A Policy Question: Comments

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.)

122 Comments

122 thoughts on “A Policy Question: Comments”

  1. Sean referred to “… the Heavy Hand of the State …”.
    Unfortunately,
    that may be in fact invoked. Earlier today, a Slashdot entry at
    http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/06/12/12/1344233.shtml
    said:
    “… Senator John McCain has proposed a bill to extend federal obscenity reporting guidelines to all forms of internet communications …[including]… any Web site with a message board …[i.e., blogs]… Those who fail to report according to guidelines could face fines of up to $300,000 for unreported posts to a blog or mailing list. …”.

    An automatic spam-and-p0rn-filter might not save the blog owner from prosecution. As a Slashdot commenter said:
    “… some prosecutor will argue that you are responsible for the content that is moderated down by your spam filters. For those that don’t know, in WordPress, Movable Type and probably others, spam is not by default automatically deleted. It’s stored in the database with a flag on it that keeps it from being published when a page is sent. …”.

    Tony Smith
    http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

  2. Let’s take the 101 comments posted so far. Were the crackpots a problem here? I don’t think so. The only thing that will make it difficult to read and/or reply to comments is the high number of postings.

  3. From “top down,” I had assumed Sean was talking of cosmology down to the quantum perspective?

    While I recognize the experts as well, it is the experts that decide where they will comment. Some how I controlled what they were going to say? Look at John no problem. Look at how good scientists speak to each other? Lee Smolin and Joe Polchinski. Who has not heard of them?

    If you had stuck to learning then you would know of the respect I have had for them and how they have been leaders in my continued research.

    Maybe asking them in regards to their respective areas of expertise if they felt that they were derailed.They can pick where they choose to respond and they did.

    Joe may talk about string theory(an abstract world), and I liked JoAnne’s impute in regards to high energy because of the methods being developed to look at the physics. Like the group assembled here was the right blend? Your varied topics? Those of interest I respond a little too and those I thought each has their own idea of value of what life is to them. That the blended groups thoughts about other things which were of no interest so I skim over them.

    It was more the idea sparked in my mind to continue my own search, the substance blog entries would send anyone looking into those general areas. Do more work in understanding topology, what the universe was actually doing.

    Who of these experts could speak so clear that even the layperson could actually understand what they were saying? And you thought myself cryptic?:) It meant more homework. To see the basis of their thoughts. I tried my best. Shall I spell out for you the good scientists who have reach across the abyss of the most profound and abstract?

    Not only are the craftsman reading and commenting on their expertise areas, but the seers are reading too pushing the boundaries. If you do not understand this statement here then you have not read Lee Smolin’s work. Maybe you can read more on that and background dependence/independence at a later time.

    Lastly, notice the numbers besides the comments on the right? Now match them up, as you read the entires. They are already being deleted if not thought appropriate.

    I too look at the expert explanations as well and truthfully read to see what tidbits will be of value. Help to lead me in new directions of science.

    No I am not crazy and a crackpot, even if if the ground swell saids I am. I am truly thankful for my character name now. 🙂

  4. Back in the day at P.U., from time to time I took a certain perverse delight in engaging someone, let’s call him Mr. Q., when he would pipe in with some bit of nonsense. Not something I would do regularly, but it was fun to do every so often. So I guess I have some predisposition towards letting the cranks post. It hasn’t gotten that bad yet, so I say go with the status quo unless the problem worsens.

    On Plato (the commenter) in particular, I’ve never viewed him as a crank, but I do get the distinct impression that English isn’t his first language. Combine that with a flair for an elliptical turn of phrase, and his comments can present tough sledding, but I don’t think they are of the crackpot variety.

  5. I usually skim through the comments in a thread, sometimes they are really interesting, often entertaining. Moderation is probably a very tough and time-consuming job. I thought I could suggest that you may update the original post with links to “recommended” comments. But then, I saw that this idea has been mentioned before (#81) – guess by whom 🙂

  6. That’s where the people, our beloved readers, can let their voices be heard.

    Power to the people, Sean, power to the people. And that’s why we love you too, man.

    Would this blog be a better place if the Heavy Hand of the State slapped down some of the noisier contributors,…

    Slap those crackpot punks down, Sean, slap ’em down like Dembski.

    …or is the chaos part of the charm?

    Or take a lesson from Demski’s commenter rules on how to convey to people that commenters are there for your own personal amusement.

    Interpolate this: art is the means by which philosophy can be made palatable to the average person.

    If people weren’t interested in being entertained a little, they would just buy your book.

  7. I think noise can be a turn-off but I’ve not seen enough of it here to stop someone who wants to say something.

  8. Hey! I don’t read this blog too frequently since Clifford left, but I might as well toss a few cents in. On one hand, I enjoy reading a few crackpots every now and then; they can be thought-provoking, and I get good mental exercise figuring out why they’re wrong. On the other hand, people who have legitimate questions and comments could easily be intimidated by a large number of crackpotty posts — especially very long ones. At worst, barely-lucid screeds can kill the flow of conversation.

  9. IN the interest of “not degrading” this or any other comment section.

    People throw the term “crackpot” around quite loosely, as if it is “an idea.”

    Do you realize how insulting this is to another human being? I really don’t care if your a “top notch scientist.” Is this the kind of thing supposed to be the standard?

    #37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

    I am sorry to say, by this index, all string theorists have 50 points against/for them?

    So by using “this index” we see where stereotyping has taken place. An attitude about those who have spent a large part of their life learning. Maybe not to smart, about cosmology, or string theory, with just has a “little flavour” of them all. Certainly more, then just reading one book?

    People attacked Peter Woit because he was relating “intelligent design” as the string theorists motto? But this has changed through dialogue? By example, those who are “far apart” in what they think, terming others, as a crackpot?

    Shall I call the person who created the crackpot index a crackpot? It’s just not right.

    So people had been “band” for such things?

    Shall one make an exception for somebody who is a good craftsman? Or shall we leave them alone, and just exterminate those who are the seers?

    Now you got to remember this definition is not mine, and by a consensus would you categorize the person who wrote it? Would you “categorize someone” who can do good calculations and is very smart about these abilities. “Possibly” the next Einstein? 🙂 No, it’s not me:) #30 Whew! 🙂

  10. Ban. Ban-ban-ban. And then go to their houses and take their keyboards away. When I was an admin for a physics discussion site, we had a strong crackpot-banning policy. One strike, we delete your post and send you a warning. Two strikes and you’re banned forever. It was the only way to keep things sane. Don’t be swayed by their cries and complaints. It serves the interests of the silent majority to not have to slog through all the dreck to get to useful material.

  11. Clarification of #108: I think noise can be a turn-off but I’ve not seen enough of it here to stop someone with a signal.

  12. it is really funny to see crackpots and out-of-contests comments (this one included) in a post which deals with this problem…it’s a kind of self-consistent stuff. Very appropriate.

  13. Here’s another helpful solution: a killfile for blogs! My readers also got fed up with some of the more annoying commenters, so one wrote a Firefox add-on that stripped out user-selectable commenters.

    It would need to be tweaked to work with CV, but it’s always nice to move some of the editing off into the hands of the readers.

  14. Plato, 50 isn’t actually very high on the Crackpot Index. The Time Cube gets 530 points before even considering items 2, 3, and 4 (statements widely agreed upon to be false [1 point], clearly vacuous statements [2 points], logically inconsistent statements [3 points]).

    And don’t forget the -5 point starting credit.

  15. Hi Sean —

    Late arrival here, though that’s not uncorrelated with my point … I’ve pretty much stopped reading cosmicvariance (at least regularly; just noticed this thread since I haven’t checked in for a while), and it’s essentially because the noise level is too high for my taste. Comments are my favorite part of the handful of blogs I read, and I haven’t really enjoyed comments here for a long time.

  16. Pingback: The Big Media, The Big Book and the Big School at

  17. I must have version 1.0 of this software, because life isn’t long enough to type such long comments. Anyone who has the patience to type in this box deserves to be posted. It may be a valuable therapy keeping them from anti-social acts.

    Blog commenting is how we reach for the conversation of the 21st century. When people learn not to respond to trolls, that’s one small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind.

    But, hey!- it’s your blog, you can do what you want with it.

  18. Pingback: 博客李淼 » 就中冷暖和谁é"

  19. Pingback: The Poor Man Institute » Behold Schrödinger’s cat!

  20. Pingback: Rudeness vs. science? « .. dotted and undotted dotterings ..

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top