Sure, sometimes we have to put out name out there for work, etc.

But there's a significant need and payoff for that.

But at a chat page, there's no additional payoff from leaving my real name, no need, and far greater risk.

oh, yeah the read star is the payoff

I've wondered why Salon.com had become boring, why I seldom came to the site and when I did I seldom wanted to read an article and was more likely to go over to Slate, which, when I first read and then first subscribed to Salon thought was a distant and pallid competitor. Why am I considering not renewing?

Was it the absence of the high drama of the invasion of Iraq and the 2004 election? Was it the absence of peppery columnists like Camille Paglia? Was it the absence of interesting links? Probably these all contribute, but today I see there are a number of articles described so as to attract my interest. Why, despite that fact, do I find the magazine deadly dull? I suspect it may not be content, although I can't be sure because I'm seldom led into the content.

It's the new front-page format. The horizontal orientation, the drip-drip-drip repetitive treatment of headlines and descriptive matter, the floating of this scroll of headlines essentially on a sea of nothingness, the next-to-pastel color treatment and its monotony, the failure to allow the viewer to see at a glance or two something that will lead him/her to open up the magazine and possibly immediately set up a mental priority list of a number of articles to go to.

Marshall McLuhan got at the usefulness of the "buffet table" (my term, not his) appeal of the newspaper front page in a "Mechanical Bride" essay.

Please rethink (and re-do) your front page format.

I don't like Salon's path of mixing letters to the editor with comments. There's a difference between a letter to the editor, which (ideally) addresses the content or context of the story, and running commentary, which often degenerates into comments on other comments, and includes multiple postings by some writers. I know that editing a letters page takes time from an editor's other work, but it's sometimes compiled by editorial assistants or interns, by those on the copy or research desks, or someone who wouldn't otherwise be involved in the editorial function. In other words, it's passed around like a hot potato because it's burdensome. But I like a good letters page, and it's better than reading through comments.

I've had one letter to the editor published by Salon, though I wrote several. And I don't think any of my comments have earned a red star.

TK

Sorry, Salon, but I think your asking us to sign our names is way off base, especially the part that implies that it'll make us more thoughtful with our responses. I, for one, resent that. And to compare these posts to the Letters to the Editor in a newspaper is also pretty unrealistic. When I googled myself a few weeks back I was shocked to have been presented with links to two of my Salon posts (the only two containing my real name). I doubt that even google's massive mighty search engine extends into any letters I may have written to the editors of the Akron Beacon Journal or Cleveland Plain Dealer. As I explained when I asked you to remove those two posts from your database, my boss is a staunch Republican who might very well google me some day and might very well hold my political views against me. Personally, I have issues with Salon making our posts available to search engines like google but that's probably one battle I'm not going to win. So withhold your Editor's Choice stars if you must but I think it smacks a bit of elitism. As a matter of fact, I liked "N." 's suggestion -- let the readers rank the comments (instead of or in addition to the editors' ranking).

The idea of having readers rate the letters is great. In fact, it's been part of our plan from the start. We weren't able to build it into the initial rollout of this system, though. And we want to be careful to make it work in a fairly intuitive way; such systems can quickly grow too complex unless they're deftly designed.

Basically, from where I sit, the more tools we can provide for you to customize how you see these letters, the better!

I won't add to my previous comments on the name-vs.-anonymity matter, except to reiterate that we're aware of and want to be sensitive to the concerns many of you are raising about privacy, and we'll keep our ears open, and there are good reasons why we couched this discussion in terms of "encouraging" people to sign their names rather than "requiring."

I understand the fears of those who want to respond anonymously because of potential retribution from an employer, authority figure, etc. Though I believe these are often the times when being anonymous is exactly not what one should be. But aside from these situations, I don't believe something is worth saying or commenting on if you are not willing to say who you are.

I always look at the name of the person (and affiliation, if included). It lends credibility and integrity. It contextualizes the response in a way that can illuminate the topic. An open, honest discussion becomes easily dismissed or even laughable with signatories such as some of those on Salon's editorial pages.

You will REGRET linking your real name to your handle. You may change your opinion down the road, or even tomorrow, but there it stays, locked in the amber of the Google cache, forever and ever and ever more.

It's risky enough that Salon can put a name to your handle and claim all your writing as their intellectual property. Suppose one day you are someone important -- they'd have a scoop on you (or whoever bought the info from them).

Really, trust me on this, just don't do it. I made this mistake elsewhere as an idealistic young man. NOT WORTH IT. Don't do it. You won't even know when that stray post comes back to haunt you. And it will. You are forever what your write on the Internet, and few of us need such an albatross.

-- John Doe