DCUM in the Washington City Paper

[SAM2]

jsteele wrote:... I believe there are two ways to keep forums polite: 1) remain small; or 2) moderate like crazy ... If we required usernames, the administrative workload would go up monumentally. We just don't have the capacity for it. In addition, usage of the website would plummet. Probably, DCUM would be a very nice place for a while, as a result of having almost no users. The cost-benefit of such an arrangement is just not there from my point of view ....

Jeff, could you explain why would having user names require so much moderation/effort for you? People could still say mean and nasty things with usernames, so there's no additional need to police their comments. And it seems like the admin headache of managing usernames could be eliminated simply by refusing to offer "customer service" for people who have problems with usernames. (For example, if someone loses her password, then that's just tough luck, and she'll need to sign up for a new username.) I don't know anything about managing a message board, so there probably are lots of other problems I'm blissfully ignorant about. But if you have time, could you explain them just a little bit so I can understand better? Many thanks.

[Anonymous]

SAM2 wrote:

jsteele wrote:... I believe there are two ways to keep forums polite: 1) remain small; or 2) moderate like crazy ... If we required usernames, the administrative workload would go up monumentally. We just don't have the capacity for it. In addition, usage of the website would plummet. Probably, DCUM would be a very nice place for a while, as a result of having almost no users. The cost-benefit of such an arrangement is just not there from my point of view ....

Jeff, could you explain why would having user names require so much moderation/effort for you? People could still say mean and nasty things with usernames, so there's no additional need to police their comments. And it seems like the admin headache of managing usernames could be eliminated simply by refusing to offer "customer service" for people who have problems with usernames. (For example, if someone loses her password, then that's just tough luck, and she'll need to sign up for a new username.) I don't know anything about managing a message board, so there probably are lots of other problems I'm blissfully ignorant about. But if you have time, could you explain them just a little bit so I can understand better? Many thanks.

NO WAY! I have only read the last page of this, but Jeff, please ignore people requiring everyone to have usernames. That would be no fun at all.

[Anonymous]

OK, back to the article. Woohoo! I was quoted! I feel infamous.

It was a decent article. Like others, I agree that it was pretty accurate other than the lack of focus on how often this site is very helpful.

I'm a frequent DCUMer and, while I've posted some flameworthy things (usually for my own amusement) from time to time, I mainly use this site as a resource. I've posted many questions, and I also try to post responses that I think are helpful.

I would sum up my DCUM use as this:
25% of the time I am using the site as an actual resource.
70% of the time I am following controversial threads with morbid curiosity.
5% of the time I enter the flaming ring of fire.

[Anonymous]

Hey Jeff,

Thoughts on this comment?

The fact of the matter is that Jeff Steele often intentionally stirs up inflammatory topics in order to bet more buzz for his site and more money in his pocket. It's a shame because so many parents come in good faith looking for good advice, and all the site does is heighten their insecurities in a difficult time.

Jeff Steele also inappropriately uses the political forum on the site to push his own views on local elections. People who attempt to post an opposing opinion are often ridiculed by him, and then banned from the site.

I'm never on the political forum, so I have no idea what goes down there. But you don't intentionally stir things up do you? (Of course, that comment wasn't from me. I'm much more loyal :lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I would sum up my DCUM use as this:
25% of the time I am using the site as an actual resource.
70% of the time I am following controversial threads with morbid curiosity.
5% of the time I enter the flaming ring of fire.

Me too.

I have to admit, this site completely enthralls me. I heard about it for the first time in 2005 soon after giving birth to my oldest (I was looking for guidance in hiring a nanny). I took a couple of years break from it, and tend to have weeks/months when I don't check it at all, but I have to say I generally LOVE this site. I am constantly amazed by (1) how unbelievably ridiculous some parents are and (2) how unbelievably smart, funny and helpful some parents are (I'm another AP fan).

I do think the article should have at least mentioned that DCUM is a great source of support for some (TTC, Special Needs, etc.). It *is* entertainment for many as well, which isn't a bad thing, but I've also been amazed by the truly thoughtful, supportive posts as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Also, the City Paper is totally negative. That's what they are all about.

clearly you don't read the City Paper.

Clearly you are too steeped in negativity to even see it even more. This is from the City Paper's guide for freelance writers:

What is the City Paper Looking for?
The best way to answer that question is to read our paper every week. You'll find that we gravitate toward stories about the city and its surroundings, and we prefer to write narratives with a conflict of some sort at the center.

conflict does not always indicate negativity or a negative slant. also, being critical of local government for failing to do its job isn't negative. it's what the media is supposed to do.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Hey Jeff,

Thoughts on this comment?

The fact of the matter is that Jeff Steele often intentionally stirs up inflammatory topics in order to bet more buzz for his site and more money in his pocket. It's a shame because so many parents come in good faith looking for good advice, and all the site does is heighten their insecurities in a difficult time.

Jeff Steele also inappropriately uses the political forum on the site to push his own views on local elections. People who attempt to post an opposing opinion are often ridiculed by him, and then banned from the site.

I'm never on the political forum, so I have no idea what goes down there. But you don't intentionally stir things up do you? (Of course, that comment wasn't from me. I'm much more loyal :lol

That comment was posted by a user who identified herself as "Amanda". I think there is no coincidence that the first two letters of that probably made up name match the first two letters of the real name of a well-known DCUM user who is no longer welcome here. If I wanted to intentionally stir up inflammatory topics, all I would have to do is allow that poster to post. Nobody stirs up inflammatory topics like she does.

The political forum is my playground. I sometimes play rough. But, I've never banned anyone for having a different opinion. I've been called any number of libelous names and the people that called me such things are still allowed to post.

[jsteele]

SAM2 wrote:
Jeff, could you explain why would having user names require so much moderation/effort for you? People could still say mean and nasty things with usernames, so there's no additional need to police their comments. And it seems like the admin headache of managing usernames could be eliminated simply by refusing to offer "customer service" for people who have problems with usernames. (For example, if someone loses her password, then that's just tough luck, and she'll need to sign up for a new username.) I don't know anything about managing a message board, so there probably are lots of other problems I'm blissfully ignorant about. But if you have time, could you explain them just a little bit so I can understand better? Many thanks.

On the contact form that is on the home page, there is this message:

"Note: Please do not use this form to request a forgotten username and/or password. Use the link below the login form to reset a forgotten password. If you do not remember your username, please register for a new account. Site administrators will not be able to assist in retrieving a forgotten username."

Despite this message (and "Note:" is in red), I get multiple emails per day from people who have forgotten their password, their username, or both. This is the situation when logins are not required and almost nobody logs in. Imagine the situation if logins were required. Sure, I could ignore the messages as I do now, but what would be the consequences? People are not going to create a new account every time they want to post. They will just avoid it. There will be fewer replies to queries. Yes, that means fewer mean replies, but it also means fewer helpful replies. The only way that logins can be required is if we have the resources to support that requirement. We don't and have no plans for such resources. This is a shoe-string operation that is done as a hobby.

In addition to the headache outlined above, our registration system doesn't always work. For a long time, users of certain versions of Internet Explorer were crashing their computers when they tried to confirm their membership. I never was able to reproduce the problem and, hence, could not correct it. I think it has finally gone away. Sometimes the password reset function does not work. Usernames are case sensitive and that trips users up. We would have to put effort into improving all of these things if we wanted to require logins. I don't want to expend that effort at this time (see the sentence above about this being a hobby).

Finally, as shocking as it sounds, some people get tired of DCUM and leave. It is not uncommon that people who have logged-in want all traces of their involvement removed. There is no way for a user to delete their account and, even if there were, they probably couldn't remember their password and username. So, that's another task that is left to me. Again, this can be handled with appropriate resources. But, we don't have those resources and don't plan to get them.

[SAM2]

Jeff, many thanks for taking the time to respond. That's helpful. I guess I assumed that most people would be at least organized enough to remember their passwords short-term, but that's probably a mistake on my part. I definitely don't want to suggest anything that would increase your workload.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that while I've read lots and lots of the flame-thread fests, I've actually felt supported through DCUM. I am LIVID and through all my updates I recieved some very sound advice as well as support. I posted several update threads and every time there were lots of people chiming in with support and "thank yous." I even made a friend who I met through my posting. We email and meet every other month or so for lunch.

I've also found that the tenor of things around here varies by area. I haven't seen too much flaming on the TTC thread, which is where I still am. I think that in order to really get a good feel for this place, you need more time and to read all kinds of posts. I think that most around here are generally helpful.

LIVID, your posts always moved me. Good luck with TTC, I'm hopeful for you and wish you much happiness and joy. you deserve it.

[Anonymous]

It always irks me when people talk about logging in and using a user name as "brave" or gutsy. It implies that those of who don't are so ashamed of our posts we don't want them to be attributed to us. I have never posted anything on DCUM I wouldn't want my mom or my friends to read. I'm basically nice. I get deeply sarcastic and borderline bitchy at times, but never for the sake of putting anyone down based on a choice or category like CIO/co-sleeping, WOHM/SAHM, BF/FF etc., it's only to call a poster out if he or she is posting inflammatory stuff and I really don't like hurting people's feelings so I don't come on here to get my inner bitch out.

The reason I don't log-in is the reason that has been stated many times whenever this issue comes up - because I am on DCUM pretty regularly and I have regularly posted things like my income, our HHI, my industry and field, the specific area I live in and even my neighborhood, and other facts that if taken together it might be pretty easy to figure out who I am. And I wouldn't care but I know some coworkers of mine read DCUM and I don't want them to know certain things, and I assume at least some of my other mom friends read as well. And I want to be able to post about different sensitive issues.

Let's face it, if we all logged in, the sharting confessions, the query about queefing in yoga class, and much of the sex forum may be obliterated. I seriously doubt Adequate Parent is going to contribute to a sharting or queefing thread, am I right or am I right?

Sharters of the world unite - no log in required!

[Anonymous]

Meh. Adequate parent's posts always left me cold. Not because I think she's a bad writer, but after the first few posts it's like "okay, I get it." And then subsequent posts reveal she is just as judgmental as anyone else. She uses inflammatory phrases, too, and her schtick is reducing real parenting concerns to platitudes and generalizations. "I just don't knock myself pumping that last .5 oz" has a subtext, which implies that she is mocking the earnest parents who DO knock themselves out pumping that last half ounce." She posted a few pieces of "helpful" advice to parents on this thread that basically take this know-it-all approach. Oh, silly you, so earnest. I was once so overeager too, and then I got over it / grew up / got real. It can be really grating. I'm sure many of us are one-trick ponies on this website, but when you use a screen name and then spend a WHOLE lot of energy pretending to be so above-it-all, it gets quite grating. And as someone else said, boring.

Now, as for screen names, I probably wouldn't find the site as useful in that case. I'm a fairly private person, and the semi-anonymous face of a screen name is a face all the same. Once it becomes an extension of you, "you" starts posting differently. I doubt I'd ask as many questions, or answer as many questions, and I think the quality of advice gotten would degrade if we had to use screen names. I'd probably gravitate away from the site. I have listservs and other message boards for screennames. Not interested in doing that here.

[Anonymous]

What 17:14 said, in its entirety (on both AP and anonymity).

[Anonymous]

16:34 for president!

I thought the article (predictably) focused on the negative.

I admit I use DCUM mainly for entertainment, and I can be rather bitchy at times, but this is also a forum with supportive, informative, kind, funny, and uplifting threads and posters. There are threads where I learn a lot and there are also interesting discussion. If it were nothing but meanness, I wouldn't visit every day (several times a day ).

I like the anonymity. On other forums where I have to log in, I don't reveal nearly as much about myself and instead choose to join several different forums for each thing I'm interested in. Here I do because I know the only person who can link my posts in off topic to my posts in general parenting to my posts in the sex forum is the administrator, and with as many users as this site has, I know he has better things to do.

[SAM2]

Anonymous wrote:It always irks me when .... I'm basically nice. I get deeply sarcastic and borderline bitchy at times, but ... it's only to call a poster out if he or she is posting inflammatory stuff ... I don't come on here to get my inner bitch out.

The reason I don't log-in is ... I have regularly posted things like my income, our HHI, my industry and field, the specific area I live in and even my neighborhood, and other facts that if taken together it might be pretty easy to figure out who I am ... And I want to be able to post about different sensitive issues. Let's face it, if we all logged in, the sharting confessions ... may be obliterated ....

I certainly wouldn't think of myself as gutsy for using an untraceable login; it's not like I'm crossing a police barricade or chaining myself to a whaler. But when some people (not you, PP) are making offensively judgmental and inflammatory comments without even the barest accountability a simple login gives, I do consider that pretty gutless.

I completely respect your point about not wanting to associate some sensitive personal info with your login. The solution is not hard though. If you want to post about your astronomical HHI, your yeast infection, your confession of deep secret racism, or your messy sharts, then just use a different login for those posts (or log out entirely).

In the end, all this is somewhat moot, because Jeff is understandably not willing to shoulder the administrative burden that required logins would entail. But I still think the DCUM world would be a much better place if more people would login voluntarily (except when discussing their sharts). Try logging in for 30 days -- you might find you like it.

[BTW, all these thoughts have no application to those people who come to DCUM with the express goal of winding up controversy and blowing off steam by attacking other posters. I can completely understand why people like that would want to remain wholly anonymous. And it's precisely that type of poster that I'd hope to deter with logins.]