|
From Article: ...commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla.
Sounds remarkably like my time spent at a popular Apple forum trying to work around an iOS7 bug this morning. I saw a discussion rapidly deteriorate into complete mayhem over the use of the term "bricked". The poor poster was insulted and jeered mercilessly and never once had a member of the site offer anything remotely useful to solve his issue. (No, it wasn't me.)
After seeing that reminds me that Code Project is a great place to be.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Thought you might be talking about[^] 
|
|
|
|
|
"We also plan to open the comments section on select articles that lend themselves to vigorous and intelligent discussion. We hope you'll chime in with your brightest thoughts. "
They still keep the door open to enable comments for select articles/topics.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: They still keep the door open to enable comments for select articles/topics.
Which they select. And I bet they will also turn off comments to those as well for reasons which they choose.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is the right decision, most the time people don't want to debate or discuss intellectual issues they just want to throw up BS that isn't germane (yeah I know a big word for me) to the issue.
Unless it's a forum where there are mostly regulars and can be self moderated like the lounge it just doesn't work. I say self moderated because I'm sure they don't have the resources to moderate and baby sit.
It's a shame though that someone with a real issue of insightful (yeah another $5 word) bit of knowledge is now silenced because of the 5% that think the internet is the place to be a child.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: ....is now silenced because of the 5% that think the internet is the place to be a child.
I agree with your post completely, except for the last bit quoted above, specifically the bits in big/bold.
In the defence of the child.
1. You sound like a teacher.
2. Choosing the word child, instead of elphanting idiots, or something more inventive, was an unfortunate mistake.
3. Your Childist comments spoilt your whole post.
4. Childism like all forms of discrimination distracts the reader from the real issues of your post.
5. The child is not driven by fundamentalism, politics, religion, idiocy or plain bloody mindedness.
...and finally
6 Whilst I get your drift, I do think that 5% is a gross underestimation.
...and really finally
Sorry, but I just couldn't help doing this in this over politically correct world and if you had the ability to turn comments to you post OFF then you wouldn't have to put up with this drivel. 
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
I have absolutely nothing relevant to contribute to this discussion other than saying at least my child can beat up your child 
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: I think it is the right decision, most the time people don't want to debate or discuss intellectual issues they just want to throw up BS that isn't germane (yeah I know a big word for me) to the issue.
Errr...do you understand what "Popular Science" is?
This is not the IEEE Journal nor the New England Journal of Medicine. As "People" is to entertainment Popular Science is to science.
It is specifically NOT targeting scientists nor strict scientific discipline. There are in fact magazines popularizing science in a much more strict way like Scientific American.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Errr...do you understand what "Popular Science" is?
I'm 64 and I've been reading it since I was in my early teens.
We are having an intellectual discussion now but if I had put a link to a music video or told you my toes where fat then it would be the BS I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: We are having an intellectual discussion now but if I had put a link to a music
video or told you my toes where fat then it would be the BS I'm talking about.
I didn't really get the impression from the article that that was the reason they were limiting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Admittedly comments get crazy on the internet, but Yahoo! has articles with no comments. When any of these are scientific in general, and chemistry-based in particular, I often want to scream at their stupidity.
A good way to gain confidence is to never be questioned or corrected - for the simpleminded, at least.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
It's tough to swallow, but I grow weary of every article on anthropology or evolution turning into a debate on creationism v. evolution.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Long live Pastafarianism and the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed the same with climate change. It galls me when someone says they don't "believe" in it. It's not a religion. The data either supports it or it doesn't. And, the data certainly supports it and our contribution to it. Somewhere around 2,000 scientific papers supporting this and around 3 that don't. Sounds pretty conclusive to me...
|
|
|
|
|
danataylor wrote: It galls me when someone says they don't "believe" in it. It's not a religion. The data either supports it or it doesn't.
Nonsense. That completely ignores the definition of "belief". Far worse to claim that there is plenty of scientific proof that disproves it.
And that statement also implicitly ignores the very foundation of science itself. Science is not an absolute. It does not speak to the absolute nature of everything because it also is a belief system. If one accepts the assumptions of that belief system then one is of course at liberty to immerse oneself in the doctrine of the system. Which is how other belief systems work.
|
|
|
|
|
You do understand that the mere presence of comments does not make it compulsory to read them nor essential to reply to them? 
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: because of the 5%
You really think the percentage is that low?
Well... maybe that's true for readers of Popular Science. Hmmm, is that title an oxymoron?
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree; just go to the comments section of any contentious, or sometimes not, "news" article on the UK news sites and see some of the moronic drivel that gets posted. Norman Tebbit often comments about this on DT when people make vile personal attacks on him, in response to some article he has written, while ignoring the content of the article.
Veni, vidi, abiit domum
|
|
|
|
|
I tend towards thinking that when it comes to the internet it is best to allow comments.
My perception is that comments tend to be self policing in that really ridiculous comments tend to get the ridicule they deserve.
There again when it comes to science the vast majority of people do not fully understand what the scientific method is and may confuse comments with peer review.
That said I would rather see the controversy through comments than have to read peer review articles as I am lazy...
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: ...see the controversy through comments than have to read peer review articles as I am lazy
I've never read a peer review article. Both reading and writing peer review comments can be taxing, but reading is usually easier because they have to point out the reason for making the comment. While writing usually involves reading the code and figuring out an unusual but valid data combination that will produce an error.
Figuring out there is a reason and how to clearly state it, is usually a pain. Sometimes, making a point feels like you are reasoning with a brick.
I asked someone to stop putting duplicate data in a fact table in a data warehouse DB. "It isn't a duplicate, the primary keys are different." (An identity field) He even accused me of being inexperienced in DB design.
|
|
|
|
|
Thought:
"Nature" way above informative, not necessarily on-line and commentable.
"Popular Science", as lamentable a rag as "Scientific American".
|
|
|
|
|
RedDk wrote:
"Popular Science", as lamentable a rag as "Scientific American".
That hasn't been my experience. Nor have I ever seen the latter denigrated either.
|
|
|
|
|
Half of a thought anyway. Good for you little buddy. Good for you ...
|
|
|
|
|
The idiots have won.
Peter Wasser
Art is making something out of nothing and selling it.
Frank Zappa
|
|
|
|
|
If I read an article that's been composed by someone who knows what they're talking about, and has done research to arrive at their findings, why do I need to follow that up by reading comments from people who don't know what they're talking about, and whose research study only goes so far as Wikipedia (at best)?
As for moderation: it's not a forum, it's a magazine, and the point of a magazine is to report news and issues that are important within the scope of the magazine, not to run a playpen.
If I believe that the findings of an article are in error, or that some detail has been missed or could also be researched, or even just to congratulate the composer on a job well done, I can write the composer. Why would I want to inform the magazine?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
