The few times that I've seen any comments on B&B, many have been more vicious than anything on LI, so I'm not sure whether there's any 'strategy' or policy at work there.

Because we're far more widely read also means we attract more comments, some critical, but we also have fairly strict moderation procedures about personal comments and a robust takedown process to with the reporting link under each comment, which regularly gets exercised.

I also believe that comments are a fundamental component to freedom of speech in a market where the balance of power is generally shifted towards law firm proprietors. Comments, while sometimes inane or pointless, also often provide a useful feedback mechanism to us as well as an idea of market sentiments that is valuable.

If a law firm or managing partner can't handle that, I think that says more about them and their mindset to criticism than it does about LI, its readers or its policies.

Second, I've also strongly believed since starting LI six years ago, that robust journalism needs to ruffle feathers sometimes, which we've never been afraid to do and which I know for a fact has earned us some senior partners' temporary ire.

If a some law firms are hiding their head in the sand is the cost of that, I think that's a price worth paying.

I think that's a convenient excuse law firm managers use to avoid having to be transparent about things.

1. If you don't like the comments, ignore them.

2. You should see the number of comments we *don't* publish.

3. I think you'll have a hard time finding a comment that was either outright sexist, or a sexist comment that did not lead to a healthy debate & rebuttal. Reality is, there are people out there who make sexist comments and have sexist attitudes. I may not agree with their argument, but as long as it is not hateful, I think those views deserve some sunlight so they can be debunked effectively.

4. 'mean personal and extremely distasteful' bring to mind the language of the IT Act. We draw the line at a lot of personal comments, but censoring personal comments that are merely critical, satirical and not ad hominem, is a step too far.

5. Visitor stats, have a look at sites like Alexa, which is fairly accurate:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/barandbench.com
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/legallyindia.com

6. I believe that it can be a challenge for law firms dealing with comments. But internal communications can also be improved and firms made more transparent (internally and externally) so that people wouldn't feel the need to troll about the firm. All LI is doing is providing a small platform, which people use for a variety of things.

I think intelligent readers can discern which comment makes valid argument, which is just biased hyperbole - it certainly seems that most of the time the rubbish doesn't stand unchallenged, there's a healthy debate (that admittedly sometimes degenerates into bickering), and sometimes there's a sense that you've learned something from both sides.

Anyway, we have this debate about comments nearly every year with readers and we keep tweaking things from time to time, so it's helpful to get feedback.

However, I think firms or partners that claim they are insecure because of anonymous, mostly harmless comments on a website should realise that there are more important things that one can worry about.