Comment Management Quandaries: Spam, or Just Hammy Self-Promotion?

Now, for a periodic peek inside the virtual sausage factory. The process of managing the comments here and at other blogs I’ve worked with is usually pretty straightforward: There are the no-brainers, clear violations of the blog’s comment policy (in this blog, it’s laid out in the Terms of Use) — threats, obscenity, etc. Not many of those over here.

And there’s the pure spam messages — messages that don’t even pretend to relate to the topic at hand, just a blatant plug of an URL, both as the link destination of the username, and embedded in the body of the message. Or comments that feature words you used in your entry, only dropped in without regard for content or grammar — word salad.

Again, not a challenge… in fact, because of automatic spam comment flagging, you might not ever see many of these, except during a periodic quality assurance check.

Then things get trickier. Sometimes you’ll see a comment that, on the face of it, looks legit, if perhaps a bit vague. (“Thanks, interesting topic” etc) And then you’ll keep seeing it in multiple entries, and realize that it’s a spambot or a copy-and-paste job.

For me, the most troubling cases of all are comments that add value, however slight, but are pretty clearly written as a vehicle to get a persons username and URL (often the same thing) onto the page.  One of the norms of Internet commenting is that it’s okay to leave a link with your URL, as long as you have something substantive to say. Of course, you only have to look at other prominent, high-traffic blogs to see the concept of a value-added comment taken to ridiculous extremes.

The line between spam and self-promotional ham is pretty subjective — in the “I know it when I see it” category. You just have to ask the questions: “Did I get anything from reading this comment? Do I think the person would still have left the comment if they couldn’t sign it with their URL?” If the answer to the second question is “No”, it makes the decision a lot easier.

While there’s always the temptation to approve a comment to show activity (especially for less-busy entries), it’s usually best to hold the line and play things pretty conservatively. (The same goes for “FIRST” comments, and comments written by people of questionable sanity / literacy.)

Here’s some more advice you’ve heard before on managing comments that ambiguously straddle that line between spam and self-promotional ham:

* Have a clear comment policy. And make sure you give yourself the right to protect the integrity of your blog comments. To paraphrase a common retail saying, “Management reserves the right to refuse comments for any reason.”

* Don’t be afraid to moderate comments. This means both pre-posting moderation, and post-posting deletion of unacceptable comments. If you need to, get another pair of eyes to help you on comments you’re not sure about, or if there’s something you’re not sure you can be objective about.

* Remember, it’s your blog, and it’s your responsibility to maintain the level of discourse and kind of community that you want. You can be as ruthless as you need to be.

Once you pass a certain threshold of size and community participation, the community will probably want some input, especially if you’re a little too overzealous in your spam comment policing. To some extent, it’s self-correcting. But in the end, it’s your blog.

Got any stories of policing spam and ham comments, or being policed? Leave a (ham) comment below.