Never gave it any thought, hell, I stop at the end of an article and hit the back button to to to whatever I was doing before I was reading the article. Honestly, I have very little interest in reading comments, I’d be happy if all sites turned them off. I’m surprised at how often people talk about what they read in the comments section of something and didn’t do any homework to see if it’s even kind of true.
Not only do I read sites that don’t allow comments, but I greatly prefer them. I can think of very few sites that are improved by the comments. I think the Internet would be a better place if almost no sites had comments on the articles. I’d love to have a word with whoever launched the first commenting system that made having comments the default for websites. Maybe it was Movable Type? I can’t remember exactly, but there was a turning point where it went from almost no sites having comments (unless you count “guest books”) to almost all of them having comments, and I don’t think it was a positive development.
I will read anything ---- which has been my MO since the age of 5.
However I do prefer comments, since to someone who despises the very concept of democracy the comments in — American especially — newspapers are comedy gold.
Interesting how quickly the notion of “author” has been diluted with a flood of Me2.
I do my best not to read comments in order to avoid an early death. This is especially true with any newspaper comments section. No matter who is in charge of the country at the moment, any comments on a newspaper article will find a way to incorporate the current commander-in-chief in a negative manner, no matter how tangential the subject. They could be talking about the weather in Nepal, and someone will find a way to work in the current administration into the discussion.
Reading comments sections makes me weep for humanity. I avoid them generally.
There’s no Other option. I read salon.com but I read it via Facebook so I comment on the articles via Facebook comments.
Entertainment Weekly has articles (especially obituaries) that only a couple of days prior to publication.
When I created this poll I was interested to see if I was unusual in feeling that sites that don’t allow content are undemocratic. Hell, all the porn sites I’ve been members of have allowed members to comment on specific videos, and if you think that’s not an invitation to being skeeved out, nothing is.
Still, real obvious: I’m alone in my unwillingness to visit sites that don’t allow free and easy feedback, because the sole person who voted for the first option is me. I WAS pleased to see that two others don’t like sites that don’t allow comments but are willing to do site-specific registrations.
But the big takeaway from the poll is that the vast majority of respondents to this poll are fine with sites that don’t allow comments, either because they are lurkers or for some other reason. I guess I’ll have to table that idea I had for leading an Internet-wide boycott of sites that don’t allow comments. Would have been a hassle anyway.
By the way, the nine of you that claimed you are OK with sites that don’t allow comments because you are a lurker … you’re not Real Lurkers, or True Scotsmen either! A REAL lurker wouldn’t have voted on a poll, even a private poll. You’re just lurker wannabes!
And finally, I’m pretty sure Skald the Rhymer found a way to vote twice on my poll.
Out of curiosity, Evil Captor, is your objection to sites that don’t allow comments more along the lines of
(A) “I can’t stand reading/viewing/using a site’s content without being able to have my say about it,” or
(B) “I can’t stand reading/viewing/using a site’s content without being able to see what other users have to say about it”?
Just because the web enabled the possibility of “comments” doesn’t mean they’re necessary or even a good thing. I think the door’s been opened far too wide on the matter, and your attitude - that a site is worthless if they won’t let you say your piece - is reflective of the notion that there’s no such thing as expertise, experience or a hierarchy of knowledge; that every visitor to a site is on the same creative or intellectual plane as those who create content for it; and that - basically - ain’t nobody really smarter than nobody else.
I can read an essay, an article, a how-to or even a rant without feeling cheated because I can’t spray-paint my thotz right up there on the same page. I think it’s approaching nonsense to expect it as a right.
Most sites’ comment sections are a total cesspool of racism, idiocy, and other such garbage. There are exceptions, like Ars Technica, which has been mentioned a few times. Perhaps surprisingly, the Cracked.com comments are usually pretty good, too.
I can see absolutely no reason in the world for a news site to enable comments on its news stories. None. Particularly because it seems like comments on news stories are the new bottom of the barrel on the Internet, replacing the previous title-holder, YouTube. I miss the days when voicing your public opinion on a news story meant having to write a letter to the editor, so that the editor could just choose not to publish crazy racist bullshit rants.
All the sites I read allow comments, except one, the notalwaysright.com family of sites.
It makes me sad because lots of those things deserve snark and scorn. Like Evil Captor, I think everything is worthy of comment.
However, the site content is still good, so I still enjoy it, and I don’t see democracy as any part of it.
The best news story comments are the ones from family members and people personally affected by the story. Often no more than lurid gossip, but I enjoy the inside information.
Indeed. The Internet gave everyone a voice, but it turns out almost everyone is an idiot. Or a stay-at-home mom who discovered an easy way to make thousands of dollars a month right from home!
No, we’re not lurkers. Lurkers implies that we’re potentially equal members who have chosen not to participate. In fact, what we are is consumers. We consume the information provided on the sites, just like we consume books, television and movies. We are not equal members, and we feel no need to be.
I’m not sure if this is elitist, or proof that the OWC is gaining traction.
It’s some of A and a lot of B. I value the commentary on stories because, contrary to what has been said about commentaries, I do find that some comments add useful information (rarely, but still …) or offer an insight on the story/article/post that interests me.
I do not comment on the majority of stories, but if I think of something to say that I think is witty or insightful I’ll post it.
There are a lot of very stupid and trollish comments on the Internet, and what I do is, is ignore them. My rule is, if all a post merits is the equivalent of a slap on the back of the head for being a dummy/troll, don’t bother. I find it VERY easy to ignore the stupid stuff, I’m not at all sure why it constitutes an insuperable obstacle for some.
I’ve had interesting and fun conversations in the Youtube comments section that wouldn’t look at all out of place on a Straight Dope thread, and I don’t mean in the Pit, either.
Signal to noise ratio is important. If I have to skip an obnoxious comment or two in order to read the 20 other meaningful comments, I can do that. No problem. But when I have to skip 20 obnoxious comments in order to get to the meaningful one, a) it’s not worth it, and b) in the process of reading/skipping the 20 obnoxious comments, my blood pressure has gone up and I’ve lost faith in our ability to continue as a species on this planet. Which brings us back to a) not worth it.
I have occasionally seen good commentary on YouTube videos; usually on more obscure or esoteric videos that don’t get a lot of traffic or that appeal to a specific niche. (Classical music videos, frex, tend to be okay-ish.)
Oh, I believe in a hierarchy of knowledge, and I’ve no problem not commenting when I feel I don’t have anything useful or interesting to contribute. Frex, I recently read an article from The New Scientist website about a study done on the body of the oldest woman alive (clearly, a title she has given up) who died at 115 years and left her body to science with her family’s approval. It revealed that one of the key components to aging is the degredation of stem cells over time that makes them unable to produce new cells for the body. Only two of her stem cells were still functioning at the time of her death.
It was a fascinating article, and if I’d had something to say that would add to the discussion I would have said it, but it was well outside my expertise. New Scientist doesn’t allow comments on it’s article, but I did find some interesting commentary on the article herethat added somewhat to my understanding of the article, as well as off-the point but still interesting stuff. Actually, I found the commentary before I found the article. Such is life on the Interwebs.
That would be unethical. All I did was hold the husbands of three different Dopers hostage until they voted as I instructed. Sheesh.