Moderator has a very imperfect understanding of "relevance"

[mikjall]

Below is a comment of mine that was “awaiting moderation” and that received a snarky response from the moderator, whoever that is in the present case. I’m sorry, but this moderator has very little understanding of the concept of relevance. The topic of Mr. Murray’s blog piece is not “the ongoing Brexit saga” but is a quite specific and important point. All the blather about Brexit vs. Remain, which does not in any way address, or even mention, Mr. Murray´s point, is NOT “very relevant to the topic of the article”. Commentators are specifically directed to remain relevant. I agree with this moderator that “discussions inevitably widen as commenters raise issues within their own comments”, and I have little problem with that, but surely it is NOT the case that “comments that introduce non-sequitur [sic] topics are deleted”; at least they have not been here. (What, for example, is the relevance of false memes about President Macron’s present popularity among French voters? Etc. Etc.) The comment section on this article is full of them. I’ll reduce to 98% in an extreme effort to be fair.

– – – – – – – – – –
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

99% of these comments are irrelevant to Mr. Murray’s important point.

—
[ Mod: Roughly 99% of the comments relate to the ongoing Brexit saga, which is very relevant to the topic of the article.

If you click on the link for page 1 comments, you’ll find comments that concern the bad faith controversy more centrally. Discussions inevitably widen as commenters raise issues within their own comments. However, comments that introduce non-sequitur topics are deleted.

Feedback about the blog should be posted in the corresponding Blog Support Forum rather than the comments section for articles.

Regards.

[Author]

Posts