Do anonymous comments have any value?

Connie Schultz of the Cleveland Plain Dealer wrote an interesting column on the issue of civility and anonymity of online commentors to newspapers. Sadly but predictably, the comment section contains uncivil, anonymous comments.

There seems to be a general belief among those in charge on newspaper web sites that comments are a key part of user generated content that will usher in a new era of news delivery. It's easy to see why most sites allow comments—for a web editor concerned about metrics such as time spent on a page, comments are surely an attractive way to boost output, even if it's only by a small amount.

Like celebrity gossip, comments are not the business of newspapers. Print newspapers do not publish anonymous, racist rants, so why should they be allowed online?

Google Fast Flip leaves plenty of questions

After three days of trying out Google's new Fast Flip reader, there are still some unanswered questions. Krishna Bharat, who developed Google News in 2002, told the New York Times on Monday that the idea was that more people would read news online if it were faster: “When it is fast, people will look at more news and more ads, and that’s something that publishers want to see.”

First, it's not clear how flipping through a set of articles is faster than quickly skimming a list of headlines. Second, the number of people who don't read newspapers online because they prefer print is dwindling. People are reading news online, they just aren't paying for it. Google says that they'll share ad revenue from this new venture with participating newspapers, but why not share revenue from Google News? Isn't that kind of like saying "I'm going to steal your stuff and then make it up to you by experimenting with it and sharing the revenue in the unlikely event there is any?"