tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869054609060332881.post4435983019020512309..comments2023-07-05T04:40:57.592-04:00Comments on Mad Bastards All: Treasures of the AtticUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869054609060332881.post-70199869310232699242012-05-06T11:20:06.596-04:002012-05-06T11:20:06.596-04:00It's not that I haven't considered it (I t...It's not that I haven't considered it (I think we both know the rough makeup of the group of commenters who might be giving out "friend" +1s), because I have, and I acknowledge that it probably does go on. My point was when I'm reading Deadspin comments, I don't necessarily pay attention to who is giving out +1s, and for the most part, a haul of +1s tends to coincide nicely with my own impression of a joke. That's what I was getting at here: I'm obviously not as aware, in the moment, of the <i>who</i> of +1s as you are, because I'm not really a commenter. I didn't mean to say it doesn't happen, only that it isn't necessarily apparent to someone who is as far on the outside as I am (and I'm not all that far on the outside - I can see pink comments, after all). I think your average casual or brand-new reader/commenter probably wouldn't notice an uneven or suspect distribution of +1s until they'd been heavily exposed to Deadspin commmenting. But, either way, clearly it's bad. We agree on that.<br /><br />I of course readily accept the <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> nature of my argument about the effect of a decrease in +1s - I even referenced it in the piece - but I still think I was right that the +1 conversation did lead to a more conservative use of +1s and that the result was more tentative commenting. Without going way back and looking at stats, that was my very clear impression at the time, and remember, I was fucking <i>living</i> in the comments section way back then. That doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I was probably informed enough to at least make an educated guess at the time. In other words, I trust that earlier version of me who made that call and his reasons for making it. <br /><br />I don't think you're wrong about the way +1 deluges can be intimidating as hell to new commenters, but I tend to think +1s mostly function as a hell of an incentive. When I first started commenting, getting promoted was great, but getting a couple of +1s was downright boner-worthy. And, after I had a star, I <i>lived</i> for the +1. It was my sole motivation for making comments. I think what you're getting at is this: what happens when you <i>aren't</i> getting +1s? If my jokes get no feedback while, meanwhile, a comparable joke from another commenter gets 12, 9 of which may be of dubious origin, that can be a major discouragement. I've been on the wrong end of that more times than not - I have never been a +1 farmer - and I find it to be hugely frustrating and damaging to one's confidence. I don't want to rehash my whole piece, but I addressed +1 inflation, and I'm sure I don't need to say that it is doubly bad if +1 inflation is caused by reckless misuse. <br /><br />So, operating from the [potentially erroneous] assumption that +1s are only given out for the right reasons, and having made the observation, many times over, that random +1s seem to reinforce my own impression of a joke's success, my goal was to encourage the use of the +1 as a motivator for great commenting on Deadspin. I held off on posting this piece at the time because it became apparent to me that we agree on the preferred use of the +1 and that our differences were really based upon you having an inside position on the particulars of <i>actual use of the +1</i>, whereas I was mostly just hemming and hawing about what was ultimately a so-fleeting-as-to-be-totally-forgettable slip, one not even universally noticed or accepted, in commenting quality that may or may not have had any kind of cause/effect relationship with the conversation in the first place.<br /><br />Anyway, I posted it now because, dammit, I spent a pretty good amount of time writing it, and besides, it was interesting to me that Earless and I were headed in totally different directions on this one.<br /><br />Thanks for the comment. Glad to know you're still checking in from time to time. I appreciate the conversation, as always.The Miserable Shitehawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06513330905980785417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869054609060332881.post-31362998413788251622012-05-05T00:45:10.924-04:002012-05-05T00:45:10.924-04:00So, hi. Looking at this now and it's hard to r...So, hi. Looking at this now and it's hard to remember way back when, but I figured I'd add my two cents.<br /><br />"My point is, I have always assumed that people were giving +1s to jokes they really loved. I could be wrong about that, but my argument for the +1 is not based on the why of praise, it's based on the result on performance."<br /><br />I think that's basically where we differ and where the disagreement lies. I think there is a mutual respect here and so I trust you won't read any malice into it when I say I think this is incredibly naive. Maybe even willfully ignorant. If you changed that sentence to "....people were giving +1s to jokes they really loved, by commenters they really loved..." you would be much closer to reality. If someone other than one of the number of guys who are Deadspin regulars made the exact same joke that got a zillion +1s, there's no way it gets that much love. (I am not going to look for an example, but we all know this happens--I'm sure I've done it myself. It's human nature). you wrote so eloquently and incisively here and paid such close attention to deadspin commenting, it strikes me as almost impossible that this would not ever once enter into your thought process on this topic. <br /><br />That, essentially, was my problem with things. I get that people are friends, and people have particular voices that resonate with some more than others, but, it just felt too glad-handy. Too secret handshakey and too familiar. <br /><br />You see encouraging the regulars, I see discouraging everyone else. It's intimidating enough to jump into an environment that <i>demands</i> you be funny, let's not also make it so you are doing stand up in front of your high school lunch period. Is it not possible to see that an outsider, waiting to jump in would take a pass after seeing random comments go by unloved, while day after day the same commenters giving love to the same commenters over and over? <br /><br />As for the encouragement bit. I'm also not sold. It is, again, way too far back to recall, but I do think you're doing a bit of correlation/causation with the comments. Sometimes shit happens and commenting goes down. Summer rolls around and people have better things to do than sit around and crack jokes on the internet. I think it is stretching it to say that people who can crank out hilarious jokes at will all of a sudden stopped being funny because of a perceived decline in +1s.<br /><br />We do agree on giving +1s. Every single commenter should give a +1 if he/she thinks it is deserving. I would never want it otherwise and would never be so full of myself to think that because I said something here about it people over at Deadspin stopped doing what they normally would do.<br /><br />But, we all know the deal at Deadspin. The first rule is to be funny. With the proliferation of +1's I'm reminded of the misunderstood in his own time stand up comedian, Michael Skarn. "I take care of my kid--they always want credit for something they supposed to do--whatchoo want, a cookie?"dont-forget-where-you-came-from-cheese machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09834754854551834661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5869054609060332881.post-63622331217777323912012-04-20T20:00:18.260-04:002012-04-20T20:00:18.260-04:00Looking back on that comment today, I actually DID...Looking back on that comment today, I actually DID laugh out loud at it.<br /><br />Because wow was it goddamn terrible. Allow me to put this whole debate to bed: -1.Guy Who May Or May Not Be (But Definitely Is) Mantis Toboggan, M.D.noreply@blogger.com