Not a week goes by when someone doesn't complain about our online story comments, asking why we aren't more diligent about monitoring what is placed there.

Since we opened up the option in March for readers to comment on every story, we have had a lot more discussion on our Web site, a lot of it meaningful and intelligent. Unfortunately, we have seen a steady rise of hateful name-calling, innuendo and inane drivel, all of it anonymous.

We have also seen one of our bloggers personally attacked on a colleague's blog and have had to weigh how to protect our reporters while keeping the comments section from getting out of hand.

In the past week, we have taken two steps to take back our comments section from those who engage in personal attacks.

The first is to limit comments on many of our stories, particularly those about race or crime, that are likely to engender threatening or abusive commentary. If you find you are unable to post a comment on a particular story, it is because we have decided that the reactions will be too incendiary to have them published online. For example, no more comments can be attached to prep sports stories because of abusive language directed toward students and coaches.

The second step we have taken is for bloggers to personally approve each comment that is sent to them before they are posted. This has caused some grumbling among bloggers because of the delay in seeing comments posted automatically but it has sadly become a necessity. We have revised this practice in recent days somewhat by allowing regular posters — those who we know not to be troublemakers — to be allowed to have their comments posted immediately.

These steps may seem largely ineffective to those who think the comments on stories are out of control. A committee of reporters in August asked me to shut down altogether the comments on news stories but allow them for blogs, where they can be more closely monitored. They argued that the comments were harming The Advertiser's credibility and allowing the spread of disinformation. Readers, likewise, have suggested that we hold online comments to the same standard we use for letters to the editor, verifying the authorship of everything that is posted.

I have had serious concerns about the comments section for some time, but as someone who also defends free speech for a living and believes in encouraging a healthy exchange of ideas, I have been reluctant to end a popular and useful means of communication. I also understand that with the volume of comments that come our way, we are unable to monitor the thousands of thoughts we get each day. Having readers post their real names would be futile, as it simply cannot be enforced.

That's why we've taken these first few steps to limit, at least somewhat, what we see as offensive commentary attached to stories. Moderation of blogs will also help, though readers may give up and go elsewhere.

I am not naive enough to think this will put an end to the problem, and there probably will be more work to do in deciding what we can or cannot allow. But it's a start.

Mark Platte is senior vice president/editor of The Advertiser. Reach him at 525-8080.