Since we launched in 2014 we have carried over 16,000 stories on the pages of Property Industry Eye .
These stories have attracted more than 125,000 comments by readers – far more on average per story than any other trade publication.
The content of 99% of those comments have been made within the site’s posting rules. Under 1% have required some form of moderation, and of that number a tiny proportion have required more serious intervention – for example, where they overstepped the mark in respect of racism or sexism.
In common with many media, we allow anonymous comments and the figures conclusively show that readers respect the trust that we place in them to abide by the posting rules.
We are committed to maintaining the option for our readers to post their comments anonymously as we consider that it enables a valuable degree of openess.
For example, the employee needing to anonymously raise concerns about their employment, or the senior industry figure who wishes to share a view free from the constraints of their public position.
But we also recognise that we have a responsibility as publisher to be reasonably sure that comments are made by legitimate readers. We also want to limit the ability of spammers to post on the site.
So from this evening we are introducing a second tier of account verification for all existing and new users of EYE.
SMS text verification code via mobile phone is widely accepted as a means of linking a user to an account and this is what we shall be using on EYE from now on.
When you next log in to EYE you will be asked for your mobile phone number and the code will immediately be sent so that you can access your account and continue to comment on the EYE stories.
You should only need to do this once per login – and most people stay permanently logged in – so it should not inconvenience you in any way. Please note that your mobile phone number will not be used for anything other than generating the login code.
We look forward to your continued engagement with the stories on EYE.
Comments (24)
@MarkJ
Agreed – an email address is equally sufficient for delivering short codes.
If a lot of people were, anonymously, hurling abuse then I get that having a number which is likely to be linked to you, is a good way of being able to report abusive people.
However, if 99% are playing nicely, and part of the 1% are spammers, introducing verification code via email or Authenticator would remove spamming abilities.
Personally feel this is a wise and balanced move. People can still post anonymously if they wish but this ensures spam is eradicated and those few comments that cross the line can be tackled appropriately. It gives everyone the public anonymity if they want it- but the accountability not to step over the mark.
“It gives everyone the public anonymity if they want it- but the accountability not to step over the mark.”
Sorry – but I fail to see how that will work in practice. Anyone can buy a SIM at the pound shop which gives them a mobile number to supply to EYE to send the text.
Thanks for the ‘Dislike’. Care to explain it?
I have no issue with using my mobile for such purposes, but, for those who are concerned, lets hammer that nail in a bit more:-
8.5 The Company may provide a User’s details to a third party where, in the Company’s reasonable opinion, any Contributed Material is in breach of these Terms and Conditions and a third party has a legitimate interest in obtaining those details for the purposes of pursuing legal action in relation to the Contributed Material submitted
Section 8.5 of our terms has another sentence Bosky.
The Company may provide a User’s details to a third party where, in the Company’s reasonable opinion, any Contributed Material is in breach of these Terms and Conditions and a third party has a legitimate interest in obtaining those details for the purposes of pursuing legal action in relation to the Contributed Material submitted. Each User acknowledges that the Company may also be required to hand over such information by order of a court of law.
Hi Nick,
They are two differing scenarios; the sentence I posted is discretionary and the second sentence is compulsory. As such, I opted not to include the second sentence as it did not fit with the intended message.
Keep up the good work.
Understood. Many thanks.
I don’t see a problem with this at all. There are a few techno dinosaurs out there…
What you got to hide nay sayers? Maybe your authenticity! Grumbling over verification with your mobile , ha ha ha. Next you will be telling us you never give your number out to anyone and that is why no-one ever phones you …. get real.
Not really interested in registering my phone number or giving away any data.
I think this is a wrong move for PIE. Please try and reconsider this otherwise we will lose part of our voice for the industry.
No problem. I’d be happy for our real names to be compulsory.
Love and thanks
Michael Gove
Burner phone sales go up …..
Whats wrong with an email address?
I guessing that most people would have a work and private email address and could choose which one to use…..
A publication that mostly relies on the input from its readers. Let’s be honest most only read for the comments.
Which in my opinion already heavily sanitises and reduces this input without justification for certain individuals.
A publication with a clear agenda that only allows the free speech of certain individuals it agrees with.
The honest interaction and level playing field of original content made PIE not ‘just another trade mag’.
For me another sanitised pointless publication offering no value to the people on the ground. Unless your a fat cat pushing your own agenda.
Maybe an ideal time for another publication to recognise the gap in the market for all the underpaid and under appreciated professionals. Who have no voice as the professional bodies in place to offer them protection and a voice are completely toothless.
We are back with traffic wardens as the most hated profession and rightly so…
Can you explain what you will be doing with my personal data? You wouldn’t give your mobile number to a stranger would you?
Privacy Policy is here:
https://v3.propertyindustryeye.com/privacy-policy/
This is sad news for me.
LinkedIn and this forum are the only “social media” I have (I don’t even use WhatsApp because…Facebook!).
One of the reasons I shun most social media is due to its collection of data; including things like mobile numbers.
Breaches are inevitable and the fewer places that have my personal email/number, the better for my privacy and security.
Anyone can go back and look at my posts on this site to see that I don’t use my account to name-call, insult, cause offence – yet I still don’t want to provide my number.
Is there not another 2-factor authentication method that can be used? One-time codes via Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, Authy; something like that? Something which requires a user to be real (and not a bot) but doesn’t require providing more personal data for the inevitable breach? If 99% are playing by the rules, and part of the 1% are bots, then to do something token based like an Authenticator would at the very least reduce that 1% to something like 0.5%?
Login with apple seems secure & popular?
Login with your burner phone.
This seems fair enough and anti spam and anti hack measures are only to be expected.
The anti-anonymous snowflake squad will be devastated that their calls for the use of real names has been ignored. Good decision by Nick and his team.
“The anti-anonymous snowflake squad” – I think you are being a bit harsh with that, AAA – there are valid arguments on both sides of that issue. Whilst you haven’t singled anyone out, name calling is unlikely to change anyone’s mind on this issue.
That said, I support PIE’s stance on account verification
As an anti-anonymous snowflake I personally think PIE has nailed this with a totally fair balance- anonymity almost all of the time but accountability when justified.
I don’t agree.You are a snowflake some of the time, but not all of the time.
Excellent idea!