ok wading in where fools only dare go
[yep im going into battle]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11273&page=0

just saying my goodbyes early
the whole issue is clouded by racism
and a brief reconoiter yesterday revealed many present there
[many used as proportion..not quantitivly]

anyhow i go to rebut the many faulse premise
in the lead article..
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11273&page=0

as well as those..feeding off its negativity..
i of course will try to be nice..

and hope*..no ones posts shall be deleted,...
as TOGETHER..they reveal the real truth...

anyhow...
nice knowing you all

Hi, just thought I would drop a couple of tidbits of information into this thread that might be of interest.

First thing is that we are audited by AC Nielsen as part of the advertising arrangements on the site and as a result we get weekly reports on our readership numbers. Last week, for the first time ever, the forum (which includes all comments on the bottom of articles) had more page views than the journal articles themselves.

Part of that may of course be due to some of the intense discussions going on here, but perhaps part of it is due to the commenters having become more civil and spending more time discussing articles rather than dissing each other.

Second is that I had an author (not one who has been party to any of these thread discussions) send me an email saying how they noticed that the quality of comments had got better, as judged by the comments on their article.

We've published 7 articles this morning because there was just so much choice. I think you will find authors are much more willing to send us pieces if they feel like they are getting some respect.

I think the same will be true of people who read the comment threads and who think about commenting.

Good news GY and OUG not sure what you are getting at, as the person you seem to be,you would want things that have been deleted, to go too.
Thinking of another thread as a result of this one, but not wanting to stop the most interesting one we have had for a while.
Not visited CJM have no problems with him but seems to be a hide away for some ,well one, we are better without.
Has its total posts matched the number of this thread?

Very good Graham. I agree; the standard certainly seems to have lifted.

My friend, who has been a voracious reader of OLO for five years but has never posted, has made similar observations. One of the main reasons that he doesn’t post is because he is loathe to cop a load of abuse and name-calling. Maybe at last he’ll start posting.

Maybe there are a whole lot of other readers out there who will do the same.

It is all looking good. Well done.

I've just had a reread of the comments under the John Stone piece OUG referred to and come to a very different conclusion to OUG.
I'm not seeing anything there I'd be hitting the recommend for deletion button. The tone is relatively civil, the closest to overt racism seem's to be in a piece I'd quoted from the article and a comment by OUG.

"basiclly you kill off the leaders.
re-educate..their children

leave a few retarded ones behind..to make the whole lot look bad
then go in for the theft of their cluture and future"

ALGOREisRICH is in there doing battle with Fabian's but depending on how much slack you want to give the most racist comment seemed to be the "few retarded ones" by OUG.

Perceptions play such a big part in how we all read this stuff.

R0bert

belly laugh/quote..<<OUG..not sure what you are getting at,
as the person...you seem to be,...you would want things that have been deleted,..to go too.>>

not sure why your trying to put words into my mouth bell-y

i thought i was QUITE/claer...i dont favour deletion...at all

in fact*..favour SPECIFIC...deletion...
OF THE..offending...BIT*[s]...only*

even then...i resent their removal...
as it puts any reply*..out of context*

this reply would only ...'make sense'...
when your post..[that it relates..TOO}...is still there
were it..deleted[for egsample]..this coment..would be out of context

<<Thinking of another thread..as a result of this one>>
thats great,...it should begin..with a link back to this one
as well as a link..HERE..back to it

the text then should*..explain..the different...aspect
you wish to raise there..[or other reasonings]

like...say IF*..this topic..has gotten corrupted..of track
off topic...deserving a new start..[in which case the thread..that has been corrupted..should be arcghived..[for completness of record]..and the THEN edited topic..[this one ..allowed to continue...

WITH THE OFFENDING BITS EDITED OUT
but still kept intact..in its context..[on its own page]
and kept open..for other coments..according to the normal rule

of course..these comments would properly be better on grayhams
othwer topic..about forum impovments[but im not posting yet anopther...link to it

[which by the way..is the reason..
for replies..getting more vieuws than the lead article]

we should simply use more links
the more we click on our own links
the more google search turns them up in a google search
[thats the big secret..gray]

simply drop in more inhouse links