'Popular Science' ends online article comments.

[macdoc]

and we would be bored to tears waiting.

 

[Mark the Hiker]

Regarding the audience and quality of comments, I have noticed over the years that the closer a forum is to traditional media outlets, the more ignorant comments you get.

I follow a local forum for discussing public transit and they get much more intelligent discussions about their subject matter than the same topics get on the local newspaper and tv stations online forums.

Exceptions abound of course, especially where the subject matter is ignorance-oriented.

 

[Homeapathy]

That's unfortunate. I have a greater amount of interest in the study cited for their reasoning, than the fact that Popular Science is ending their comments section.

Here it is. I recommend reading the section "The Effects of Incivility", as it paints a more hopeful picture of incivility still being penalized by the audience.

 

[catsmate]

Here it is. I recommend reading the section "The Effects of Incivility", as it paints a more hopeful picture of incivility still being penalized by the audience.

Unfortunately in fora populated by a significant number of woosters it seems inevitable that the feedback drives sane and civil posters away leaving it an echo chamber for nuttery.

 

[Lowpro]

Here it is. I recommend reading the section "The Effects of Incivility", as it paints a more hopeful picture of incivility still being penalized by the audience.

Dumb question but is this open for anyone to access? If not I can host it for those who want it >.>

 

[macdoc]

I'd be quite happy to see all non-moderated comment sections closed on newspapers and elsewhere and those open to ban anonymous postings.
It has become a soapbox for the whacko fringe.

 

[ben m]

Regarding the audience and quality of comments, I have noticed over the years that the closer a forum is to traditional media outlets, the more ignorant comments you get.

I follow a local forum for discussing public transit and they get much more intelligent discussions about their subject matter than the same topics get on the local newspaper and tv stations online forums.

Exceptions abound of course, especially where the subject matter is ignorance-oriented.

Yep. I think you need your audience to shrink to the point where the readership and the commentership (commenterdom? commentariat?) are pretty close to the same. If there's a site that you visit because you know who the commenters are and want to discuss something with them, the comment section will work*. If there's a site that you visit to read an article or two (What an interesting article! I have thoughts on it! Hey, look, it's a comments box!) then the comments section invariably sucks.

* assuming basic moderation. There is no site too obscure, no discussion too technical, that a troll won't find it worth disrupting.

 

[Dinwar]

The other factor is the education level of the audience. At the Fossil Forum it's generally assumed that one is either knowledgeable about fossils or very eager to learn about them. Same with the forums at The Ring Lord and Mail Artisans (only in regards to maille jewelry, armor, theory, etc. rather than paleontology). Because of that you can have fairly technical discussions and people who don't understand something feel free to ask questions.

Compare that with even this forum. It's cliche for people to come here knowing little to nothing about a topic, yet acting as if their opinion were The Truth of the matter and how DARE anyone question it?! (No, I'm not referring to what most people probably think I am; in fact, I'm thinking of the crackpot physics thread.) The more open format allows people to speak on multiple topics, such that even if they are an expert in one area they may make a fool of themselves in another.

In an even less constrained forum--say, something like a news outlet forum or article comments section--you're going to get people even LESS educated who don't realize how uneducated they are. At least people here pretend to have thought something through; on truly public forums you'll get a lot of "My dad said" and "Well, where I grew up" and "Some guy at the bar was talking to me, and he said".

It seems that those who are ignorant and don't realize they are ignorant tend to either not seek out forums dedicated to the field, or if they find them they tend to not last long.

 

[pgwenthold]

People are unaware of Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion: Regardless of the topic, assume someone participating knows more about it than you do.

As you become more familiar with the community of contrubutors, you can figure out where you might be among the resident experts, but even then, you shouldn't presume someone isn't lurking.

 

[yog_sothoth]

Paid shills are more likely to be on large sites than small sites. Popular Science may have been targeted by groups, as they provide a forum for the shill's target audience.

 

[Homeapathy]

Dumb question but is this open for anyone to access? If not I can host it for those who want it >.>

I think so. I can read it and I'm not getting any "access granted by [institute]" messages that I get when access is restricted.

I'd be quite happy to see all non-moderated comment sections closed on newspapers and elsewhere and those open to ban anonymous postings.
It has become a soapbox for the whacko fringe.

I see this happening a lot in Norway. The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation used to allow open anonymous commenting. They even made the stupid decision to have image urls display the image itself in the comments (thank god is was something as harmless as soft-core that made them realize that was a bad idea).

Things were so bad that they started writing columns about the problem, eventually they decided to stop anonymous commenting, and now the comment sections have been removed everywhere except on opinion pieces. Many other newspapers now require people to use their full names when commenting.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Many other newspapers now require people to use their full names when commenting.

Publicly displayed or hidden behind a pseudonym? (I support the first)

 

[bigred]

I hope stopping comments from readers will become a world wide trend among on line press and magazines.

Me too. IMO this is not really about "conspiracy nuts" or "woo peddlers," but just miserable, immature buttholes who have a desperate need to feel empowered and get their fix from the anonymity of the 'net. Trust me they're breeding like cockroaches. Honestly have you ever read the comments by people on new articles/etc online? Plenty of bottom feeders. Oh well.

 

[ben m]

The other thing is: you have something to say about what you read? You want to talk to people about it online? Nowadays, you have lots of places to do so. Say something on Facebook or Twitter. Go start a thread on Reddit, or 4chan, or Slashdot, or JREF, or something. Post to your blog. An arbitary number of morons can tweet moronic opinions about a Popular Science article, and this doesn't hurt a non-moron's ability to read and enjoy the article.

There's a general econ-101 principle at work, I think. (Not that I've taken Econ 101.) If you have a finite spigot of some resource, and you give it away at no cost and without controls, it'll be squandered horribly. (Rent exhaustion comes to mind.) It turns out that "attention" is a scarce resource. A post on a news website gives everyone free access to the finite attention of the site's readers. Is that resource going to magically get used for the greater good? Of course not! In come the bottom feeders (hey, here nobody can make me shut up about Obama's birth certificate!), then the trolls (hey, free entertainment!) and the advertisers (hey, free ad views!), then come the shadier advertisers trying to beat the first advertisers to the punch (hey, free ad views if I can saturate the moderation software!), then come the SEO bots, etc.. So, yeah, a comment box gives free attention for the legitimate commenter with something interesting to say, but the bots and spammers and trolls will use up all the available "attention", probably before the legitimate commenter has finished reading the article.

 

[Fishstick]

Good! We no longer need to see comments like most of these.

I hope stopping comments from readers will become a world wide trend among on line press and magazines.

Agreed. Not every article/news site needs a comment section, and most of the time it's a waste anyway.

 

[rwguinn]

Several US newspapers (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is the most recent) have switched from open comment sections to requiring you to comment through Facebook.
While its not ideal, at least they can then nail the abusers for violations of the TOS, and it allows for mockery from your "friends"...

 

[Homeapathy]

Publicly displayed or hidden behind a pseudonym? (I support the first)

publicly displayed, and since most people post from their facebook account, with lovely pictures as well.

 

[aleCcowaN]

publicly displayed, and since most people post from their facebook account, with lovely pictures as well.

Excellent! That's the path to follow.

 

[Corsair 115]

Many other newspapers now require people to use their full names when commenting.

Isn't that the standard practice when it comes to newspapers publishing letters to the editor in its printed edition? In which case, extending the printed procedure to the online procedure only seems natural to me.

 

[catsmate]

Isn't that the standard practice when it comes to newspapers publishing letters to the editor in its printed edition? In which case, extending the printed procedure to the online procedure only seems natural to me.

Rather more in the case of the letter's I've had published; the letter must carry name, address and a contact number. I've been called to verify my identity.