commentary versus too little, I'd take the former in a heartbeat.
Everything is worth questioning and those who feel that certain things, companies are individuals are ABOVE reproach are naive. Once you stop questioning, you may as well start a religion and start jumping up and down on Oprah's couch with Tom Cruise.
So seriously. Stop whining. Start an argument and keep on topic. Sure you will be flamed occasionally; take it in stride. I have people who follow me around and keep GPS coordinates on all my posts apparently (or so they think). And some can't argue to save their lives. But occasionally they make a point and I concede to their surprise.
We all have good days and we all have bad days. This is a forum and it's not worth making a post about being polite because the internet is never going to be able to be perfect for everyone unless it is censored in which case it will be perfect for no one.
Who said anything about being offended, I was merely offering a comment about what I observed.
Can you expand about what point you were intentionally making?
I will stop here (but still confused about your lost point) as I do not want to dilute from this post's topic nor Glenn's outstanding commentary.......
J
who is Joe, and is he really a liar? If he is, then this is interesting information that I would like to know. If he is not a liar, then it is slander and defamation. Reality matters.
In short: You can’t have it both ways: public and positive. If you’re not up to being a public figure and getting the heat, then uncross your sanctimonious arms and head for the door . . .
Unrespectfully yours,
An entrepreneur that believes in maniacal sweat - not pretty words
I don't mind being a small-scale public figure. And I am sorry to report that I have basically screamed at John Cook over a piece he wrote on Redfin; that we get along at all has more to do with him than me.
I think we agree on the importance of maniacal sweat -- I write a guest post somewhere about once every three months, and will continue to do so, but otherwise I'm mostly hard at work on Redfin -- and of looking for the truth in the words of our detractors (did you actually read what I wrote where I talked about just that?).
Can you answer me one question: since it's safe to say you'll never want to work for me or hire me to work for you, why be anonymous? I think it would help you get attention for your business if you built a reputation around your thoughtful comments or blog posts. One reason for not leaving anonymous comments -- which I didn't mention -- is that it seems like a waste of your time.
Exactly. This can either be a forum or it can be a commerical for self promoting purposes; it can't be both. People who question things or are critical are often attacked by those who don't wish to be questioned or criticized... that's just the case. And you can either allow open dialog or censor all dialog to only positive feedback in which case the site fails to meet it's purpose of being a forum.
You're either a forum or a shill: you can't be both.
To Glenn: some folks started criticizing you on TechFlash because several of your posts were currying the favor of VCs by explaining to everyone how wonderful they are. I say it was well deserved.
To Marcello: post IPs? I've been a victim of post deletion because you couldn't handle some minor criticism, so no surprise here. The thread discussing Sampa's end is worth a read. Quite a few people (at least, using different writing styles) had quite a few things to say: are you saying it's 100% untrue?
Other poseurs (ex: Greg-the-VC) received well-deserved criticism as well. It's good to see people putting a stop to some heavy BS, once in a while.
Overall, stop whinning about being criticized, and try focusing on business for a change.
That's some entertaining stuff. Has someone pulled those together? There must be a template for those articles.
Then, people who have a real job and read TechFlash only later during the day read the story, and reality strikes.
I too am tired of the grandiose poseurs.
Look at Iran elections as an example. World would not know the truth about Iran without people posting their opinion without using real name. Otherwise they can lose lives easily. TheFunded made revolution by exposing the real face of many VCs. It was done in anonymous way. Here, had any entrepreneur or employee dare openly criticize the Seattle cartel and he is finished.
http://blog.redfin.com/blog/2009/07/the_only_th...
Same old, they're all so great...
Let's face it. John's been in journalism long enough to know what'll bring the pageviews.
Apparently a lot of us enjoy reading stories about JGO's death threats, Martin Tobias' divorce, or Marcelo realizing he can't make a living off the Seattle Startup Index.
As for the content, I think it comes across is don't be mean. That's too much. I think the more calibrated argument should be don't get personal. You can be frank and candid without being personal.
Lastly, clearly Glenn did a good job because this is like the 50th comment. Microsoft kills Windows Live Events and there's like 1 comment. I guess we like to talk about how we talk about each other.
-Anonymous
(because I want to be able to speak without watching every adjective but I still keep it respectful).
P.S. If TechFlash creates a censored comments policy with IP addresses and forced registration, may I suggest that John create another site which is an open, self regulated forum (I imagine there's probably 4 startups in the Valley that offer that)?
As for the content, I think it comes across is don't be mean. That's too much. I think the more calibrated argument should be don't get personal. You can be frank and candid without being personal.
Lastly, clearly Glenn did a good job because this is like the 50th comment. Microsoft kills Windows Live Events and there's like 1 comment. I guess we like to talk about how we talk about each other.
-Anonymous
(because I want to be able to speak without watching every adjective but I still keep it respectful).
P.S. If TechFlash creates a censored comments policy with IP addresses and forced registration, may I suggest that John create another site which is an open, self regulated forum (I imagine there's probably 4 startups in the Valley that offer that)?
If you disagree with the tactics Glenn uses, fine. By all means bring up their weaknesses, suggest alternatives, or better yet describe approaches that you have seen work well.
In this day and age I expect a CEO to be blogging, speaking, participating in industry panel discussions, engaging the media, and generally doing his or her all to best position the company and product for success. A quarterly guest post hardly makes me think Glenn is overdoing it on promotion at the expense of other parts of the CEO job.
@Don't Show IP: I like your calibration.
What does having a name do for you? Will you shame them? Will you somehow view their feedback differently? Will you tattle on them to their parents?
I miss the objectivity of Walter Cronkite. No clubishness. No whining. No favoritism. No mamby-pamby diatribes. Just hard core news and reporting. Do better John. You're not in LA.
And stand down Glenn. Please stand down.
No one is saying that he shouldn't promote his business. We're saying he shouldn't WHINE when we call him out for being a sycophant and not being objective.
It's like Steve Jobs and Syeve Ballmer getting into an argument over who is the best computer OS. neither can be objective and it is up to the community to determine that as the companies (and their ceo's and employees) cannot often be onjective. Often times even the consumers of their products cannot be objective but at the very least they are not collecting a paycheck every time they say 'we sure are awesome'.
You seem to be missing the entire point as to why every single person here is up in arms and why the Techflash community seems to be revolting... and revolting.
How about this: Would John be open (or brave enough) to have a vote about whether Glenn should write a guest post going forward? Personally, I'd vote him off the island.
Since poster #59 mentioned that, I too think readers aren't too excited about more post from backscratchers / self-promoters.
Give us real stories from people trying to start something! I'm sure there are plenty of hard working entrepreneurs willing to share their story (not talking about those who spend all their time attending Seattle 2.0 events).
Wondering if someone will start a company boycott? Perhaps only then will he leave us alone.
There is no agreement, formal or informal. When I write something John might like, I email it to him and he decides whether to run it. It usually takes me three months to get the time to try to write something good.
Before I wrote anything for John Cook, I wrote guest posts for TechCrunch (twice) and Guy Kawasaki's blog (many times), both of which get more traffic than this blog; if I were to be banished I would just submit my next effort elsewhere.
Of course, sometimes whatever guest post I write isn't good enough for any of those forums, and it ends up on Redfin's blog. This is what happened when I published "How Green Was My Valley," comparing Seattle to Silicon Valley.
For now, don't worry, I told John when I sent this one over that I don't have any plans to write anything for TechFlash any time soon. The field is all yours! Write a guest post!
Really, that was the plan?
The spineless brown-nosed sycophant's
a common invertebrate,
he mucks about in marshes
and at bottoms of dark lakes.
The face that's looking forward
is not the one that's true;
he's really looking backward
as he's chattering at you.
So watch this creature carefully
as truth he tries to bend,
and do not turn your back on him:
he'll bite you in the end.
There is no formal agreement -- as you suggest -- to run Glenn Kelman's guest posts on TechFlash. We do so on occasion in part because we find his writings on the tech business both interesting and provocative.
I am glad that Glenn is willing to share those opinions here, even when they are somewhat critical of TechFlash as was the case in this post.
That said, guest posts are open to anyone.
We welcome all viewpoints and if you have an idea for a column, by all means send it along.
We usually like posts that are 900 words or less, have a strong opinion on a timely topic or take a contrarian view of the of the tech business.
Just email me if interested. Thanks.
John Cook
You leave out a variable...the reader, me. I have a choice to read the posts or not and then continue on with my life. The readers should be the gatekeepers! You have one of the smartest audiences in the area, I can decide what is relevant for me to read, not an Intern.
#66 suggests more than ever that you lack objectivity. Please re-read it again, and again. You've defended Glenn because you - wait for it - care for him. That's not a bad thing. He's your friend. Just admit it. We all see that. Don't hide. It will help him and increase your credibility.
If you read between the lines, that's really what's in question here.
Solidarity to the #57 Cronkite comment.
I'd also disabling completely anonymous comments. Whether it is a disqus profile, FB connect, twitter, whatever, you're signed in, and you're posting as yourself. People can explore your comments on other blogs around the web, and when you're speaking as yourself you'll hopefully be less snarky (or we'll all just know you're an ass and vote you down / ignore you).
John/Eric/Todd - you can be up and running with Disqus in a few hours, and I'm happy to help if you need it.
Basically, successful entrepreneurs make money like athletes. And our careers are a lot longer. Can you imagine any athlete crying about what was said about him just cause he missed a critical shot at a critical point in the game. Can you imagine them being so sensitive. You are in the big leagues, Glenn, Sh** the f** up.
And as for the money being undeserved, speak for yourself, many of us feel we deserve every penny. I certainly do.
(I am also the same one that pointed out how wrong you were about the taxation issues regarding the Zappos sale. You were sensitive then too even though you were factually wrong and didn't know what you were talking about. You want to be a star, but you don't want the heat. Is that right, Glenn?)
@68. Glenn is not what I would consider a friend. Yes, I do bump into him at tech events around town, just as I do with dozens of entrepreneurs, lawyers and investors. I am friendly with him, as I try to be with most of the people I cover.
(I am from the Midwest so it is just in my nature and -- frankly -- I think it is just an easier way to go through life).
But my social circle of friends -- the people I golf with, go to movies with or invite to dinners -- are a completely different set of folks than who you'd find here on TechFlash. I actually make a point of not mixing the two worlds.
I try hard to be objective and cover the news. In fact, I can point to dozens of news scoops over the past month that were broken on TechFlash.
I am proud of that as our my colleagues.
I am not sure what type of favoritism you think is going on. I've covered good news and bad news at Redfin in the past, and I will continue to do so.
In this instance, Glenn Kelman wrote a guest post. We thought it was interesting. We published it.
If you have a compelling guest post to share, please email it to us. Thanks.
John Cook
However, I must disagree with Glenn that the personal comments, the "chicken****t", though snarky, should be filtered. I myself find more truth in those comments than in others. Like #72, that could simply replaced by a thumbs up button.
Would it shock you if I told you that I can predict the future and write all the comments you can expect from any articles about the following people?
Marcelo Calbucci...Sampa Douchebag but great at Seattle 2.0, Martin Tobias...Douchebag King but sold his house (yay!), Ignition...Ex Microsoft/McCaw Douchebag Committee...
Could I just be an a-hole? Maybe. But I could also be a ex-investor or laid off employee. Who are you to say that all negative comments are unfounded and therefore unnecessary? I would say they reveal as much about a story as a congratulatory comment does.
Honestly would it surprise you if some of your employees I've met have called you an a-hole sometimes? You can't make everyone happy so grow up and move on.
I'm curious as to why Glenn felt the need to write his article and who exactly it is directed to? I feel like he's calling out the Seattle 2.0 (Club/Fraternity/Secret Society whatever) community that is chummy and all buddy buddy in public at events that in private really won't stick out their necks for you? Is that really a surprise ? Aren't most people like that? You see it all the time in job interviews. The person may smile and laugh at your jokes but secretly hate your guts.
The "Club" is quick to congratulate but when real criticism is offered about someone's business model, execution or decisions, nobody really is going to step up to defend anyone because they secretly agree.
This is business folks, there are no friends in business despite what people may say.
Ever heard of an anonymous tip line? Witness Protection Program? I wonder why they provide protection for people's identities...?
Do you really want to cloak the real opinions of people just to create some happy happy dance with the deer kum-ba-yah world where people can read TechFlash articles without getting their panties in a bunch just because someone said one bad thing?
Here's how every comment will look:
"Great job! The Blob is a great guy and I really like his gelatinous motion!"
Dose of reality here: Even if they're not writing it on TechFlash, they're probably thinking it and talking to other people about it.
If you want to go build a utopia, do it somewhere else. This is the business world and if you can't take a few negative comments well you should probably think about joining a clergy somewhere so you can pray for the souls of all those evil sinners who write nasty comments.
Regarding John Cook's reporting. I think he's done a fantastic job reporting on the pulse of the Seattle startup community. The articles with as many comments as this article just show how in tune he is into what's really going on. People wouldn't comment if it wasn't interesting.
The articles are just the bait that draw out the real thoughts and opinions of the seattle startup community.
And John, by posting this guest commentary, you've done a fabulous job in bringing out something that's been going on for a long time in the Seattle startup community.
"We're Better Than This?" No, more like "Story of Emo: not everyone is nice so I dyed my hair and wrote a sad song, life is hard, deal with it, :'( ."
I guess this is what I dislike about the comments here - the personal attacks. Yeah, yeah be tough etc etc. Heard it, done it, /yawn. The problem is it doesn't address the topic. Almost always, when you attack the person and not their arguments you don't have an argument yourself. If all you can do is attack someone personally, then you're just wasting space. Address the arguments they make or, well, shut up.
@John Cook - your posts here are what I'm talking about. That kind of engagement will be critical, but it has to happen on most posts with active threads and it needs to be Todd and Eric too (probably should be the author of a post primarily). I can't balance your day for you and I don't have a good feel for what each story takes in terms of reporting, but I do hope you guys consider how you can get in and make relevant comments when there's an active thread. Seeing you involved will keep things on track I think.
As to what to delete, I'd be relatively liberal about publishing things. Allow most things, but delete comments that are nothing but personal attacks "X is an idiot", "There goes X again" etc. I mean comments that literally read "So and so is just a tool" with no arguments, no evidence, just unsubstantiated nasty attacks. I'd leave up almost everything else, even if it's negative, as long as it speaks to the topic.
I find your blogs the most compelling reading on the internet. Full disclosure, I'm a broker taking on the traditional model, so I'm simpathetic to what you are going through. While some of the negative comments are rather entertaining, I do wish there was more civility.
I think your harshest critics are scared. Scared that Redfin will succeed and upset the apple cart. Scared that an industry 'outsider' will be the one to change the industry.
Keep fighting the good fight for your customers. Someday your critics will be on the sideline, the game will be over, and they'll be wondering what happened.
Personally, I don't comment anonymously. I think it's a sign of weakness.
When I go back and look at the snarkiest comments on this blog, I have to ask myself, why are those commenters afraid to put their name on these comments? If I shared the opinions of Xeno and Hater and the like, I'd gladly put my name on their comments. If they still want to retain their "pen-name" then they could always include it with their real name.
Although the registration systems are interesting, and Disqus has some cool features, I think you should continue to allow anonymous comments. I won't use it, but getting rid of it would be censorship, and I'm no fan of that.
With respect to the critical feedback on some entrepreneurs, VCs, companies, etc; I agree with most of the comments here that there is value in that criticism. Sure there are plenty of cheap shots, but I think most of us know how to read past/around the trolls.
A couple of you mentioned a desire for us to jump into the comments more. I'll make it a point to do that. Sometimes in the rush of news that we deal with each day, it’s easy to get sidetracked into new material, but I can see that there’s a value in being more engaged in the comment field, particularly on posts that spark a lot of discussion and back-and-forth opinion.
As John noted above, we are putting in place a new comment system with some new tools, so stay tuned.
@Dave Schappell, Tony Wright -- I agree with your suggestions whole heartedly.
@Brad Hefta Gaub -- I disagree.
The fact that there are 80 posts on a Seattle tech news blog about civility tells you everything you need to know. The blog is being abused by shitty anonymous comments that detract from the readership of the post.
John and Todd -- I'm a big fan and supporter as you know. I think you guys have done an A+ job creating this site and as journalists you're outstanding. As moderators of the comment string you guys barely get a passing grade. I think you risk your brand and hard work if you don't start demanding civility and accountability (anonymous posting sucks).
As someone who watched UGC comments on my site (Judy's Book) degrade to total flame throwing wars -- I learned you can't and shouldn't sit on the side lines of an online UGC forum. UGC has the natural tendency to the flame war. It's part of the fun of internet posting -- you can hide behind a computer and say whatever you want to whomever you want with no repercussions. I understand the fun of this posting -- but have zero, let me change that -- negative interest in reading that crap. And that's what your comment string has bordered on moving to.
Spirited debate is one thing. Thoughtful comments from an anonymous poster are ok too. You both know the difference between the above and personal attacks and snipey worthless flames.
In my opinion, you both need to spend a portion of your day moderating these forums much more (period).
Glenn: Don't agree with your post, not sure it was a wise thing to do (PR) as a leader of a company trying to garner consumer interest.
@ Andy Sack. Pal, don't come to the site if you feel that way. Can I come on yours and tell YOU how to run it? Why use profanity in your post?
@John Cook. Keep up the good work. the fact you are open to the type of posts critical of you and your management of the site speaks volumes about your persona. If the site was irrelavant, you would not have all the high level whiners. It actually validates what you are doing. Persoanlly I folow the site, and rately read what I would construe as blatant persoanl attacks.
To eveyone else, carry on, fight the good fight.
Bill
Are they frustrated because their network of Seattle 2.0 friends cannot exercise revenge and retribution against those who speak against the club?
I think the main point is that no matter what tech you put in place, trolls will still comment, ultimately someone has to choose to moderate it.
Personally I think that Fred Wilson's approach of engaging the community is the better technique for influncing the tone of the dialogue.
Is a troll someone that posts something you do not agree with or has passion in a post you do not like? Just curious.
Censorship on an open forum, very China like.
What do folks think the response would be to Glenn's post if Techflash was a blog from the Valley?
I'm curious what people think.
You folks in WA are so passive agressive, can't handle confrontation, are threatened by ideas that are not your own and too closed off in your circle.
The result of which detract's from so many facets of your business and life.
When you filter ideas, make decisions that are emotional rather than factual and cannot look through another set of lenses you have incorporated flaws before you even begin.
Keep Tech Flash anon, stop the BS personal attacks and have no deleted posts (except hate) or risk a huge loss on so many levels.
Less flame baiting, more constructive conversation!
Its rife with people that care more about ego, image, and self promotion than building actual companies.
Not to mention the wannabe investors eager to nurture the 'new entrepreneurs'. What liquidation preference is required for the - 'Sage Advice'?
Best thing about Seattle is you don't need any of it! The tech talent is amazing. Startup costs for a good idea are low....the best ideas include components that make organic growth and bootstrapping possible.
The people that know this never show up on these blogs and are not part of 'The Club'. They are happy building their companies successfully under the 'Radar'.
Techflash should limit views only to Washington State....Otherwise it will severely hamper valuations from outside investors!
1. iLike rolls out App platform, with 250 bands signed on Business
2 Seattle Google boss terrified by education funding, VC situation Business
3 Martin Tobias less Kashless, sells QA pad for $4.3 million Business
4 Seattle video startup Delve partners with Akamai Business
5 Microsoft slip? Return on Yahoo deal, costs revealed in confidential slide Business
6 Ballmer: Bing will do special things to support Windows Business
7 Microsoft analyst meeting: Ballmer said "nobody gets" Yahoo deal Business
8 Web usage flattens, traditional media hold steady Business
9 Microsoft-Yahoo deal: Ballmer's triumph Business
10 Microsoft looking up, hosts Space Elevator Conference Business
11 New Sonos controller released, lovely if you can afford it Business
12 Ad Age: Microsoft and Yahoo finalizing search deal Business
13 Amazon's Kindle gets the Nicholson Baker treatment Business
14 FT: Apple tablet launching by Christmas; a Kindley 10-in. iPod Touch? Business
15 Bill Gates chimes in on Gizmodo's '79 celebration Business
16 Microsoft's Halo, Ubisoft's Assassin roll into Hollywood Business
17 Bellevue's DreamBox lands Canadian distribution deal Business
18 Casual Connect: Apple App Store hasn't won yet, Microsoft manager says Business
19 Microsoft says Windows 7 is done, goodbye Vista Business
20 Casual Connect: PopCap's free iPhone "Bejeweled" upgrade Business
From what I can tell, TechFlash missed (other than the random Microsoft stories) the Sonos, Dreambox, and Popcap stories completely. Wonder why? Were they scooped or are these companies not part of the club/frat?
We do "miss" stories on occasion in part because we run out of time, or just don't believe they rise to the level of a full post.
(In the past, we've tried to accumulate some of those snippets in our Quick Hits post and we will continue to do so in the future.)
Your comparison to Brier's blog -- if I understand you correctly -- is really misguided.
You fail to include in the comparison all of the original stories we cover on TechFlash that he did not cover.
For example, today on Brier's blog he has no posts. We have four.
Yesterday, TechFlash had 16 posts. Brier's blog had one.
On Monday, we had 10 posts. Brier's blog had one.
That's the trendline we see. And it is not to say "more is better" as we know we miss stories or can't get to everything.
On most days, we feel like field surgeons doing triage trying to get to the most crucial stories and covering them in an in-depth style.
There's no conspiracy here. We just trying to get to the news we can, and bring the tech community what we think is the most compelling and interesting reporting.
If there are stories, you think we should be covering, please email me.
Thanks for reading.
John Cook
You can not have a Free (as in 'Freedom') discussion of ideas unless you allow the worst of ideas and the most crass of voices to participate.
Once we start limiting participation to only those who have the spine to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, then we've invalidated the very nature of the conversation - which is to discuss the idea(s) presented.
I think the real underlying driver for suggesting this type of identity validation is that we (collectively) as respondents don't want to actually be forced to defend our positions from the drivel of anonymous posts. Rather than ask what that says about anonymous posts, we should be asking "What does this say about me?"
~ Richard Luck
Don't read them if you are so sensitive.
Don't read them if they may not be always supportive.
Don't pay any attention to them if they are hateful and full of contempt.
Don't write articles if you don't want folks with nothing better to do than comment silly stupid things that are often personal.
Geez.
And for many of you who have commented on this blog about Glenn personally you have no idea how dedicated to Redfin and humble he is. Glenn is by far the hardest working person I know and his productivity is unparalleled. Just try working with him, or ask someone who has, keeping up is impossible. He is also the only person I know who can’t accept verbal praise without getting visibly uncomfortable and changing the subject.
All the flamers who post stupid stuff about other people, just leave a negative impression about themselves.
Don't know any of the people who get flamed. But I know if I met them, I would offer to buy them a beer.
There is nothing criminal about talking about how their company is going to save the world. I would refer you to any corporate website/blog/tweet/press release for ample examples. Such is the way of the corporate world.
I feel your pain as a community manager. Keeping the audience satisfied and engaged is an exciting challenge I bear on my shoulders every day. Every decision is often met with my internal conflict of, "How will they respond?" But this isn't bad.
I admit that I've never really hit up this site/blog/community until my tech pr gal, Monica Miller, tweeted about it. I wanted to chime in saying that blaming the community for their vitriolic comments is short-sighted.
Trust me, as a former community manager for AOL, and having survived the wringer between the Sports and Parenting communities -- I've had more innuendos, four letter words and offensive monikers users against me and others simply for moderation. But I don't fault the users, necessarily.
In this entry, it feels to me that you find fault in the users who passionately defend their turf of topics that alienate them. If someone is willing to act a fool in response to an unwelcome topic and fight amongst each other, it means they care. They care enough to spend their time on your Web property. Possibly engaging with the ads too, we pray.
My suggestions are pretty vanilla, because they work:
-- Establish a few clear guidelines with regard to what IS NOT acceptable, and giving examples of what is.
-- Be open and accessible, but don't be afraid to issue bans. Eventually, people take a hint and move on to their next community.
-- Reward other users to be able to moderate if they have a genuine interest in the community.
-- Relax. Don't give validation to the trolls and idiots out there more than you need to. (This post is appropriate.)
I'm totally open to discussing it and assessing the overall health of the community. But understand that no community is ever completely at peace. A little conflict is a good thing. :)
~Joseph
- Community Manager for Infusionsoft
- @JoeManna on Twitter.
>> Is a troll someone that posts
>> something you do not agree
>> with or has passion in a post
>> you do not like? Just curious.
I agree with the Wikipedia definition of a Troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
However, I'll give you credit for the excellent demonstration of a classic Troll technique of the "False Choice" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Fals...)
As you present my options for defining a Troll, you've given me a false between two stances I've never taken.
I think you'll notice that on the occasions in which I've interacted with this Blog and/or some controversial posts, and even people like yourself who are obviously not interested in having an intelligent debate, I have attempted to get the conversation back on track -- I have no problem with people who disagree with me. In fact, I embrace a spirit dialog with disagreement. Just ask Glenn, I've disagreed with him on several occasions.
>> Censorship on an open forum,
>> very China like.
Btw, you also get credit for an excellent attempt at an association fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy), since I have never suggested that censorship on this blog would be a good thing, but you've attempted to attribute that stance to me, and paint me with the brush of the current free speech boogey-man. In fact, you'll notice in my comment above I said:
"...but getting rid of (anonymous comments) would be censorship, and I'm no fan of that."
The first issue is someone posting criticism at an article, company, entrepreneur, etc. There are many cases where people have posted criticism in a direct and civil manner. Some of this criticism has come anonymously, and some has come with a name attached. I don't believe anyone has complained about this part of the dialog. If we want to pick on Glenn, you'll see that in his post and his replies to this post he has said he WELCOMES criticism. I don't know Glenn very well, but I've interacted with him enough to believe him when he says it.
The second issue is anonymous vs. attributed comments. Personally, I don't think eliminating anonymous comments is a good idea. I think I've been pretty clear about that in my responses. I understand why there is benefit in the ability for people to comment anonymously. Although I personally think that many many people on this blog abuse that privilege. That's for them to deal with for themselves when they wake up in the morning and look themselves in the mirror.
The third issue, which is at the core of Glenn's post is the general lack a civility on this Blog. It is clearly filled with a lot of Trolls (as defined by Wikipedia). My point was that if the TechFlash team wants to change this, that they will need "set the tone"... I think this can be done without censorship, but it can't be done by sitting back and ignoring the comment threads. I also don't believe that technology solutions will do much good at all in trying to curb the behavior. Only social norms can make a difference.
With that said (and at the risk of sounding like one of the "haters"), I find it highly ironic that you would post this on TechFlash of all places. John Cook made a career out of dancing on Seattle tech company graves. I get the "if it bleeds it leads" concept to sell some newspapers, but John has been crossing the line and getting personal for years. He has repeatedly posted salacious and irrelevant gossip about CEOs and leaders who tried and failed. What’s worse is that these tabloidesque write-ups are typically paraded around as legitimate journalism when in reality they are nothing more than hate mongering and gossip spreading. It would all be fine if he were running a gossip blog – but the reality is that the content that has made Cook well known doesn’t foot with the content of your post.
Is this me just being bitter about being on the wrong end of John’s “reporting” one may ask? Of course it is. I watched for years as John threw other CEOs under the bus and published needless personal details for no legitimate reason. Then when I had to temporarily file for personal bankruptcy protection earlier this year because of a purely business related matter – John had the journalistic integrity to publish those filings on TechFlash and write repeatedly about my personal details. It is noteworthy that he is the only “Journalist” who felt the need to lay bare every last bit of my personal financial history.
So kudos to Glenn for raising the point, but the reality is that the community is simply following their leader.
Just pulled up the piece he did on you. I can see why it created some angst, however it is noted he tried to get you to comment for a week with no reply.
Some of the details aside it is noteworthy that a failed company under your leadership defaulted on $44 million in bank debt, :bad economy" aside.
I am sure as you raised money and rode high, the press was fun. After a fall like that it can't be fun, but it is news.
I think your post is representative of some of the other high profile people here. You want the press when things are good, not so much when they are not.
I would expect that some of the "trolls" that post are employees or partners that have been burned and choose a forum like this to vent. Human nature, but I agree if it is personal, it should go away.
"grudges" from ex-employees or ex-partners are unproductive and unattractive. However, isn't it also true that these people are in a better position to judge, being closer to the facts and the situation? We have to be careful, because the "sour grapes" defense is being used too often in bad faith, to discredit legitimate criticism.
The best example of that was the Bush adminisration: insider-after-insider spoke out and they were all maligned as "disgruntled". Richard Clark, Paul O'Neil, Scot McClelan... at the end people saw through it, and I think the same is happening in the tech sector, with respect to VCs overusing the "sour grapes" defense. People are catching up to it, take a look here:
http://www.thefunded.com/funds/item/5745
He shouldn't even be allowed to breathe our air, let alone complain about John posting public information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zango
I totally love Tech, and I particularly love Seattle's version of Tech, which I experience at its best at events like Ignite. On occasion, though, the level of snarkiness gets old and sometimes has me heading for the parking lot before the after-party. :) Our public posturing can feel like the kind of stuff that Icarus said to Daedulus on his way to the sun.
In the case of TF's comments, however, this feels like a technology and community moderation problem, not further evidence of our cultural decline. There's good social science research, some of it coming out of early military social networks, that you can create positive social norms with the "pseudonymity" of usernames. The same research finds that cheap anonymity quickly causes the problem we've observed. When we feel that there's a price to be paid, even to online reputation, we behave better.
In the mean time, I'll start doing my part by hitting the Report Abuse button.
All my best, Jude
but i love this as a starting point, a call to engaged in civilized dialog that actually serves a purpose.
that said, i couldn't keep it short, so wrote about it on Seattle 2.0.... http://tinyurl.com/kja4qu let's keep the dialog open.
Glen, well done, hope you will get some extra credit points when raise a next round
And for the last time, Redfin is not raising money from Ignition or any other venture capitalist criticized in this blog. Ignition passed on Redfin, but did so after one long, probing meeting -- in a way that didn't waste my time or humiliate me, which doesn't often happen.
It is worth noting that I have also written several essays claiming that venture capitalists are miniaturizing startups, where my main opponent in the debate was the most influential VC in the blogosphere, Fred Wilson.
I assume poster 116 falls under the Troll definition, at least by his characterization of you.
Why feed a troll?
Thanks, you agrue your point well and are obviously a passionate and terrific and I bet you allow for open debate at Redfin as an avenue to allow all corners to have ownership in the debate and outcome. The output is likely cohesiveness and energy behind each step by your team. Whether Redfin is ultimately successful will depend. You carry yourself with class and that shows in you ability to speak to our community.
Not all who are posting have had the good fortune to be part of a dynamic where opposing or varying views are sought out and appreciated. Many have the opposite experience and are not comfortable in sharing their views, due to the reaction from current or former teams. Posting anon. Should be preserved, or the voices that can share something of value might go absent and the ensuing homogenynof comments will make for bland and mediocre discourse.
So, kudos for you challenge to all to elevate the conversation and courtesy for broader viewpoints, but reconsider the thought for registered comments. Keep it honest, fair and real. There are real characters out there, real and fictionalized, let's not malign others even if they deserve it.
Lastly, the mode of competition differs between people. Some people argue and snipe like there is a clock and a time limit to the battle (this quarter, this year, etc) and others compete on a different set of rules, competing to create more value, innovate through conflict, etc. One thinks the game can be won and others think the game never ends.
It strikes me that most of the vitriol is from folks who think that the playfield is small and the time limit short, so they need to excoriate and drive other players from the game early through any means necessary. These people rarely last in any community or business.
RB
What's really happening here? Kelman seems to have dropped over the edge with the bizarre need to play nanny and, most comically, compete with the likes of Trump for airplay.
Indeed, I suspect it's only a matter of time before we see him on some pro wrestling card at The Queen. Where do you go from staring at Stahl's botox injections, eh? Dunno, but the jones to match it clearly seems to be crawling.
What's next? Redfin Bottled Water? Buying Through Glenn, The Reality Show? Kelman's Kindness Kamp?
Glenn, stay away from the blog, quit reading these boxes, quit dropping poetry to show us how intellectually filled-out you are, and sell houses. You'll have much more fun and you won't keep embarrassing yourself with the awkward and somewhat sad celeb quest.
I'm new to the Seattle VC scene myself and when I first starting reading comments on TechFlash I was shocked.
However I quickly came to the realization that:
1. There is probably a kernel of truth in every anonymous comment.
2. I can filter out ad hominem attacks from people who have it out for the person. People who make big things happen often grind gears and ruffle feathers.
3. I started to come back FOR the anonymous comments.
Let's say you "hid" the anonymous comments and people had to click a button to see them. What would be the first thing _you_ would do when you came to an article?
Thought so.
How would you respond to someone saying that you lacked Integrity?
(I personally know) Many of the people attacked on TechFlash have worked their whole life establishing their credibility and reputation and it feels like a dagger when someone you cannot rebut says something like that.
We need you guys and gals to keep taking risks and putting yourselves out there--and yes you will take anonymous shots from whiners.
Have to agree with glennfromsiliconvalley on that one. Seattleites are passive aggressive and have a hard time saying what's really on their minds. That is simply part of the culture here but not a good attribute that does need to be called out from time to time. Which is why the anonymous posts do have some value. People can get stuff off their chests and most folks can discern real criticism from ranting.