• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, November 10, 2006

Many online publishers, from the biggest media conglomerates to the proverbial pajama-clad bloggers, monitor--and sometimes delete--the comments submitted by readers.

Reasons range from protecting themselves from libel to keeping discussions focused to simply preserving a certain tone on the forum.

Now, a new study out of the University of Missouri-Columbia offers proof that moderating online comments doesn't just further publishers' goals, but also encourages readers to participate in the site.

For the study, researchers created two versions of a mock Web site, one that indicated it was moderated while the other did not. The researchers showed student-subjects one of the two sites and then surveyed them, asking whether they intended to participate in the site. Those who saw the seemingly moderated site appeared more likely to say they would interact than those who viewed the apparently unmoderated one.

Kevin Wise, assistant professor of strategic communication and co-director of the Psychological Research on Information and Media Effects Lab at MU's School of Journalism, says Web users have learned by experience that without moderation, chaos often ensues online.

"The idea of having no moderation is initially appealing but in practice, if there is no moderation, bad things happen," he says. "Threads get hijacked, flame wars break out."

"People want to have the opportunity to have some kind of discussion, and keep things open," Wise adds. "At the same time, what they don't want is for the discussion to get totally sidetracked."

The bottom line: When publishers say they intend to monitor and remove objectionable posts, they end up reassuring readers that the site won't descend into anarchy any time soon.

It's that time of year again! You're invited to enter OMMA magazine's Agency of the Year awards for 2006. Click: https://www.mediapost.com/aoysub/ to submit your entry. Thank you.