MQA is Vaporware

[Michael Lavorgna]

You know popular Science is not the only one,

Recode, Mic, The Week, and Reuters all announced that they were closing down their comment sections and this was back in late 2015.

 

Yes. The article I linked to is from 2013 but strikes me as still being relevant.

[jbwhite]

Popular Science should have given its readers a bit more credit. It's a copout by Popular Science and ends up looking like an internet safe space.

 

P.S. It won't allow comments for fear peoples' opinions could be swayed, but it will instead place such things as this in place of comments. Strange. I believe those same people being swayed by comments will also be swayed by linked articles with titles such as "Shocking Mysterious Photos That Cannot Be Explained."

 

All in the name of science :~)

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]32535[/ATTACH]

I don't understand why bringing a relevant scientific study, published in a respected science journal into the conversation is such a bad idea. Did anyone bother to click through to the journal publication that was cited and consider what it's conclusions were?

 

In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”

[mav52]

Yes. The article I linked to is from 2013 but strikes me as still being relevant.

 

And we can't forget CNN the did the same August 2014 and they note " Online "trolls" and the emergence of social media are mentioned as reasons sites are abandoning comments"

[crenca]

You, crenca, are the poster child of uncivil. If you cannot recognize that, which appears to be the case, I admit that you and I have no basis for understanding one another.

 

In a sense (not that you mean it this way), you are correct. Look up the etymology of "civil". We are not of the same "city", the same philosophy and loyalties when it comes to audio. That is why we have real disagreement (your a subjectivist all the way, I lean towards an "objectivist" understanding, etc.). What you can't do is control the city and put me in jail or otherwise silence my perspective, and that bothers you...So you come with a SCIENCE on your side...or so you thought

[jbwhite]

Yes. The article I linked to is from 2013 but strikes me as still being relevant.

Scientific research does not become obsolete with time. It may be disproven later, but when it was published has no relevance whatsoever. I thought people on this thread believed in a "scientific" evaluation of computer audio.

'

[Michael Lavorgna]

I don't understand why bringing a relevant scientific study, published in a respected science journal into the conversation is such a bad idea. Did anyone bother to click through to the journal publication that was cited and consider what it's conclusions were?

In a study published online last month in The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, we and three colleagues report on an experiment designed to measure what one might call “the nasty effect.”

 

The "Nasty Effect" is referenced here:

 

This Story Stinks - The New York Times

 

"The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself."

[kumakuma]

You, crenca, are the poster child of uncivil. If you cannot recognize that, which appears to be the case, I admit that you and I have no basis for understanding one another.

 

Your posts (and private messages) appear to be often just as uncivil, if not more, than anything crenca has posted.

[Michael Lavorgna]

In a sense (not that you mean it this way), you are correct. Look up the etymology of "civil". We are not of the same "city", the same philosophy and loyalties when it comes to audio. That is why we have real disagreement (your a subjectivist all the way, I lean towards an "objectivist" understanding, etc.). What you can't do is control the city and put me in jail or otherwise silence my perspective, and that bothers you...So you come with a SCIENCE on your side...or so you thought

 

That is certainly one interesting interpretation. I hope you take yoga or Pilates on a regular basis otherwise I fear you might injure yourself ;-)

[Michael Lavorgna]

Your posts (and private messages) appear to be often just as uncivil, if not more, than anything crenca has posted.

Yes. I can be uncivil when dealing with incivility. I consider this a fault.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Digging deeper into this study I found some interesting comments by the authors. If comments sway perception, this is good. It's a two sided story rather than a single minister of information approach.

 

 

"Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

 

While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: “Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation,” she explains."

[Michael Lavorgna]

Digging deeper into this study I found some interesting comments by the authors. If comments sway perception, this is good. It's a two sided story rather than a single minister of information approach.

 

 

 

"Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

 

While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: “Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation,” she explains."

That is certainly one interpretation.

 

Are you saying that you welcome uncivil discourse because it changes people's minds in a productive way?

[plissken]

The "Nasty Effect" is referenced here:

 

This Story Stinks - The New York Times

 

"The results were both surprising and disturbing. Uncivil comments ... often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself."

 

That's on the participant however. Another thing is that you have persons that run a comments section selectively and continuously 'cull the herd' in a vain attempt to get the homogenized participant body that echos what ever said person wants as a narrative.

 

That's most likely more damaging then simply closing a comments section.

 

Even though imperfect ArsTechica's comment system is, it is voter moderated for the most part. Here it's a red or green bar.

[crenca]

Yes. I can be uncivil when dealing with incivility. I consider this a fault.

 

Actually, that is not a fault (but the most would agree). Where you go wrong is with your definition of "civil" - which boils down to not disagreeing with you to any real extant. Real disagreement = "uncivil" to you, and you take it personally. It's ok, it is quite natural and something we all wrestle with...

[The Computer Audiophile]

That is certainly one interpretation.

 

Are you saying that you welcome uncivil discourse because it changes people's minds in a productive way?

 

There is no absolute here. Uncivil comments about North Korea's dictator, if visible by North Koreans, may be a great thing. Uncivil comments about the color red versus blue, not so good.

[kumakuma]

Yes. I can be uncivil when dealing with incivility. I consider this a fault.

 

Ah yes, the "I only hit him because he hit me first" defense. I used to use it with my mother when I was ten years old.

[Michael Lavorgna]

That's on the participant however. Another thing is that you have persons that run a comments section selectively and continuously 'cull the herd' in a vain attempt to get the homogenized participant body that echos what ever said person wants as a narrative.

 

That's most likely more damaging then simply closing a comments section.

 

Even though imperfect ArsTechica's comment system is voter moderated for the most part. Here it's a red or green bar.

 

Can you point me to some examples of "...persons that run a comments section selectively and continuously 'cull the herd' in a vain attempt to get the homogenized participant body that echos what ever said person wants as a narrative."

 

Let me see if I guess one of them: AudioStream. If I'm correct, I'll ask you - how many people have have I banned, and why were they banned? If your answer is "to get the homogenized participant body that echos what ever said person wants as a narrative. " you would be incorrect. If you'd like to argue that point, please offer some facts to support your assumption.

[plissken]

Highly religious readers, the study revealed, were more likely to see nanotechnology as risky when exposed to rude comments compared to less religious readers, Brossard notes.

 

 

That's an aspiring Ph.D students dissertation right there.

[rbbert]

You'll probably want to do some additional homework before publicly admitting to such a comment.

 

Why? It's only opinion, can't be proven or disproven, and I'm quite comfortable with it.

[Michael Lavorgna]

Ah yes, the "I only hit him because he hit me first" defense. I used to use it with my mother when I was ten years old.

 

Fair enough. But not really. You see, we're talking about my job and reputation. If I was here as an anonymous hobbyist, I'd enjoy the game as well.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Why? It's only opinion, can't be proven or disproven, and I'm quite comfortable with it.

 

If you only knew some of the real stories behind the scenes.

[rbbert]

If you only knew some of the real stories behind the scenes.

No one ever knows all of those

[crenca]

While the tone of blog comments can have an impact, simple disagreement in posts can also sway perception: “Overt disagreement adds another layer. It influences the conversation,” she explains."

 

As many others have noted, the lack of face to face cues exaggerates the "tone" effect, and these conversations about "tone" and "uncivility" pop up regularly on forums. There simply is no real way to *control* it without imposing an agenda of one sort or another, and so (the better) forums have settled on a very libertarian, wide latitude approach that only gets put into play when threats of bodily harm and similar occur. I sometimes don't like it, but it does seem the best option we have...

[Michael Lavorgna]

There is no absolute here. Uncivil comments about North Korea's dictator, if visible by North Koreans, may be a great thing. Uncivil comments about the color red versus blue, not so good.

So, if I call you a hack, a coward, and a shill for MQA, we're cool. Right?

 

;-)

[plissken]

Can you point me to some examples of "...persons that run a comments section selectively and continuously 'cull the herd' in a vain attempt to get the homogenized participant body that echos what ever said person wants as a narrative."

 

Let me see if I guess one of them: AudioStream. If I'm correct, I'll ask you - how many people have have I banned, and why were they banned? If your answer is "to get the homogenized participant body that echos what ever said person wants as a narrative. " you would be incorrect. If you'd like to argue that point, please offer some facts to support your assumption.

 

Wait: You mean you want me to produce hard #'s and evidence? Wooo that is indeed rich coming from you.

 

If you can 'choose' to be 100% subjective in your evaluations of Ethernet cables and provide nothing of the sort that you just asked of me... I believe I will avail myself of the reciprocal and tell you it's all about the 'feels'.

 

I feel something therefore it is.

 

It can't get any more fair than that.

[plissken]

So, if I call you a hack, a coward, and a shill for MQA, we're cool. Right?

 

;-)

 

If you have a basis for it your golden. Heck, I'm a *bitch* and a *buttercup*.

 

Both you and Chris have reputations that proceed them.