As most of you know, we pride ourselves here on being a top-down blog. We’re not one of those touchy-feely people-powered sites that are all “What would you like me to post about?” and “Whatever can we do to serve you?” Our attitude is, we know what’s best for you, and we’re taking time from our busy schedules to provide it, and you’ll like it or learn to. At Cosmic Variance, that’s just how we roll.
There is, however, an obvious exception to the rule: the comment sections. (Or should that be “are, however, obvious exceptions”? Grammar is not how we roll.) That’s where the people, our beloved readers, can let their voices be heard. A Habermasian zone of free communication, where all are welcome to participate in reasoned and passionate dialogue concerning the nature of the universe and our place within it. Okay, I’ll stop there.
So the question is: how can the comment sections be better? To decode this for our more innocent readers: how can we increase the signal-to-noise ratio? Increasing the signal is one obvious way, but that’s hard. The real question that I’ve been wondering about (haven’t consulted my co-bloggers on this) is: should we take more dramatic steps to decrease the noise? In particular, should we have a much heavier hand in discouraging, deleting, or even banning people who are rude, disruptive, off-topic, or just plain crackpotty? And in most specific particular: if we did so, are there folks out there who would judge the comment sections to be more useful, and might even be more likely to join in themselves?
Personally, I rarely read the comment sections on other blogs, even my absolute favorites. But I enjoy our comment threads here, and we certainly have some insightful and articulate commenters. Sadly, there are also the crackpots. To be absolutely clear, I am not referring to folks who are not experts in science or whatever else we happen to be talking about, but would sincerely like to join in the conversation, add an outsider’s perspective or ask a question or two. We like those comments, in fact those are our absolute favorites! Indeed, those are the ones that I most worry are being squeezed out by the noise. Likewise, we’re very happy to see comments that represent strong but principled disagreement with what we are saying. (We’ve been accused, unsurprisingly, of taking delight in stifing dissent, but the briefest glance at any of our controversial threads makes that a difficult position to support.)
The crackpots to whom I refer are those who know little or nothing about the subject but are convinced that they do, and are likewise convinced that the world needs to know about their theories, yet have absolutely no interest in listening to what others have to say. You know of whom I speak: the guy who has read the first chapter of The Elegant Universe and come away convinced that he knows more about how spacetime really works than these groupthinking string theorists, or the gal who constructed a model from ordinary household appliances that predicts the masses of all the particles in the Standard Model. (Neither of these examples refers to actual people, at least not to my knowledge; but I wouldn’t be surprised.)
So, do people prefer to let a thousand flowers bloom, even if some are indistinguishable from weeds, or should we play a more active role in deleting the nonsense? We’ve always been willing to delete/ban people who are repeatedly obnoxious, but it’s never fun to do so. We recognize that the free-speech zone that everyone is in favor of is not each individual blog, but rather the blogosphere as a whole. If anyone wants to push their own crazy theories about the birth of the universe, they should feel free to start a free blog and explain away to their heart’s content; we’re very happy to accept trackbacks to nearly any blog.
But individual blog comment sections aren’t public squares; they are more analogous to private living rooms. The preeminent statement of this philosophy was offered by Eugene Volokh, when he explains that comment threads are like cocktail parties to which the blog owners have invited you. It’s not supposed to be a free-for-all fracas in which rudeness and craziness must stoically be tolerated; it’s supposed to be an interesting mix of viewpoints from a wide variety of backgrounds, but one that comes together in mutual respect to create a stimulating dialogue.
And yet… and yet we almost always err on the side of letting people ramble on, at least until they become so impolite and/or disruptive that we have little choice. So what do you think? Would this blog be a better place if the Heavy Hand of the State slapped down some of the noisier contributors, or is the chaos part of the charm? (Responses from people who don’t usually comment are especially welcome.)
Interesting, and I think I am learning something here. It seems as if non-experts are less bothered by crackpots than the professional scientists are; probably a matter of how much exposure one has to deal with. It’s like when a friend of yours has an irksome family member whose slightest comment can drive them completely crazy — to you it’s just a minor irritation, but they’re reacting to the accumulated effects of a thousand such annoyances.
There’s no chance of setting up threaded comments, a moderation system, or an extra forum — that sounds like work. And I don’t really perceive any problem in dealing with rudeness — I know it when I see it, I delete it, and my judgment is infallible. I get PZ’s point about passion, but I think we can be passionate and polite at the same time; that’s why different blogs have different personalities, which is a feature rather than a bug.
My real worry is that sensible commenters are turned off by the noise. Even if one doesn’t personally mind the nonsense, we all might be missing out on richer conversations by driving away some potentially good contributors. But from the comments so far, I’m not hearing a strong “get rid of them” vibe, so maybe no dramatic shift in policy is necessary.
I vote for a 1984-style smack-down on all crackpots!
Sean,
I’m a long time lurker and a scientist from another field, and I think the comments section is doing very well now. The crackpots every once in a while keep things interesting, and definitely don’t discourage me from reading. I wouldn’t worry about changing the policy unless it becomes a serious problem.
It’s unfortunate that you can’t do threaded comments—I find that makes the signal easier to find.
That’s the only change I’d make to the comments section. I find that by reading enough comments, I know who the crackpots are and can scroll right by them.
I certainly would have no objection to rudeness getting deleted.
Responses to crackpot ideas I have seen can be very instructive, and not just in the subject material under discussion; they help demonstrate good critical thinking. (They could also demonstrate how to say that someone has no idea what they are talking about without being rude…) Sadly, constructing these sorts of responses is hard work.
One can also just ignore the crackpot posts. It’s certainly easier, and I doubt most readers will be fooled; see the earlier comment by Matt.
I am totally in support of filtering the noise. I don’t usually read the comments myself just because I have been put off by some of the agressive, violent comments made by readers on some sights. This behavior wouldn’t be accepted in most social situations, and I think a blog shouldn’t be any different. Please pretect your reasonable readers from the hateful ramblings of the few extereme characters.
Hey Sean. This might be a lot of work to set up, but you know what would be a neat system? Comments threads that were sort of self-policing, a-la Digg. The idea is readers would be able to flag comments they found particularly insightful or useful, and also comments they found to be disruptive in some way; of course, they could choose not to flag a comment at all. Real good/bad comments would have a lot of flags, and you guys (the CV proprieters) would get a real sense of what people found helpful or distracting.
I think censoring crackpots is not the best idea, especially because your responses to them probably help laymen (i.e. me?) more clearly understand what is false. Honestly, it is much easier to remember what is wrong than what is right. I recall the reasons a crackpot is wrong, more than I recall the reasons a genius is right.
I think it might be the entertainment value that does this. “Some dope said such-and-such on CV, and Sean totally set him straight.” It’s reality blogging.
As a non-expert, I have to say I am bothered by crackpots but have to believe some of it just goes with the territory. I think its a fine line. For example (No names this time) consider the difference in volume, tone, and content between the old (formerly usenet) newgroups sci.physics (unmoderated) and sci.physics.research (moderated)
And Sean, if the post is regarding cooking you probably need to watch out for crockpots instead of crackpots 😉
I jumped straight to the comments section without reading much of the others. Maybe I’m repeating someone here, but perhaps, like wikipedia, an additional comment next to the person who is being offensive/rude/crackpottery could have a stub next to it saying something like “this person is a crackpot,” or something. It’s quite blatant and might be taken personally, but it might be a way to discourage it. Anyway, I do tend to find the flowers from the weeds so I wouldn’t mind if nothing happened. I find it helpful though when Sean or the other authors pop in with their views on the comments so far, just to affirm that someone is being quite rude/crackpottery.
I have some comments that were “incubated” partly by this topic thread and can be linked on my name.
Maybe the internet is like a library? Some “good books” as well as bad?
I would just like to say to the commentor Doug on Plato’s cave, that the “holographical experience” had some how been created by Gerardus t’ Hooft brane(brain) thinking, so there are some good things about that cave and it’s shadows?
Lest I forget Heisenberg’s foray there as well?
Lest I forget Heisenberg’s foray there as well?
Just so you know, you’re one of the crackpots.
Comments on CV naturally fall into two categories: those on the subject of the blogpost itself, and those which are in reply to comments in the section.
If commentators can agree to use a subject line (perhaps using a tag like name etc line) to indicate if the comment is directly related to the post, or the most recent comments (they are are numbered, and people often use this) they are replying to, it could improve readability. I am hoping that this could be a quick way to get around the threading issue. On the other hand, given the varied backgrounds of CV visitors, someone will know exactly what to do to get threading to work?
Also, perhaps a broader layout on the comments page will make it easier to read. (I have no idea if that is a lot of work or trivial)
Finally, my 2c about crackpot comments: I do hope that some people who come with crackpot ideas will see light, and actually learn the real science. But if the classic symptoms described in the post above prove to be persistent and incurable, I find the repetitions irritating. About rudeness (obviously as defined by blogspot owners …hosts? what is the correct term), I suppose there is nothing to add: rude statements are fit only for the trash.
Another lurker putting his two cents in-
I’m a physics undergrad (so essentially a lay reader, I guess), and I sometimes worry that I won’t be able to differentiate between the nutcases and the physicists saying something very non-intuitive and exciting. It does help, though, that you are all very active in your own comments section and tend to respond to the posts that you find interesting.
This might be another suggestion that would end up being too much work- but perhaps some sort of “crackpot” label you could assign to a post without deleting it? Alternatively, if that’s a bit too rude to your guests, a label you could assign to interesting posts by people who know what they are talking about, but might sound crazy to a layman?
I’m a grad student, and have to say that reading the comments on “Women in Science” posts anger and frustrate me. I know that we can’t make the discussion one-sided, but there have definitely been times where reading what was said made me sick. It’s hard to believe you are fighting a winning fight when so many people so strongly assert that you will never win. It would definitely help my CV experience not to have to read the bigoted comments by the same people over and over in those posts.
Usually its obvious whether a comment is interesting / useful. The downside is that when there are many comments I never reach to the bottom of the page. A slashdot type moderation system could be useful.
I’m going to repeat what others have said. Threaded comments are the best thing at this point.
There are a couple of WordPress plugins that let you mark troll comments with a duncecap, or similar: AntiTroll is one.
Personally, I think you folks do an amazing job of dealing politely with the physics crackpots. I agree with Katey that other kinds of crackpots can get damn depressing, but I’m not really sure what to do about it except active, subjective moderation. Frankly, though, I trust y’all’s judgment. Following the coctail party analogy, sometimes you have to throw somebody out. If you think something should be deleted, delete it. If it makes you feel better, talk amongst yourselves first.
Following what Loonunit says about the entertainment value of physics crackpottery — I think it was the literary journal Black Warrior Review that had, or has, a policy that anything you submit to it might end up in a special “Most Amusingly Bad Work Submitted To Us This Term” section. Maybe you could delete the crackpots on sight, but provide us with an occasional round-up? “D. was back this week pushing his steady-state universe through galactic magnetic field nucleosynthesis theory….”
P.S. Threaded comments are of the Devil. 🙂
The comments section is doing a fine job for my taste. There is hardly any rudeness, and the occasional crackpot puts a smile on my face. If the comments thread gets technical, a crackpot “contribution” can become annoying, but those are easily spotted and deleted.
There are a few characters that are tolerated, and but I have learned to skip their ramblings. And there are not enough to hurt the blog.
Sean,
About the crackpottery: since it is more of a concern to experts, who rather than being amused just see it as a waste of time to read or respond to such comments, would it perhaps solve something by somehow separating the pure physics threads (which I presume are the most affected) into two comment sections, where for one of the sections it is assumed you are conversant at the level of experts (however exclusive or inclusive you want to define that). If something was found to be inappropriate for that comment section, it would be politely moved to the other one, rather than deleted. Maybe too much work to carry out…
How do you decide who is a crackpot? In 1905 there was a “crackpot” who advanced the idea that waves can “collide like particles”. Should he have been slapped down?
At present we have people who advance the idea that “particles are strings”. Should they be slammed down?
Crackpot ideas could be tomorrow’s reality?
Why do you delete Louise Riofrio’s comments? So much for free and open.
Katey — this is funny, I’m also a female grad student, and I really *appreciate* the comments on the ‘Women in Physics’ posts. I completely understand what you’re saying; I just take a different approach. If I’m going to run into these people in real life, I want to have fortified myself against their arguments.
The crazies help me to see what I’m really up against, and also help me to sort through and clarify my own arguments (since it’s not happening in person, I have time to think), and everybody else helps me to see how much support there really is out there, and how big a difference the concept of mentoring really makes. Yes, there’s been some really awful stuff in those threads, but then sometimes someone will step in with a stunning defense, and some of those replies have stuck with me for a very long time.
So my vote would be to let at least the non-physics crackpots speak; I find those threads to be really, really useful.
I’m pretty much an absolutist on this issue: I’m opposed to deleting anything but spam, and willonly disemvowel comments that are way over the line. I don’t get the same volume of comment traffic you do here, but I think I’ve only applied lossy compression to one comment since moving to ScienceBlogs, and that was a bit of eliminationist rhetoric from “Uncle Al” on a thread about Middle East politics.
I don’t read the comments here (or anywhere else) all that regularly, but my impression has been that no crackpot comments go very long without somebody pointing out that they are, in fact, crackpottery. It seems to me that your problem is self-correcting, and there’s no need to resort to moderation.