Involve the editors, says Howard Own:

Sure, blogs use some form of pre-screen (first-time commenters on howardowens.com, for example, go into a moderation queue), but any filters on blog comments these days have more to do with trying to block spam than worries over the content of reader comments.

Why is that?

I would say, primarily because blogs get the close attention of their owners. There is little opportunity for trolls to get a foothold on a well-run blog.  Most blog owners apply high standards for the conduct they will allow.  They monitor closely. They participate in the conversation.  In other words, they are actively engaged and involved.  They are owners.

How involved are reporters and editors involved in participation on their web sites?

Not much.

<>And until we fix that weak link in our participation strategy, we will continue to struggle with developing the kind of online community our newspaper communities deserve.

I would say more than that, actually. Editors have to own the entirety of their web offering, including the technology. When they produced newspapers, editors instinctively understood the technology they were using to produce newspapers, and that instinctive understanding led them to feel, organically, the limits and capacities of the technologies they were working in.

That hasn't happened - yet - online. Technology - and by extension commenting and moderation systems, and the CMS - has been left to the geeks on the top floor or in the basement, leading to a corrosive "us and them" situation where editors can choose to ignore issues facing their profession, and geeks have to end up making what are essentially journalistic decisions about content organisation because editors simply aren't making them. Get involved.

Thinking of launching what we used to call an "online community" and what we now call a "sticky Web 2.0 social media experience"? Then read Alan Jones on moderating community and social media. In fact, read it, print it out and laminate it for use when talking to managers and lawyers who may not understand risk:

Will moderating content too much kill the pavlovian reward of "post-reply-reply-to-reply-repeat" that makes a social network sticky and compelling?

Why does that matter? Because woven tight into the good stuff, growing like weeds, you'll always find weird stuff also growing on your social networks, no matter what original purpose it has. Show me a user-generated content database, I'll show you some weird shit in there, every time.

Further, the line between "weird" and "bad" is wiggly, broad and fuzzy, with transparency set at >10% and sporting extra-aliased edges. Further, "bad" comes in a wide variety of flavours, including "bad for business", "bad for conservative families" and "bad for the legal budget line".

Alan comes down on the side of less moderation and more weirdness, which is pretty much what I'd expect from him, in the nicest possible way. And I think this story should be read alongside the slightly odd news that BBC News is making its "UGC hub" work "24/7", though interestingly they seem to be more interested in people as case studies rather than contributors.