Feeling well, I hope. Writing well as always, I see. Personally, I think anonymous comments are interesting but not important. (Factual corrections? Let an intern dip into the sewer and pull them out.) So much envy out there. So few places that will pay the envious to keen.

Michael Robertson

First, writers are increasingly rewarded for provoking noise. The more responses you get, the more impact you have, the more money you make for your publication, and the more editors will reward you. But getting a lot of letters is not necessarily a good sign: It sometimes just means that you pushed an obvious button. It's easier to bitch than praise. Some of the best pieces -- the most thoroughly investigated, clearly argued, beautifully written -- generate very few letters.

Very well stated. Did you just explain why CP is back at Salon? (/snark)

Isn't this a slight at your editors in a way? I must say I admire your courage.

You are 100% correct. I rarely write letters on content I enjoy. Because "keep up the good work" is not a very exciting letter.

Here is one thing I would like the decision makers at Salon to know - I would gladly pay much more for better work! I don't know how much Salon revenue is ad-based vs. subscriber based, clicks vs. subscription. But $45 a year is cheap as dirt in my book for content I *want*.

Contrived controversy may drive clicks but I don't think it converts to subscribers. Does that even matter?

I read Salon for the investigative reporting and news I don't see in other places. That the AEI is the "real Iraq Study Group." That members of the AEI have already disowned their own plan. The Abu Ghraib pictures. Information. Not pure opinions, not movie reviews, not "Ask a Pilot" or "Are the men I date all gay?" Information and real analysis I don't see elsewhere.

Naive as it may be, I'd like to think that journalism is a duty. If all you want is clicks and revenue - run a porn site. I suppose the truth is that the click-generating pieces fund the well-written ones.

Rather than subsidise good writing with bad and lowering the level of discourse, I would rather pay more. Tell me my money is being used for more investigative reporting. Tell me my money will help disclose corruption and pay the salaries of superior contributors.

The more Salon relies on writing that generates clicks at the expense of rational discourse, the less I am willing to pay. (And in fact I've unsubscribed but I'm signed up till November...)

One last bit: on other sites I visit I often quote pieces of Salon articles (fair use!!!) and point people at Salon - always for the thoroughly investigated, clearly argued, beautifully written pieces. Not once have I said "hey guys, go check out this really stupid article on Salon by this know-nothing harpy!"

This is a terrible idea.

Bad letters are easy to identify and skip over. Good letters hidden away by poor moderation are impossible to find. Moderation is open to gaming and the tyranny of the majority. What do I care what other readers think about other letter writers? I'll form my own opinions, not have them handed to me. I've seen other sites do this and it inevitably silences opinons. The ONLY letters that should ever get weeded or pushed down are are completely off-topic spam for viagra and hold'em.

Salon needs to add exactly three things to the letters:

1. Ability to edit for some amount of time after posting. (Not forever because then you get twits doing revisionist history) It is very annoying to post a letter, notice a mistake or another thing you want to comment on, then have to post an entire new reponse.

2. Allow individuals to say "block all from this user." If you want to moderate out people who annoy you feel free - as long as you are only removing them from your view and not mine.

3. Responses from the article writers. It can be a dialog if you let it be one.

A threaded view of responses would also be nice, so when I'm replying to someone specific that is made clear. (Also, I'd like a pony)

As an early participant in online discussion forums like The WELL and early AOL I experienced the almost inevitable tendency of online conversation either to degenerate into abusive attack and defense or to be commandered by a vocal and obsessive minority with some axe to grind.

In online discussions that are unmediated and unedited I've experienced myself and others drawn into the darkest and most reactive parts of my personality and even watched in dismay as my online persona is apparently possessed by a creature that I would hardly recognize in the real world of actual physical face-to-face contact.

On my part this encouraged me to take more responsibility for editing myself offline before posting something online (I have an aversion to the chat room menatlity). Online publications that feature letters and readers responses should take the editorial responsibility for keeping discussions on a civil and respectful level. Some will consider this censorship but I submit that it's merely civilization.

i only just now happened upon this article of yours; i got here from a link in the latest piece on Anne Lamott. i am so thankful for your writing and am so grateful to hear a bit of what the writers think of all the hatred and nastiness here. you are write in your assertion that some readers no longer write letters--i am one of those. i don't need to be gratuitously attacked and find it upsetting, so i no longer write letters on salon (except this one, of course). it is exactly like the drivers who yell and flip you off from the safety of their cars--it feels exactly the same to be flamed by one of the salon readers.

i just don't understand the level of nastiness out there. and it troubles me that so much of it seems headed in the direction of the female writers (stephanie, heather, debra...it seems that anything they post now gets crude, snide remarks that have little to do with what they actually wrote).

i support the salon leadership taking a good look at modifying the letters policy, and i encourage the writers to stop reading the letters if you need to. i'd rather have you continue your good work and be less in touch with your readership, if otherwise you would find it difficult to write without self-editing or emotional distress. you don't deserve that in the least.

thanks again.