Popular Science Is Getting Rid of Comments 473
Daniel_Stuckey writes "From an article announcing the sites' decision to do away with comments: 'It wasn't a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter. ... even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story, recent research suggests. ... A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.'"
This comes alongside news that Google is trying to clean up YouTube comments by adding integration with Google+. "You’ll see posts at the top of the list from the video’s creator, popular personalities, engaged discussions about the video, and people in your Google+ Circles."
Moo (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Slashdot has decided to get rid of the commenting system, noting that most comments are not informative, and only serve to derail the important points with discussions of overlords, hot grits, and first posts. Instead, only the Slashdot team will be able to comment, limited to which "dept" the story came from.
The change on slashdot was well received according to the poll asking about it. The one choice, Cowboy Neal, which was explained to mean "yes", was the overwhelming choice by voters. The change is expected to make it easier on new users.
Erstwhile administrator and founder Cmdr Taco, said simply, "In Soviet Russia, this is how we did it."
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an easier idea—why not just get rid of first posts? Most of the trouble stems from those. The rule would be simple; if a news article has zero comments on it, no one is allowed to post until it has more.
Actually, that isn't a terrible idea (yes, I get your joke). A more serious implementation would have the comments be invisible for the first hour. People can post them, but only people with moderation points can see them and moderate them. Thus the initial set of visible comments starts off pre-moderated, and presumably sorted by their score. People can game the system -- by putting in high quality replies directed only at the article (or editor/author/summary -- this *is* Slashdot), which is not a bad thing at all.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
Aside from proper indenting on replies?
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
Aside from proper indenting on replies?
Also don't forget that the Slashdot comment system correctly rejects un-American thoughts, especially those written in foreign languages with weird characters.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
26 letters was enough for God to write the Bible, it's good enough for me.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you are joking aroud, but out of curiousity I looked this up. The bible was written in Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, all of which actually have less than 26 letters.
The Hebrew/aramaic alphabet has 22 letters, and the greek alphabet has 24 letters.
Re:Moo (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is we lowly users who are trusted to moderate the comments.
the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
...and that's why perfectly good comments are modded down, the equivalent of "I disagree" but also, because of Slashdot's thresholds, the equivalent of one user hiding another's comments.
That's also why high quality comments from anonymous posters are often buried from the moment they are posted -- because moderation isn't designed to foster high quality, it's designed to foster group-think. Fortunately, a bunch of very smart posters means that "group think" here isn't nearly as uniform as it is elsewhere.
Slashdot's moderation/metamod system is BADLY broken. The site survives because it has unusually intelligent commenters overall; not because moderation is working.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Like democracy, Slashdot's moderation system is the worst one out there, except for all the other alternatives.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
Like democracy, Slashdot's moderation system is the worst one out there, except for all the other alternatives.
I'd have to say this is absolutely the case as well. I've been pretty disillusioned with the simple up or down vote system that Ars Technica implemented just recently. It absolutely highlights the problems of down voting due to simple disagreement when it was initially instituted to help stem obvious trolls or abuse. Devolved down into the "downvote, don't agree" syndrome immediately and has led to some very strange groupthink because of it.
Funny part is that the real conversations/debates just happen further down the list/next pages where only the crickets chirp and the freaks are too stubborn to let things go while they speak out into an increasingly empty chamber. Not sure why I've been finding it so fascinating.
Slashdot, despite all its flaws, has been the best site I've known to watch it as it evolves. I applaud /.'s use of complexity in the commenting system and wish more sites like Ars would fucking use it. Not the simple up or down popularity contests that the majority of disqus using sites have become before entropy in the 4th dimension just wipes it all clean for another day, another article.
For good or ill, the human race is engaging in debate on a massive scale now that we didn't before. All the good learning and counter points that have helped me grow, or pissed me off entirely, have been in forums and comments. Not in books. For despair I read the comments under news articles. For absolute hope, the comments and forums in MOOC's are amazing!
Our roots as humans are completely on display in commenting systems in a way never before possible. Taco and all you fuckers here on /. have absolutely been pioneers in this fascinating area of computer science meets cultural chaos.
I don't think I could ever quite do it justice, other than to say thank you and fuckoff! I absolutely say that with love to each one of you bastards. Slashdot is broken and always was, but I know my thinking and knowledge has grown and is better off for even the small amount of participation I've engaged in here.
PopSci are pussies for giving in too soon without adding the complexity to the system like we have here on good, old, aggravating Slashdot.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Forgot to add this: Downvote and down page syndrome in commenting systems is absolutely why I view even the -1's, all the time. Whenever I get Mod points, which seems to be often lately, I always travel down to the bottom comments where the crickets chirp, with a few stops back up the page to try and get some of the older ID's stuck at 1 along with some of the more brilliant AC comments.
It's the very least I could do to try and repay the unique culture we collectively have here....
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
it's designed to foster group-think.
Bullshit, the group-think already exists, moderation mearely highlights it, that's it's fucking job! The higher the number you browse at the lower the resolution you have on slashdot's opinions. If you want to see what 'slashdot thinks' then browse at a high number, if you want to know what every troll and drunkard thinks, browse at -1. Unpopular posts are modded to hell because they are unpopular, not because they are wrong. Unpopular posts are often rated interesting if they're well written and there's is a grain of truth in them.
The comment system here is far from perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than any other site I've visited in the past decade, part of that is the moderation performed by those " unusually intelligent commenters", plus the fact that it's difficult for "unintelligent commeters" to spam the moderation system with phoney up/down votes. If you still think your being treated unfairly then reword your argument or better still perform a bit of self-skepticisim on your own ideas to work out why everone else thinks your post sucks.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem. Simply because it's unpopular doesn't mean it's wrong as you pointed out, but that fosters group think and /. has no shortage of people who believe that anything contrary to their very *special* world view is unworthy of being modded up. And of course then there are the mod trolls, or people who mod down someone they simply don't like because they can.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Informative)
While you will often see an unpopular posts quickly modded into near oblivion, an hour or a day later the situation is totally reversed.
There are entire mod armies out there that run dozens of accounts knowing that a few of them will have mod points on any given day. They pounce on their topics, mod it to hell, and move on.
Later the thinking crowd arrives and the ship is righted. But the mod army has moved on. They never notice that their graffiti and tags have been painted over.
So, read posts a day or two later, and the landscape is much better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me precis this argument:
(1) The moderation scheme here essentially filters out postings that disagree with the "group-think."
(2) Commenters here are "unusually intelligent" and they define the group-think.
(3) Therefore if you disagree with the group-think, you are probably not "unusually intelligent" (and hence your opinion is probably not worthy of consideration; you belong with the trolls and drunkards).
The problem is step (2), which is a lot of self-serving bollocks. I think the suggestion that Slas
Re:the difference (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is step (2), which is a lot of self-serving bollocks.
No, step 2 is correct. It's just that "unusually intelligent" should be read like "differently abled" rather than "very intelligent".
It's unusual to see people as dumb as many slashdot posters.
(Whether this applies to this post or not is up to the reader to decide).
Re:the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
What people tend to ignore is that 90%+ of the time two opposing views can exist on Slashdot without one side being modded to hell. At least one of the responses to your post was someone saying it was basically a load of bollocks and at the moment both your post and his are equally rated, which is a pretty good sign that group-think doesn't define anything.
Re:the difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Right now, moderation does a good job modding down really bad comments, but a lot of comments that are good don't get modded up, because they don't catch the right person's eye on a quick read-through. It's ok to have some mediocre comments modded up, as long as the trolls and spam stay hidden.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd quite like it if they regularly gave users the ability to moderate specific posts (highlight them when reading the thread). This could be used to get moderation on posts that seem to be ignored and could be used to weight who gets mod points in future. It would also limit the bias towards moderating the early posts on a thread etc.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I agree that the modding down is effective, sometimes too effective.
But simply getting rid of the really awful posts allow a multitude of other views to be seen. Some are well written, some arent, some get modded up, but most won't.
The idea isn't to mod every idea up. The idea is to stratify the views and thereby arrive at a spectrum of ideas.
Since far too many moderaters mod troll on anything they disagree with, maybe a disagree mod should exist, but the only way it could be used would be to have the person posting the disagree mod to state their case, and and have their post be modded up to 5 before their disagree is posted at all.
Modding in stories you comment on (Score:5, Insightful)
I almost never mod stories when I have mod points. Why? Because the stories that I have enough interest in to read through I want to post in and you can't mod in stories you post in. Stories I don't post in I usually don't have any interest in.
This leads to a paradox where things you have knowledge of you can't mod, and things you don't know about you can mod.
I think you should be able to apply mod points into stories you post in, but make the limitations more specific -- ie, you can't mod the parent you replied to and you can't mod the replies to your post. This would prevent the self-promotion and group think because you wouldn't be able to promote favorable responses, either.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd vote for "-1 Agree" and "+1 Disagree".
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think many moderators really actively mod a post down just for disagreeing, even when it looks like it. The comments on Slashdot can be slanted, but nearly any thread will show multiple opinions.
For any piece of writing you must know your audience. Any audience has things they like and dislike more, on average, and Slashdot is no different.
Think about a thread about teaching creationism in school. You can not just come here on Slashdot and blurt out that everyone here will go to hell because they do not support god in this topic. However, if you give a well-written, polite comment in disagreeing with the overal opinion, you will get modded up. Hell, starting out your post with 'I know this is an unpopular opinion around here' is bound to get you modded up.
Also, keep in mind why people disagree with something and then mod it down. Often they just really think the other side has an illogical and stupid opinion (we all have those sometimes), so the modding down in such cases is not really about disagreeing, it's about feeling the post is illogical or such.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, it's so obvious that it is staring us right in the face. To get rid of the abuse of moderation options to serve as a "I disagree" button, just add that ff-ing "I disagree" button and make this a second counter next to the standard moderation. It would instantly point out the (interesting?) comments that are counter to the group-think.
Re:the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
If you disagree, you should write a comment explaining why, otherwise, what have you added to the conversation? You're just taking part in a popularity contest at that point.
Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again"
And here I was under the impression that everything in science was always up for grabs. This is just the mag trying to silence dissent. I happen to agree with evolution but I have no problem debating it with people who do not. Nor do I believe evolution is settled science, we continue to learn a great deal and there is always a possibility of some groundbreaking new development to come along and rock the whole foundation.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS!
When the ideas of science are no longer up for grabs then it ceases to be science and become religion.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Interesting)
"When the ideas of science are no longer up for grabs then it ceases to be science and become religion."
Whoever voted that down is a prick.
So advocating being level-headed and taking you know....a scientific approach to science gets downvoted for flamebait?
I don't have any problem with them disabling comments frankly - it's their infrastructure they can use it how they want. If there are trolls, and the admins are unable to prevent bots, it might be the best solution. Imagine if every fucking post was from that stupid piece of shit that talks about host files. Slashdot would be awful. Of course a technical solution and moderation would be far preferable...but again..it's their inrastructure
Look, it's science, a fairly well supported theory or model is held at the forefront until it is disproven. If it is not disproven, each time attempts are made to disprove it, evidence mounts. New things are discovered through this endless cycle.
Since this is a veiled way to talk about these 2 things: Evolution and global warming are like gravity. The theories are obviously (at least as far as we can tell) more or less proven true...just like gravity. However each of the 3 theories has it's flaws.
Gravity has a huge flaw: In it's current incarnation (to my knowledge - I'm not scientist) it is not compatible with quantum mechanics. There are a lot more flaws in the theory, some of which I understand, and don't want to detail here, some of which I don't quite grasp.
Evolution has several flaws as well. Most likely evolution is the proper theory, or at least most of it is. It could even be a combination of evolution and another theory. Most likely creationism isn't the proper theory, or even part of it. At least biblical creationism. I've always had an affinity for the massive quantum computer theory based on nothing. However what about panspermia or any number of valid (in the sense that we can't definitively disprove them, and they have merit) theories? People need to accept that we don't "know" a damn thing, as the author of the original post was saying.
Global warming has it's flaws as well. One of the major flaws (as I understand it - I could be totally wrong) is that variance in solar cycles affects the data. Solar cycles affect luminescense and radiance, and thus total energy output.
Again most likely most of, or all of, the theory is fact. However what about weird shit that doesn't get a lot of press attention (as far as I know, I don't own a TV because I'm a dirty, dirty hipster) like us killing plankton by the ton that are extremely reflective (in the UV spectrum) and process CO2? Or some tin foil crackpot theory that there are aliens slowly destroying our planet - or doing the equivelant for them of terraforming.
Just saying there is a lot of crap that could come out of left field - it could be something we haven't even thought of..for any of those 3 theories. How batshit insane must it have seemed when someone said a fungus called penicillium would treat infection? People were so skeptical he had to down a beaker of it (if I'm thinking of the right guy) after infecting himself with I forget what just to prove it. Even then there was probably a lot of doubt cast on it when it treated say staph but not a viral infection. That's just my conjecture since I have no idea the year (and I'm too lazy to look it up) it took place, and no idea how much they knew about infection.
I know that by saying "is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television" they are talking about the politicization of scientific issues. The objection I put forth is that discouraging science being "up for grabs" in *any* realm or discouraging debate of scientific issues is basically the exact same thing.
So they are bitching about people that are posting polarized views with no scientific merit. Who don't care about the evidence for global warming, that don't care about the evidence for evolution. Then they say the
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that by saying "is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television" they are talking about the politicization of scientific issues. The objection I put forth is that discouraging science being "up for grabs" in *any* realm or discouraging debate of scientific issues is basically the exact same thing.
I think Pop Sci, and their explanation of this policy in particular, do a great job of stating that they do want to encourage real debate and discussion of science topics, for exactly the reason that we don't know everything yet. The problem is deciding what constitutes "real" debate and discussion.
If you've ever tried to debate gun control, abortion, or vivisection with someone, you know that facts and logic go right out the window, and every statistic you throw up in support of your position can be countered by a matching and completely incompatible statistic from the other side. Neither side will change their position, which is based more on emotion and personal ethics than reason. It is issues like these that have defined the way in which many people see and understand debate. There's little distinction between repeatably tested facts and weaker forms of evidence. Whoever yells louder or can more vehemently discredit the opposition 'wins.'
Historically, scientific debate has been a (sometimes only slightly) loftier process, largely restricted to experts (loosely defined) and objective evidence. It generally uses more formal language that excludes emotional phrases like "fucking moron." There are people in the general public who have the interest to really follow the arguments and raise excellent and interesting points. Or even just to raise relevant questions that help clarify the discussion for the less expert. PopSci should be lauded for having tried to allow the most open and inclusive discussion possible. Nor is it any surprise that when science is used to support one or another public policy, then the scientific discussion gets clouded by political discussion. People are a lot more passionate about their political positions than their scientific positions, so that side of the debate will quickly overwhelm the less passionate, more technical scientific debate.
I see this decision as PopSci's admission that they can't separate the political and scientific discussions fairly, and will have to revert the scientific discussion to the more formal forum of articles and letters-to-editor. I don't see that as a bad thing - maybe it will help people recognize the difference between scientific debate and political debate.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
"Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again"
And here I was under the impression that everything in science was always up for grabs. This is just the mag trying to silence dissent. I happen to agree with evolution but I have no problem debating it with people who do not. Nor do I believe evolution is settled science, we continue to learn a great deal and there is always a possibility of some groundbreaking new development to come along and rock the whole foundation.
You might want to consider re-weighting the importance of various venues. Internet comment sections are not...exactly... a notorious haven of scientific enlightenment (regardless of topic). The SNR is shit, and it's basically just psuedoanonymous people regurgitating links and copypasta at one another (like some sort of horrible combination of wikipedia and what a decadent late-imperial roman would have considered a good party).
It's perfectly possible for new developments to come along; but the probability that they'll emerge on a message board (rather than, say, during the course of archeological or gene sequencing work) is negligible.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a perfect example. Yesterday I was reading an article in the News section of Nature online. There were three comments: one was about how the item confirmed Billy Meier's contactee reports with his meeting with the Pleidians; another was (if I remember correctly) arguing against AGW; the last one was a guy touting his own theory of everything on his website. This is one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world. The comments were just embarrassing. They should just ban comments in the news section.
After that, this action from Popular Science looks positively enlightened.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the vast majority of scientific advances don't necessarily originate from one place, person, or time but often many at once, I find the idea that we're relying on lightening to strike in a comment board in order to achieve some important scientific advance rather naive and laughable.
Re: (Score:3)
"silencing any source of ideas, is never desirable."
Maybe not silencing, but making most ideas very, very quiet so you can hear the rest is almost always a good idea. I support the time cube guy's right to blabber on about time cube, but I am strongly in favour of him not doing it in my lab meeting. Or anywhere I'm trying to do something other than get a laugh from the nutjob.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree, message boards are great for getting those alternative perspectives out there. If you don't know how to think without an authority telling you what to listen to you aren't thinking scientifically anyway.
Many people, probably a majority, *don't* know how to think without an authority telling them what to listen to. That "authority" is not necessarily government, or church leaders, or politicians, it's *anyone* who's charismatic enough that people trust what they say or write. Rush Limbaugh, Steve Jobs, Greenpeace activists, Jenny McCarthy, market analysts, parenting experts, a non-techy's tech friend, etc. Most of those in turn have their own authorities that they listen to.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Our modern world is so complex no one person can ever hope to understand it all in depth. Like it or not we all turn to an authority when we need to know more about a subject, and since we are all doing that I like my authorities to be based on Science with Nature as the umpire (and I'm not talking about the journals with the same names). If someone has a better philosophy to disseminate mankind's collective knowlege to the next generation, I'm all ears.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I think the quality of science has dropped greatly in the last few decades.
I don't think it's dropped at all. I just think we're now aware of how bad it's always been.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that Popular Science isn't trying to silence dissent as much as it is trying to not be party to this type of discussion, which is an affront to the scientific method. It is too bad that the quoted rationale centers around "established facts in science" rather than not wanting to legitimize non-scientific discussion of the sort that crops up in their comments section.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference between reasoned debate, and trolling. You appear to lump both together.
You are wrong. They are not one and the same.
grapes & bad editors & MBA's (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with you but I used to work in print and a decent editor would have have been able to mitigate the trolling.
It's 2013 not 1813 and *any* editor-level staff member at Popular Science should have known that trolling on the comments can be mitigated with a points system or if need be require a login. Sometimes its not that easy but the solutions aren't expensive or prohibitively time consuming.
Here's the thing: COMMUNICATING WITH READERS IS A NECESSITY
Newspapers can't afford *not* to have a comments section. It's 2013...my grandma is on facebook.com...the expectation for interactivity and social networking integration is higher and growing...
Part of the problem is that media *owners* have no idea what they are doing and just do the standard cost-cutting algorythm whenever they buy a newspaper. They cut out every function that isn't associated with ad revenue until the publication is so shitty and uninformative no one uses it.
Popular Science is no different. Really it's just a brand name anymore...one of dozens of 'titles' owned by a conglomerate. In this case the The Bonnier Corporation out of Sweeden [wikipedia.org]
Usually a company like Bonnier will contract with someone like Disquss or even Facebook.com to integrate all the comments on all pages to one system (that will then sell the commentors data on the advertising grey market).
Just for comparison's sake, imagine if Apple were run by a person whose only business experience is running a casino....
That is the kind of step down in management quality that crippled and ruined print media.
The whole notion that 'print is dead' is bullshit excuses to cut staff and make generic news not local news. People are reading more text than ever before. People are writing more text than ever before. People have an expectation for distraction like never before. People want quality media in all forms across platforms.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Groundbreaking new developments come from research, not youtube comments. The people posting troll comments about climatology and biology are almost universally unqualified to be making the statements they're making. If someone tells you that if you drop a rock it will fall upward, why do you need to give them the time of day? The fact that millions of people may believe very strongly in "intelligent gravitation" or some bullshit doesn't make it right. Some things in science are not up for grabs, at least not by random laypeople and corporate shills trolling on the internet.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, even on a site like slashdot where you'd think theres a degree of scientific literacy you still find people who actually believe climate change is some sort of vast left wing conspiracy, when we actually know that its both real, and overwelmingly caused by human CO2 output.
Its not a debate in science but for some messed up reason its still a debate in the public. I can certainly understand why a lot of the scientific community is pretty fed up with having to deal with a nutbags flooding the real debates, namely how serious the problem is, and how to fix it, with deceptive or stupid denialist junk.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think you're missing the point (and fixating on a poorly worded sentence).
welcome to the internet.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)
A better moderation system is only useful if the people on your site have a long-term vested interest in the site. This is why comments at the bottom of a CBS article, linked to by Matt Drudge, requiring no sign-up for posting are so hideous and always will be.
The only thing requiring identities for posting accomplishes is pushing the agenda of forcing people to use their identity online while silencing those who, you know, don't want the fact that they commented on a youtube video with a reporter who fell out of a barrel of grapes and onto the ground below to be part of search results and something that everyone in the world (including employers, future mates, friends, in-laws, family, etc) might come across.
Google, Facebook, and others want you to use your real identity online because they want to be the hub facilitating all your identity needs.
When you hear pushes to "end internet bullying" and other bullshit, it would do well to remember that these are all ultimately efforts to eradicate anonymity from the internet and little more.
Re: (Score:3)
"Debate" for many means to them that their idiocy is equal to any thus far working science. Rather than discuss the science - ways to test, for example, they simply regurgitate their agenda's talking points. Makes it difficult to impossible for others to talk about a given issue over the flood of "my view is as valid as yours simply because I espouse it."
In olden times, pre-Web, discussion areas (and usenet, long time back) were actively moderated by what were often termed "sysops" who would variously poi
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Informative)
It's not censorship to decide not to host a comments section on your website any longer. It's an editorial decision which affects all users equally.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
AC does not understand the concept of censorship. And posted as AC - so, self censorship in a way.
Pretty sad.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not letting you (yes, you AC) deface my website isn't censorship. Nor is it an infringement on free speech.
They've decided (probably rightly) that comments on their site are a net negative feature and so they're getting rid of them. Personally I think too many sites have embraced the web-2.0-everything-must-allow-you-to-express-your-opinion-right-the-hell-now bandwagon.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
But... but... if modern culture has taught me anything its that my half-assed, poorly thought-out, after-10-minutes-consideration, opinion is every bit as valuable as any experts!
And if I can't be bothered to share my half-assed opinion, I should at least have the option to "like" someone elses', damn it!
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible to use technology to let each user see a picture of the comments that they prefer.
You make that sound as if that is a good thing. It is not. The very point of communication is to be exposed to new and possibly uncomfortable ideas. Strong filtering bias is a very real danger - 1000 digital TV channels means I can always find a rerun of Firefly, and I never have to encounter even a news flash. Customised news aggregators allow me to filter out all comments from lefty windbags and/or Austrian economists. I can comfortably live in my bubble of self-imposed ignorance. Don't get me wrong - on a personal level, I of course like the choice. But as a society, we need moderately informed citizens able to have an intelligent dialogue on important issues. How we achieve both is a non-trivial question.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Informative)
You know you don't get credit or paid if you post as AC, right?
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Interesting)
Captchas are intended to block bots, but the bots keep improving.
Maybe captchas should be supplemented with logic puzzles to ensure commenters are actually capable of rational thought as well as pattern recognition.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe captchas should be supplemented with logic puzzles to ensure commenters are actually capable of rational thought as well as pattern recognition.
If we did that, we'd lose half the comments.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, sorta, yeah. Because they know that many of the people trying to use their site to affect the world are trying to do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science or the promotion of a scientifically-sustainable worldview.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. On one hand there is no point arguing when an opponent comes with absolute knowledge.
In this case its the Mag coming with "absolute knowledge"
When someone is saying that evolution is wrong because the bible says so
That's not their argument. The bible makes no mention of evolution. A small number of fundamentalists might say this but it's not founded in the actual religion.
or that climate change is wrong because the bible says so
No one has ever made that argument. You're just making things up now and trying to disparage people you disagree with. You're literally no better than the people who made the decision to disable the comments at this point. While they are silencing dissent by killing the venue y
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former fundamentalist Christian, I can speak to this.
There are a couple of things going on here. First, if evolution is true, then the creation story in Genesis is not true, and thus there is no fall of man and no need for a Savior. The whole of fundamentalist Christianity falls apart. This is why their panties get in such a bunch over evolution.
Second, in fundamentalist Christian circles there is a disdain for expertise not based on the Bible. This includes science. There is a well-known verse, Proverbs 3:5-6, that says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight." In other words, only god knows how things are to be, and putting human understanding against the wisdom of the imaginary sky daddy is sin. Some would call it idolatry.
These folks will never trust science that does not already agree with them. We who do promote science should not waste our time in extensive debates with fundamentalist believers. Just leave a nice, bright Exit sign above the door for those who decide to leave the fold.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely true: fundamentalist Christianity is tied to sola scriptura.
Basically, there is no point arguing with a fundamentalist because all their responses/positions will come back to a Biblical citation or a statement of faith. Ultimately, their cite on the inerrancy of the Bible is self-referential. It's an incredibly strong, interlocked system & philosophy... unless you knock a hole in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible.
For anyone not well versed in fundamentalist Christianity, what parent and I refer to works something like this. Poke a single hole in the fundamentalist's belief in *any* aspect of the Bible, and they are likely to leave Christianity altogether—because the entire self-referential construct falls apart. Disprove some aspect of Genesis, then the Bible isn't absolutely inerrant, then the entire New Testament is in question, the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, the remission of sin, the existence of sin that needs redemption at all, well... you get the picture.
It's really hard to argue with a fundie, because ultimately their beliefs are non-falsifiable. There is always the legitimate out of "God made it that way, for reasons we don't understand."
Re: (Score:3)
State a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and then we can start having a scientific discussion.
You cannot simply assert "climate change is a problem", and expect people to take that as science. "
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up.
I know for a fact that theists and creationists are completely bonkers and wrong - but I'm *always* willing to debate the issue. The exercise both helps me hone my own rationale, but also gives me empathy and insight to their beliefs and convictions.
It does get tiring after a short while though to have to re-debate this topic ad nauseam.
Re:Sour grapes (Score:4, Interesting)
At least that would be funny. Debating creationists is like arguing about bedtime with a toddler who thinks whomever shouts loudest wins. Most of them literally believe the rhetorical equivalent: that whoever holds onto their beliefs most tenaciously is the better person.
2013: The Year the Web Died (Score:5, Insightful)
Between these sites slamming the door shut on public comments, walled login gardens, and NSA slimy fingers on everything, it's just super depressing. Feels like a mortal wound.
Seriously, critique the Slashdot comment system if you like, but it's a thousand times better than 99% of the sites out there. And it's pretty simple. Sites not ripping off this system seem like they conscientiously want a reason to slam the door on public conversation.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-threaded boards are totally hopeless unless the number of comments per topic is tiny (Oh, sure, I want to sort through 30 pages of comments, manually parsing them to see who is quoting what... like hell); but the 'moderation is basically a presentation problem' approach( where you can, fairly easily, see whatever you want, nothing goes down the memory hole; but you can also get a quick 'b
Re:2013: The Year the Web Died (Score:5, Informative)
You actually have no idea what the web is about do you?
Heres a hint: practically free self publication to an entire world with no effort. That part hasnt changed, and is easier than ever. Have Windows? 3 buttonclicks, and you have IIS up and ready to go. Have Linux? One or two commands and you have a LAMP stack ready to go.
What youre lamenting is apparently that a few freebies are being retracted because people are figuring out that giving randoms a soapbox on your site doesnt improve the quality of your site.
Re: (Score:3)
... these sites slamming the door shut on public comments,
Seriously, critique the Slashdot comment system if you like, but it's a thousand times better than 99% of the sites out there. And it's pretty simple. Sites not ripping off this system seem like they conscientiously want a reason to slam the door on public conversation.
Fool. That's precisely why all the sites should disable comments. They never needed them to begin with because sites like slashdot do a far better job of moderation. Focus on generating better content, we'll focus on aggregating and moderating better, you can stop being so damn melodramatic. Oh NOES! The comments that no one read are going away!
Re:2013: The Year the Web Died (Score:5, Informative)
Between these sites slamming the door shut on public comments, walled login gardens, and NSA slimy fingers on everything, it's just super depressing. Feels like a mortal wound.
Seriously, critique the Slashdot comment system if you like, but it's a thousand times better than 99% of the sites out there. And it's pretty simple. Sites not ripping off this system seem like they conscientiously want a reason to slam the door on public conversation.
No it's not. The number of times I use to log in and put my name to the comment only to have it voted up on down not on merit but on popularity was depressing. If slashdot is so good why do we continually hear from people about how downhill it has all gone.
I call BS. Keep patting yourself on the back while the Titanic sinks.
Name one high-traffic moderation/comment system that's better than Slashdot, and explain why.
Even if you manage that, the point still stands that /.'s system is far better than 99% of the sites out there.
Trolls and Spammers (Score:3)
Re:Trolls and Spammers (Score:4, Insightful)
We can. But nice things require a lot of attention, the lesson is more that "nice things just don't happen by themselves".
Nice things have to be perpetually earned and re-earned. Sucks but true. There are always barbarians at the gate; there always will be.
Hurrah Slashdot! (Score:5, Interesting)
For some reason The Register also seems to have good quality comments. As does The Guardian, so it can be possible to build a commenting community that works. Maybe it's a British thing?
On the other hand it's been years since I bothered looking at comments on any Canadian media site..... CBC pays a lot of money to contract out comment moderation and still manages to have a worthless stream of dreck.
Re:Hurrah Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously. I can't think of a better system for comment handling. Just move the sliders aaaaaaall the way to the right and never see another troll!
Sliders? I'm viewing this in Lynx.
Re:Hurrah Slashdot! (Score:4, Insightful)
For some reason The Register also seems to have good quality comments. As does The Guardian, so it can be possible to build a commenting community that works. Maybe it's a British thing?
Good comments or comments you agree with? I ask because they aren't necessarily the same thing.
Re:Hurrah Slashdot! (Score:4, Insightful)
They have. They've scientifically developed a way for Christian fundamentalists to complain about articles about evolution, political conservatives to lambast every major article about climate science, a way for every nutjob conspiracy theorist to have their own say about events, a way for scientists in their actual field of specialty to discuss issues, and a way for generalist laymen who are genuinely interested in science to discuss it:
Let them discuss it in their own communities and on their own websites.
Amen: (Score:5, Insightful)
> A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics.
True worldwide, alarmingly so in the US, where "it inconveniences my politics" carries the same weight in discussions as "there is no evidence for this hypothesis".
"bedrock scientific doctrine" ??!! (Score:3)
there are no "bedrock scientific doctrines", the teachings and models of science get replaced or refined. Scientists want that and are glad when it happens.
Re: (Score:3)
There are "bedrock scientific doctrines". Like bedrock, they can change, but to change them requires something pretty impressive. Comments on an article are not that.
Look at the first 5 comments on one of the articles they linked as an example [popsci.com] of the problem. The article is titled "What Happens To Women When They're Denied Abortions?"
For convenience, reproduced here:
The narrative of this article and the study on which it is based perpetuates the falsehood, in that it assumes pregnancy is not a preventable occurrence.
What happens to the baby when it's denied an abortion?
To piggyback off of [first commentor], this article also never explores the possibility of putting the baby of for adoption to a family that will love and look after it's well being, and cover a lot if not all of the mothers medical expenses. Adoption is an option!!
My sister in law is a NICU nurse and has been in a number of different states, and she is baffled when she talks to girls that are considering abortion, all of which indicate that they were never told it was an option to put the child up for adoption. Come on, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country that would do almost anything to have a child, to the point where they will go to Africa for a baby!! I mean when I dont want my dog or cat anymore I dont kill it I give to someone else who will care for it .....sigh....we're doomed.
My mom had 9 kids (quite the opposite from Miss S.) and went through financial collapse and suffered poor health. She didn't ever once consider aborting, if she did neither my brother nor his son would be alive today.
That said, I cannot feel sorry for a woman who hits hard times in spite of her best attempt to kill her child off.
So some women get depressed when they are not allowed to have a government sanctioned murder of a baby. Outstanding...
How selfish is humanity that we condone murder of babies instead of dealing with 9 months of inconvenience, embarrassment, and adoption....
Re: (Score:3)
There are bedrock scientific doctrines - most notably, empiricism. If it turns out the universe is not actually empirical, then no scientific result can be trusted.
Figures, when your primary objective is... (Score:3)
..."bedrock scientific doctrine"
Do they even realize the inherent contradiction between "scientific" and "doctrine"?
Science is the ruthless pursuit of truth through falsifiable hypotheses, and *requires* challenges to any "doctrine", and *requires* the admission of error.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Re:Figures, when your primary objective is... (Score:5, Informative)
doctrine (from dictionary.com)
noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject
I purposely left off their examples, which are religious, although there is no reason that doctrine is inherently so.
Maybe I am not so bright, but I am not seeing a definition of the term "scientific doctrine" as anything more (or less) than "a body or system of teaching related to science."
I suspect you may be confusing "doctrine" with "dogma."
Scientific certainty? (Score:3)
Gag me.
Did someone really just use that term?
cf. http://www.edge.org/conversation/a-philosophy-of-physics [edge.org]
The term scientific certainty almost always comes up in terms of the Global Warming debate these days, although evolution has been in there as well. I'm sick of either side using it as a debate point, its unscientific.
You can almost never be certain of anything. That's not how science works.
popular consensus? that's science now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when does consensus determine the truth of anything? I would side on open discussion because even the pros are human, and can make mistakes, and/or deliberately misstate things for emotional reasons. Open discussion prevents any one party from controlling the dialog for political reasons. Close it down, and one party gets entire control of the floor. The internet was about P2P interaction, and yes that includes dealing with people who don't agree with the stated position.
The term 'troll' has been abused so much now by free speech critics that I'm not sure it has any meaning than as a pejorative for someone who uses whit and sarcasm to score a good point. If science is about extracting truth from the ether, then this person is no different. He's correct, or not. His style is irrelevant. 'trolling' is not an excuse to shut down communication. If that's what popular science wants, maybe they shouldn't publish on the internet and give monologues on public television.. I'm sure all 3 people watching will agree, wringing out their emotional tampons in sympathy.
Dice, License Out Slashcode (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not like they would run into a lot of competition either. Right now, the most popular comment hosting site seems to be Disqus. Every site that uses Disqus lists the comments in reverse chronological order. That means that every poster is reading the last few comments and then chiming in with arguments that have already been made and maybe even debunked much earlier in the conversation. And the moderation system has no concept of karma or the capability to moderate posts via categories. Dice, use what you've got and start making money off of it from other web sites already!
am i in the minority? (Score:4, Insightful)
i LIKE strange comments. i love youtube AS IT IS. i DO NOT want to see featured comments from "personalities." I like the offensive and non-PC stuff from unknown. That's why I watch YouTube and not other forms of media. I want the raw, uncensored, the good and the bad. I wouldn't be surprised if Google ruins it, as they're on a streak of ruining all of their products lately.
From different POV (Score:3, Interesting)
How about simply banning trolls? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pay some people or give the better commenters the ability to temporarliy ban trolls. That's how you solve the problem, not by removing commenting.
Re:We control the conversation, said PopSci (Score:5, Insightful)
All the better to just push an opinion.
A meaningless comment. In fact, pretty much a troll.
PopSci brings up a lot of good points, and they have made a decision that I think more and more on-line pubs will make. You are free to send them a Letter to the Editor, but these ugly snipe-fests that go on in many forums have little if any value.
The comments at the Seattle Times are a great example, having been taken over by extremists who apparently have no voice anywhere else.
The fact is that in most forums that don't have a "moderation system" become flooded with trolls that render the whole forum concept useless for any real conversation.
PopSci isn't the first to ditch forums, and will not be the last.
Re:We control the conversation, said PopSci (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more. My time is valuable and its too precious to waste on wading through troll droppings.
There really are many with an ideological bent, who are actively seeking to disrupt sites discussing science for purposes that have nothing to do with science, but rather to influence discussion that may come from the consequences of scientific findings.
The reality is that modern science has become so specialized that few commenters are really capable of adding anything to a meaningful discussion anyway. For example, what kind of meaningful input might one expect of the average commenter provide say on the discussion of the importance of Uryshon's Lemma or Gershgorin's Circle Theorem to modern bioinformatics or aerodynamics? It is a shame that the electronic equivalent of graffiti artists have vandalized so many useful commenting sites to suit their own personal and ideological fantasies, Particularly, since it denies so many a peek into the intrinsic beauty inherent in such discussions.
You're right, however, and without some form of moderation or peer review the entire effort takes on the character defined by the lowest IQ posting. Many may complain that scientist are retreating to their ivory towers, but the sad fact is that the vandal's sacking every website they can overrun make such towers the only safe haven to continue to do science. If they want into the ivory towers, they will first have to develop the credibility to enter.
Its far better to submit "letters" to the editor, with comments and let them make the best judgement as to which most advance the topic under discussion. This can be done by a few moderators on most sites. I would be quite happy not to see my own posts or questions, if I knew I was instead reading better or more informative ones.
Re:We control the conversation, said PopSci (Score:5, Insightful)
But in the real world, most people are just bored or bigoted or want attention --- and humans as a whole are more Homer Simpson or Miley Cyrus than Albert Einstein or Carl Sagan.
And this reality won. For now. Scientific and intellectual thought will find a new way to win again. Given enough time.
Re:We control the conversation, said PopSci (Score:4, Insightful)
In the early days of the internet, only those involved with academia were online. Even the least-educated were at the very least students in higher education.
Re: (Score:3)
But the only people who really control discussion these days are the pig-headed dolts who won't give up a lost argument for anything, and the trolls, who aren't there for legitimate argument anyway.
Anything else sane is lost in the noise.
I'm not mourning the loss of comments on a lot of sites. As a matter of fact, to protect my sanity I have been avoiding comments for the most part.
There are precious few places that have a comments section that have a decent moderation system.
And lastly, your post is conte
Re: (Score:3)
there's a safari plug in that hides comment sections on sites. it's nice.
Re:Metafilter (Score:5, Insightful)
As a long-time user who sometimes choses to post AC and is always logged in, I start at 2. It's my understanding that the 2 comes from having good Karma. I've been around long enough to remember when numeric Karma was visible to users. This resulted in contests to see who could rack up the most points, which became a problem. Sometimes people like myself would get bored and commit "Karma Suicide" to re-start the game. They hid numeric Karma to stop that. I haven't read SlashCode; but I understand the number is still lurking in there so that the system can decide where to start our posts.
Anyway, I digress. I don't want money factoring into the equation. The Slashdot moderation system went through several changes early on and has stabilized quite nicely AFAIK. Would any actual Slashdot employees care to comment on the last time a major change was made to the algorithm? It isn't broken. Don't fix it.
I don't think it's patented either. I too wonder why more sites don't adopt it.
Re: (Score:3)
I too wonder why more sites don't adopt it.
Because it still rewards group think and creates a popularity contest rather than a forum for actual discussion. I can say this as one of the first people to ever post on slashdot back when it was hosted in Cmdr Taco's dorm room in college. I even contributed some of the code once upon a time.
That said most comment systems have this issue. In reality, all they need to do is allow you to block anyone you wish. No points, no popularity contest. Just block the people you dislike and move on. You dont see them,
Re: (Score:3)
I much prefer the popularity contest, that is: a democracy.
One problem with the "blocking bubble" method is that it promotes a partial balkanization of the site. In theory, I would actually want to know if opposition poster X ever wrote something that people found interesting, because I'd want to consider it and possibly respond publicly. But it's simply beside the point because on Slashdot I've never encountered anyone that I was motivated to block. The moderation system has already pre-fixed that problem
Re:Metafilter (Score:5, Insightful)
I keep hearing people say this, but I have found the comments on Slashdot to come from quite a diverse group. There's no doubt that there's some deep groupthink such as the anti-Apple and anti-Microsoft sentiments on this site, yet you can still find comments praising both of these companies modded up despite the overall bias against them.
I am strongly against this idea. First of all, there are so many people commenting on the site that it would be nearly impossible to block out all of the noise one commenter at a time. Secondly, there are some people that have very rational viewpoints and make great contributions to the discussion 90% of the time, but there's one or two topics in which they go off the deep end. The current moderation system allows you to mod them up when they're making good points and mod them into oblivion when they go mental.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't confuse academia for science, even though most of the latter happens in the world of the former.
That said, the masses count as complete idiots. They will prefer the argument by the guy with the best hair over the one with actual supporting evidence. They prefer to hear about how great everything looks over the possibility that we as a species have caused an ongoing gl
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, fuck the per-site user comments. Content is what counts. Their content isn't in the comments. As you say, they did "let the masses participate", however, the masses weren't actually being scientific at all. You have the concerted trolling flood leveraged by creationists to blame, not the scientist. If you want to participate, simply pick a subject, come up with some repeatable experiment that proves it wrong or right. Cite some other resources that lend credence towards or away from the other ex
Re: (Score:3)
I was expecting you to say at the end of your comment "whoops, that's Slashdot."
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot has a habit of doing the same thing in a subtly different way: "Biofuel company producing diesel from trees." But when you read the article it is two guys and a tiny test tube of a precursor to a precursor to diesel that they produced at huge cost but "Plan on increasing efficiency."
It's not Slashdot. It's upstream from Slashdot. Nature and MIT Technology Review have that problem. Somebody makes a minor advance in surface chemistry, which they call "nanotechnology", and it gets hyped into "now you can paint solar cells onto your house".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a fact. (Score:5, Funny)
No: JarJar Hitler actually says:
"mesa got a Final Solution for de Jedi Problem". . .