At The Chronicle, we take very seriously the notion that our Web site is a space for interaction, not just one-way conversation. The comments you contribute to our articles and blog posts are a huge part of that, and it's important to us that we do all we can to make those discussions worthwhile. Now we'd appreciate your guidance on an important issue: Should we continue to allow anonymous comments on our site?
It's a question many newspapers, magazines, and blogs are asking. You may have seen, by now, one of the growing number of sites—like the Los Angeles Times, The Business Journals, Esquire, and Talking Points Media—that require commenters to log in using their Facebook accounts. That means, of course, that every comment has a real name attached to it. It's a significant shift.
Some readers are very fond of that policy: They say it reins in unruly comment threads and fosters civility. Others fear that it discourages comments—especially from contributors who have good reasons not to reveal their identities.
What do you think? Would you like to see The Chronicle require commenters to use their real names? Or would that drive you away from discussions? Please share your thoughts in the comment field below (yes, we recognize the irony), and let us know if you have any more general suggestions, too. We'll be listening. Thanks.
