just the way the editor intended it to run ...

this:

If Salon is going to build its business strategy around cheaply produced opinion articles designed to elicit user-generated content then its writers and editors had better stop being so thin-skinned. Moreover, they'd better get used to losing their old tricks for controlling the dialog. You can't have it both ways.

You want a personal attack? I'll give you one: since Joan Walsh took over Salon the focus has switched from reported articles -- expensive! -- to inexpensive naval-gazing opinion pieces from a small circle of writers who have far more in common than they do not. THAT is what caused my wife to insist we cancel our premium membership, after YEARS.

That's fine, if that's making financial sense for Salon. But don't get your nose out of joint if readers amuse themselves by making fun of a roster of writers who could all have come from the same sorority, and whose writing is so predictable that emailing parodies of them around has become at least as much a part of the fun as reading them.

Debra Dickinson is an exemplar of Joan Walsh's "editorial style" ... subjective, sloppy, confrontative, bombastic, uneven, unsourced ... sure to garner those golden clicks. I find her 'tone' poisonous and her arguments often utterly unconvincing... and therefore I don't find her "singificant" -- Like Camille Paglia, the self-referencing undermines her credibility and her relevance.

The vociferous reader response is not an accident or a coincidence or a "trend" ... the dumbing down and uglification of Salon has been ongoing for the last 4 or so years.

IMHO, if you haven't noticed, you haven't been paying attention.

Oh, I was part of that don't-go-there chorus others have mentioned. Look at the Salon Central "tell the editor" thread if you want to see how dispirited the "dialogue" with Ms. Walsh has become.

I enjoyed and as a frequent participant in the Table Talk forum, I know that everything said about the letters section also applies there.

I'd like to suggest a simple sofware change for sorting the thoughtful letter writers from the fools. Give authors the ability to classify letter writers into different categories. You could label them as people that provide useful feedback or ranters that provide nothing useful. There could even be a shared list among authors. The author could then filter which letters they read according to category.

Frankly, I always try to remember that authors are human beings no different than myself which is why I always try to offer praise for those things that the author does right and constructive criticism for those things they do wrong.

A wise man once told me: Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one. From the least ambitous asshole to the most sophisticated opinion, the Internets provide a neutral and convenient forum for comment on things others have written.

However, I believe there is a corrolary to what the wise man told me. That is, many opinions (and most assholes) are not fit for public consumption.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Three of them, actually.

1. Allow individual authors to disallow open reader commentary following their articles or columns at their own discretion. Huffington Post does this and I don't hear anyone there complaining much. I would think most authors would still agree to allow the commentary, knowing that it would increase their "page hits" (and let's face it, most authors can't resist trying to find out what readers really think, even if they dread knowing). But if some authors claim to find it that creatively stifling, let's give them that option and see if it really does improve the quality of their work. (Readers would, of course, still have the option of writing to the editor directly to comment on the work.)

2. Make the posters put their names at the top of each post, whether "real" or assumed. It's a lot easier to avoid the piles of poop near the picnic table if someone doesn't throw a dropcloth over them.

3. Allow us a checkmark alongside each post to "mark read," Usenet-style, so we don't have to see it again if we don't want to.

I'd like to suggest a simple sofware change for sorting the thoughtful letter writers from the fools. Give authors the ability to classify letter writers into different categories. You could label them as people that provide useful feedback or ranters that provide nothing useful. There could even be a shared list among authors. The author could then filter which letters they read according to category.

That's a great idea! I've always wanted a box I could throuw brightstar65, Ebonious and Golden Boy, "a man" or whatever he calls himself, and a few others into and then shake 'em around a little.

In order for this to work, though, we need to stop letting people post as "no name given". Everyone will have to have some username, preferably with the option of anonymity (some made-up nym for those who wish). Otherwise, all the trolls will just post as "no name given" and sign their screeds using text, which will enable them to make an end run around any filtering system.

"Yikes! What a horrible notion anyone would form an opinion of the left from online letters. I hope the reader also looks at Powerline or FreeRepublic for comparison."

The Salon letter sections may have its problems but it's head and shoulders above the utter craziness of Powerline and Free Republic. There is no serious comparison between the three.

Just, whatever you do, don't use Slate's discussion software as its basis! That is the most hideous, unweildy, clumsy comment/response format I have EVER seen. It's like Google Groups From Hell.

The Salon letter sections may have its problems but it's head and shoulders above the utter craziness of Powerline and Free Republic. There is no serious comparison between the three. - Kstone

Depends on where you draw the bounds. If Salon letters is one bookend, and Powerline is the other of your range, yes they're opposite.

On my scale of zero to ten, with an enjoyable university lecture or good conversation being a 10, and stepping in poop on the sidewalk being a zero, I'd say Salon Letters are mostly ones and twos, with the occasional five to nine and ten scattered in.

I think you Kstone are a chronic troll for example.