Fun

Blog Mechanics: Ideas Solicited On How To Handle Comments: Update

It was remarked the other day that a comment moderation system of some kind should be used here on the blog. The reason is that are some people who come just to blow off steam and say “Briggs, you fool, you’re wrong” (and nothing but that). This can be annoying, no matter how true the message.

Now I have stalkers on Twitter. People who look forward to responding to global cooling and probability tweets. They never say anything more than (a) “The consensus doesn’t agree with you”, (b) “You’re a dummy and your ideas are wrong”, (c) “Briggs won’t admit when he’s wrong”, and so on.

These are all content free, since they never engage with the arguments I’m making. It’s especially insipid to be reminded the Consensus (on global cooling, p-values, etc.) doesn’t agree with me, when the very points I make say, explicitly or implicitly, “I don’t agree with the Consensus.” Restating what I take as a premise is pointless.

I recently took to blocking these fine people, which saves me the time and trouble of having to ignore them.

The suggestion before us is this: should we do the same on the blog with some commenters?

Here currently is how some people can be put into automatic moderation:

(1) New users; all users are “new” if they have any new IP, any new email, any new username, or any case-sensitive combination; some long-time readers wonder where their comments go, and it’s always because they made a typo in their information; computers are deathly literal, and that any is absolute;

(2) Users who are habitually like those Twitter folks, who only come to say “Briggs, you fool” and the like, with no real substance to their comments except to convey the idea they don’t like me;

(3) Certain frequent use of profanity and any attempt at doxxing;

(4) Creating multiple user names/emails, but by the same person with the same IP (this happens when folks think it makes it seem like I have more critics).

Otherwise, all is allowed. I even allow “Briggs, you bigoted hateful racist etc. fool, here is why you are wrong…” because there is some kind of argument. I’m not at all rigid about this: even the thinnest arguments are enough to get the comment to pass. I also pass all clever or funny insults. Unlike the woke, we have a sense of humor.

A word on comment editing. I never do it. Except in rare instances when somebody has bad HTML tags, which I fix (when I notice them). Or when certain profanity kicks the comment to moderation, and where I remove (the profanity only) if the comment is otherwise good.

If you’re worried I’m editing your comments, take a picture of the comment you posted, or save it or print it, and compare it with the comment that shows on the blog.

Now a word to the people who just come here to bitch. I remind you that I am wholly independent. I belong to no groups of any kind, save the Catholic Church (and am only a pewsitter). I belong to no professional organizations, or even any unprofessional ones.

I have no employer. I have no one under me. I have no students. I have no budget. I have no official or unofficial position in any bureaucracy or government, at any level.

In short, I am nothing but a guy on a desolate corner of the internet, far from any position of power or authority.

Not one person on the planet has to listen or read me. I have no official, or even semi-official influence.

If you don’t like what you read here, leave. It it pointless to come into my place and say, “Boy this is crap” (and only that, with nothing constructive). You would never do it in real life to anybody. Why do it here? Plus, I do not go to you: you come to me. Why are you coming just to be annoyed by me? It’s a strange thing.

Again, it is a tacit premise to everything I do here that I do not hold with the Woke Consensus. Reminding us that people in the Woke Consensus don’t agree with me is the point I am making, too. It’s silly of you to remake it.

Now if you have what you think is an original argument on why I am wrong, mistaken, in error, and so on, feel free to make it. If I think it’s worth answering, I’ll show you why it’s you who are wrong. But usually in a new post and not a comment, so it doesn’t get lost.

Besides moderation, the only other solution I know of is to vote on comments, but I loathe this. It has to be done on every new post, and it could even reorder comments, making them harder to follow. I loathe it because I hate all attempts to quantify the unquantifiable.

The idea I’m leaning on is if I get enough complaints about a reader I agree with, I put the person into temporary moderation until they get the idea to come up with better insults.

What do you think?

Feel free to email if you don’t want to comment.

What most might not know is that the vast majority of readers never comment. Indeed, the people that support this blog are almost all non-commenters.

UPDATE

Thanks to everybody for commenting about comments. The consensus, and my thinking, is leave it alone. Which I shall do. (I haven’t been able to find any software that lets readers block/hide other commenters.)

But I do have a word of advice, known far and wide as wisdom:

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here

Categories: Fun

56 replies »

  1. I figured a regular donation was an implicit comment and encouragement to keep going.

  2. Interesting. If one disagrees and provides a superlong comment as to why, there is criticism. If one simply does not like the topic, there is criticism if that is all they say. Insults—okay, saying you are an idiot and not saying why should not be allowed, etc, but what qualifies as an insult?

    At this point, I think probably you’re asking to lose comments and readers if you impose much moderation (your comments are very tame compared to other blogs). While I’m not like other people, I do want to know if a blog entry bored the audience to death, etc, even if there is no why. I don’t like that to some degree others control content that way, but I do want to know these things. If donators are non-commenters, but like reading the comments, that affects bottom line. I guess most of the blogs I have read when they try to retroactively control comments lose me as a reader because part of why I read the blog was it had free and open comments and those are gone. I have no problem with a blog editing my comments but it does help if they note the comment was edited and why.

    You do what you can comfortably do. The number of comments has a huge impact on such decisions, I realize, and frankly, it is your blog.

  3. I agree with your discussion of the issues. I’m sorry I don’t have constructive suggestions. I’m a fan of your work.

  4. All,

    I perhaps did not make clear that there is no obligation to comment. The point, rather, is we do fine given that the majority do NOT comment. Meaning comments are not as significant as they might appear.

    Thanks.

  5. I understand the problems. I hope you’ll be able to come up with a solution that allows commenting to continue. Unfortunately, after The Stream eliminated comments, I’ve found that I don’t read there any more. Even the bloggers I like don’t get my time as a reader. Not sure why that is, but like Sheri (above), the comments section is important to me as a reader, even on blogs such as yours where I rarely have anything to add. Conversation helps flesh out the content and ideas.

  6. Many criticisms, even elaborated, are in bad faith. That is especially true for anybody using the word “racist” unironically, any member of the Church of Covid and anybody who likes to lecture others about the dangers of Climate Change™. Keep that in mind when letting “constructive” comments slide through.
    Other than that, I think your suggestions are sensible.

    It would also be nice if there was a possibility to reply to comments of other people. It’s a bit risky, but more fun.

  7. Dear Briggs. Not one person on the planet has to listen or read me.

    Because the earth does not revolve around the sun, it is not a planet.

    A Comment like — Briggs, you magnificent bastid, did you know that in the Bible there are men named Zoom and Mud (2 Paralipomenon and 1 Paralipomenon) ? should not be allowed because it is off topic and because neither of those names are any longer in the top ten of the most popular male baby names.

    A comment like – If an Amish child becomes autistic he is traded to the Mennonites for wooden luggage or a basket of radishes. should not be allowed because to is off topic and is an historically questionable claim.

    Other than these churlish examples, this Blog is a blast to read..

  8. When I’m unfamiliar with a subject, there have been a number of times where I’ve found myself asea after the first couple of paragraphs. I check out the comments or even after “reading the whole thing”, I find a comment that made me realize I’d missed something. Again, don’t think handing moderation to us is necessarily a good thing.

    I scoped out WUWT, Judith Curry and JoNova (knowing they have nested replies).

    If it’s something that could be done reasonably or easily well, I would recommend allowing people to reply to other comments. This gives many advantages. When you’re trying to respond to someone else and another comment gets in ahead of you (responding to the post or another commenter it gets confusing, especially for a hot topic). It also allows truly new post comment threads to not get lost in a flurry of replies.

    What WUWT does that’s really nice, is that readers can collapse reply threads (by hiding replies).
    Jo Nova uses shading to distinguish new comments (and associated replies)
    Judith uses lines to offset replies from original comments.
    (In scoping Judith I saw a lot of replies by “the commenter who must not be named” Still a moron)

    These sites also allow multiple nests but not sure that’s needed here. I’m guessing that you could easily limit the number of nest levels and if a reader replies to a reply in the bottom nest, it gets shunted to the end of replies for that thread.

    WUWT also uses voting, but that would be too obnoxious in my opinion.

    If your system allows nesting replies, I’d try that at one or two nest levels if possible.

    There are some drawbacks to the system (it depends on user participation), but I think any drawbacks would be no worse than what it is.

    Hmmm … who do I feel like today? …
    Creating multiple user names/emails, but by the same person with the same IP (this happens when folks think it makes it seem like I have more critics).
    … I think I’ll be the original

  9. Why not just collapse all of them and let readers expand the ones they want to read? It will also make scrolling to the end easier?

  10. I like the collapse idea, if possible. People should try to have opening sentences that engage a reader to wish to pursue the entire comment. If not, it is easier to move on. Also, it would permit scrolling to find prior comments more easily, if one is interested in rereading.

  11. Disqus also indents (to a point) which is nice until there are a large number of replies with replies to replies then it gets hard to tell what the reply is to. If they were all collapsed it would be easier

  12. DAV
    July 19, 2021 at 9:44 am

    Exactly … which is why I suggested limiting the number of nests

    RT
    July 19, 2021 at 9:40 am

    Like that idea if it’s possible … don’t think I’ve seen such in the comments section anywhere only at post levels

  13. I am a regular reader of your blog, but seldom read the comments, (and seldom comment).

    So, delete and block with abandon!

  14. DAV

    Might’ve missed your point about number of replies vs nests

    I was thinking about sites with high nests the replies get too long real estate wise

    I was just thinking before I saw your other comment (Instead of a “voting” scheme, move large number of relies to the bottom where people engaged in the conversation won’t mind looking for it and those bored with the conversation could more easily avoid

    But again whatever schemes are available to you would be fine with me

  15. Censorship should never be done without due consideration. I would suggest always erring on the side of leniency, allow comments that appear trollish or inflammatory as long as they don’t overpower all other discussion. Obscenity and spam should of course be discarded at will.

  16. Maybe think of a blog as a local bar/pub where spirited discussion is allowed and encouraged, but as soon as someone starts a virtual bar-fight they are unceremoniously bounced.

  17. What RT is suggesting happens on youtube comments.
    Saw what’s up with that last week or so and noticed one of the ‘best’ commenters on here pretending to be someone else back in March, which made me smile.

    Having nested hidden replies is a good idea and had the thought when I spotted the change on what’s up with that. Not that I wasn’t able to follow those discussions, I did so using audio.

    Thought that all comments were welcome here, seems not the case, rules changed again

  18. PaulH

    You remind me of the warning in bars back in the day

    “No Wearing Colors”

  19. Joy
    July 19, 2021 at 10:45 am

    Thought that all comments were welcome here, seems not the case, rules changed again …

    All comments ARE Welcome here (some are more welcome than others ;-))

    Briggs is clearly trying to assist those who don’t want to read every comment and want to find comments they are interested in … he’s trying to avoid outright bans or excessive moderation …

  20. You created this space to say something and the answer to your question ultimately falls back on you and your goal for this blog. If you want the audience to be part of the end deliverable, then how your handle comments and how your audience feels about your handling of comments may be important. Otherwise, the comments become part of the end deliverable.
    My concern is that it is possible that you can affect the outcome when you consider the audience to be part of the product. Consider ratings and their affect on content and the quality of television.
    In short, be true to yourself and your goal in creating this blog and do not let the audience get in the way of that.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us!

  21. Well aware, John , regarding quality of the commentary here ploughing and plumbing the depths .
    I don’t want to read every comment, so I just don’t.

    Sheri’s right though in everything she said except that comments here are mild.
    Totally disagree with that. They are about as bad as it gets. Hence my attempts to lift things out of the dustbin.
    It’s all a matter of taste. That’s clearly subjective.
    Since Briggs is in charge, what he says goes, along with everybody else (like me) who can’t cut the mustard or watch the train wreck.

  22. I agree with your strategy. It sounds very fair. I do think that you are perhaps erring on being too forgiving. I think that a person that is capable of making a good argument for or against a specific point of view, is quite capable of doing so in a civil manner. I accept that banter might sometimes exceed the bounds of civility, and thus might need extra consideration.

  23. The problem with using ‘new IP’ as a criteria is that some countries/service providers only issue dynamic IPs (on a daily basis). I live in germany where basically only companies and government agencies are supplied a fix IP. I like reading your blog and I’d still like to occasionally comment.

  24. I have been a monthly subscriber to this blog since 2015. It is only $2 Canuck bucks , but I am a pensioner of limited means…

    I believe most received Comments fit into 3 categories:
    1. Sycophantic/Piling On comments; e.g. “Yes Dr Briggs, I too believe, Reification is a sin, Global Warming is crap, sexual perversion is just that, there is something henky about Covid”.
    2. Drive-by Trolls who personally attack Dr. Briggs, without ever bothering to criticizing the content of the post.
    3. Posts that are criticisms of the arguments in Dr. Briggs posts.

    Personally, if you are going to start censoring posts, I would like you to limit Category 1. I have been reading them for at least 6 years and they are getting boring.

    I find Category 2 Comments sometimes interesting because I am interested in the opinions of people whose world view is 180 degrees to my own.

    My favorite Comments are the ones that analyze Dr. Briggs arguments and if necessary criticize those arguments.

    Finally, I would like to say Dr. Briggs is great. Reification IS a sin, Global Warming IS crap, sexual perversion IS just that, there IS something henky about Covid. But please don’t censor me for saying it!!!!

  25. It’s your blog. It’s your call, but I like to read it all from time to time and occasionally comment. Those who comment on my comments and bash me I could care less about. When you have to go around minimizing others you show how small your character is. People’s comments show who they really are. It’s like an open book into their soul. So, why censor people’s true identity? My thoughts…

  26. Kenan Meyer

    You can still comment … you’ll just find yourself in “moderation”

    Which means your comment will just be held up for a brief period

    I have 4 or 5 aliases and have never been banned … just held up

    Once I almost doxxed myself and very much appreciated that my comment went into moderation

  27. As I mentioned on the original thread where this was brought up, I think all is basically fine as is.

    If people don’t like certain comments or commenters, it’s easy enough to skim through or just ignore, so I’m not sure why the guy who brought it up was so worked-up about not being able to personally “block” certain commenters from appearing in the thread on his screen. If one is that easily triggered by commenters on a blog, perhaps the problem is other than with the blog/commenters themselves – grab a mirror and seek help. 🙂

  28. Joy,

    Sheri’s right though in everything she said except that comments here are mild

    You should try reading some of the comments at Fox news, Town Hall etc. They quickly become schoolyard. The comments here are rather mild and surprisingly polite in comparison.

  29. Oh yeah

    Meant to add … aside from self-doxxing

    I have often wished I could “take back” a comment or two, …

  30. Dav,
    I wouldn’t go near a place that was worse. The only thing I can think of that’s worse is the urban dictionary.
    Where little or not, to little boys think of the most disgusting and outrageous thing to say and mix it up to the point where you just feel soiled and forever changed n!

    However, personal attacks can be very calculated and frankly, devastating, until you’ve been through the mmill a few times. It’s like walking into a place you thought was full of sanity only to find you’re the one who’s the sanest of them all! Not want one wants or needs.

    John By I’ve also wished I could remove comments, YouTube lets you do that, too.
    Briggs does enjoy reposting stuff over and over again, like an institution.
    I understand how this stuff works, just don’t know why.

  31. John b,
    I have often wished I could “take back” a comment or two,

    Editing would be better but has nothing to do with ignoring comments. A problem with editing though is it’s possible to radically change what was said leaving people reading comments addressing the original scratching their heads.

  32. I’ve observed a number of blogs that have gone down the route of censoring comments. In many cases it is justified and useful. But what I also observed is that ultimately it is the first step that leads to completely cancelling the entire comment system.

    What happens when you start censoring? You may find the troll traffic (much of it organised and paid for) increases exponentially, resulting in such a burden that you no longer have the time or energy to monitor it (I believe this is a deliberate tactic). Gives the for-profit troll industry a trophy, so to speak.

    But your website is a treasure trove of valuable information Professor Briggs, especially your work on probability and statistics (much of it I’m still digging through to try to understand) and in this subject area I find the comments particularly valuable.

    The current events and more politically-oriented subjects are the most likely to attract paid troll armies. Especially if you are including anything about our current ruling class or their insidious ideas; about which we are not allowed to speak. This will attract the trolls like flies – and this is not an organic movement but a bought and paid for amoral army. I’ve seen it happen over and over again on other blogs.

    Maybe an alternative could be to flag certain subject material as comment-board sensitive, and to leave the other stuff untouched, if this is possible.

  33. DAV

    Yes there have been times where I wished an ‘edit’ tool as well but totally recognize the issue you cite

    I would probably do just what you describe

    I’m talking about censoring my own comment where I might’ve misinterpreted a discussion point, mishandled my own response to a discussion point or where I never truly had a valid point and instead said something hurtful or unhelpful at best.

    one (many) of those times where I shoulda just zippa the lip

  34. Yes, by all means moderate, and restrict comments to the unvaccinated who follow your nonsense (i.e. Republicans/cultists) who will expire, as the herd is culled.

  35. Matt contributes so much interesting content — and quite often, so much important content. He is a resource for many. I feel protective of his time, and therefore think that Comment Moderation is a Thought That Should Not Even Be Thought, as it would be an insane drain on his time.

    I read the Comments regularly, though not all the time.

    I block Disqus, just like my privacy apps tell me to.

    I really don’t like nested comments. They interfere visually: I don’t like seeing and trying to sort through nested-nested-nests, etc.

    And nested comments far too often interfere conceptually, too: far too often, they’re practically an admission that the matter of the original post has been hijacked. I’d rather that people who want to react to commenters instead of the post find that harder to pull off rather than easier.

    I can get behind Matt’s suggestion:

    The idea I’m leaning on is if I get enough complaints about a reader I agree with, I put the person into temporary moderation until they get the idea to come up with better insults.

  36. I was a bit surprised at today’s topic. This blog is one of the very few locations on the Internet were I actually read comments (or at least scan them). Since there typically aren’t reams of comments, I like that they are “flat”, as it makes them easier to scan. On the blogs with features supporting replies to comments, it seems that the commenters often use that as an excuse to take their duties as a responsible commenter less seriously, and the signal-to-noise ratio seems to degrade.

    I’ll admit that the primary thing I am looking for is links – I have found a lot of interesting articles and useful books and talented authors through this blog. (On the other hand, I almost never follow twitter links, and I’m very picky about links to videos.) While it’s often interesting to read other people’s novel take on the known facts, commenters rarely have the time or motivation for original research, or the expertise to comment from personal experience.

    I do feel guilty about not donating (although I buy Brigg’s books). Not donating is not about the money – I’m more than willing to pay for good content. But I haven’t found a good anonymous payment method. (That’s probably my biggest disappointment with the Internet, the lack of the equivalent of casually dropping a dollar in a donation jar when you walk by. The payment processors all want to own your posterior, the equivalent writing all your personal information on the dollar bill and signing it. Cryptocurrency seems promising, I’d try it if one was available with a value pegged to the dollar or some stable commodity. The rapid inflation/deflation in the existing crypto’s makes them unusable for anything but gambling, in my opinion.)

  37. Your current system seems perfectly adequate to me.

    Some people do go to blogs specifically to complain about them – not argue, but just be a nuisance and complain. I never have any problem with the blog host dropping them. Comment boxes are for discussion or a brief comment, not for daily (or hourly, or “minutely”) complaints and arguments. If that’s how a guy gets his kicks, he has plenty of blogs to choose from. Blocking him is not an injustice to him, it’s a service to the people who do want to comment and/or discuss.

  38. Block all comments by default. And if a comment strikes you as something that makes your blog better, allow it.

    Unless a comment makes you smile and think “I’m glad someone said that” then into the trash it goes.

  39. JohnK

    And nested comments far too often interfere conceptually, too: far too often, they’re practically an admission that the matter of the original post has been hijacked. I’d rather that people who want to react to commenters instead of the post find that harder to pull off rather than easier.

    … post has been hijacked

    Well I think this discussion started because a reader felt too many posts are being hijacked.

    I admit to a hijack or 3.

    I like the idea of a single reply nest
    I kinda like (if it could be pulled off that the more replies push it all to the end

  40. What does a statistician do when presented with ‘lemons’? Surely he doesn’t throw them in the garbage? Google has taught us that ALL data is valuable. My thoughts:

    I think deleting things is a bad idea. There would be no evidence to present if you are accused of censorship.

    I think as a “statistician to the stars” you have a number of tools at your disposal. New stats could be developed: “Mean time between stupid things said”, “pointless comment ratio per blog post”, etc.

    It would be neat to know how many critical comments (defined as comments critical of the blog post) have content as compared to those that are without substance?

  41. Briggs, I comment on a variety of sites and I never remember the names I use in comment threads. So, thanks to you, now I’ve decided to keep them on a spreadsheet. On your site, you can identify me as CommenterName.

    Regarding the question of the day, I like the way The Zman handles things on his Gab account, @The ZBlog. Since I can’t paste in screen shots here, I’ll just quote him.

    “And you are not the first retard at the Mute Motel.”

    “Normally, I send retards to the Mute Motel, but you are a special case, so you go to the special treatment facility.”

    He also has a graphic with “You Point” and a curved line that goes from You to an empty spot of the page.

    Your style might not be as derisive as The Zman, but I think he’s pretty funny.

  42. “I recently took to blocking these fine people, which saves me the time and trouble of having to ignore them. The suggestion before us is this: should we do the same on the blog with some commenters?”

    I don’t find any of the regular commenters here to be so awful they deserve the v’axe. If there were a pandemic of poisonous pinheads popping in to poop on the carpet, then yeah, lower the doom. But that’s not the case. And there’s always the scroll wheel for the occasional comment not quite rising to the lofty standards of literary, intellectual, and moral excellence maintained at this exclusive club. Not broken, don’t fix.

  43. If there was a plague of Shecky Greenes then a bouncer would be called for. But since there’s only the one, and he invariably walks in, slips on a roller skate, lands on a whoopee cushion, and takes a pie in the face, he can stay.

  44. There next to never are as many comments on your blog, as are here today, so it seems. Are people lazy that they cannot just scroll past comments they choose to not read?

    Great discussions are often had here, AND anyone can comment on anyone else’s comment when one chooses to do so. Granted the reply may not end up just at the comment made two days before, but they are not that time-consuming to read even if separated a ways apart.

    Continue on Matt, just as all is. Very convenient and easy to take part in. Thank you!!

    God bless, C-Marie

  45. Dr Staff Sgt:

    I think a good analogy is: Your blog is a “salon,” in the finest tradition of an intellectual/social/political discussion group: https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/salons/

    You, as the host, have the honor/responsibility to select the topics of discussion, and to get the discussion rolling.

    As the host, I think you also have the privilege/responsibility to ensure that those invited into your salon are not sitting by the entrance and farting, or blowing smoke in other’s faces, or babbling incessantly, or otherwise making nuisances of themselves to the detriment of the overall success of your salon.

    Since it is probably difficult to manage the behavior of all your guests, the fact that you run a virtual salon may provide some more easily manageable solutions.

    Instead of you having to moderate, there’s surely a blog comments software solution that allows each user to hide/block/delete specific comments or commenters.

    Such a comments solution would probably also allow the chef-de-salon to also block/ban/mediate guests.

    It might be a one-time effort to migrate to such a solution, but in the long run, might be worth it.

    That’s my two cents, and you can block it, if you’d like!

  46. Everyone makes mistakes, and learning happens by trying to not repeat those mistakes. While censoring (blocking comments) removes dissenting opinions and different ideas, it does so at the expense of learning.
    Most of the comments on social media platforms (including blogs) are usually (but not always) prattle and banter. It is the stuff that makes up politics and sophistry. It is about winning and losing (likes and dislikes), not about understanding and learning. However, at a few select blogs like this one, comments often provide an additional wealth of information and useful links.
    Unfortunately, there are always some individuals who practice extreme behaviors (see here) that represent the worst of human nature, and social media provides these people with a megaphone to drown out everybody else. If these people are not isolated from a functioning society (or a blog), they end up censoring everybody else, rendering all comments useless.
    A good example is the 3700 comments (and increasing) currently at Roy Spencer’s site where he gives the monthly UAH temperature updates. Most of these comments are probably from a deluded person, a troll, or someone trying to intentionally sabotage the site.
    One of the many things that make our world so interesting is the differences (not the similarities) in people and their views. By carefully listening to other viewpoints, it’s possible to learn how to best formulate a proper, thoughtful response to other viewpoints.
    Visitors should be kind and appreciative, as most are at this site, because creating and maintaining a blog requires a lot of work, and policing the comments is an extraordinarily difficult process. Keeping out the psychotic nutcases, while retaining the curmudgeons seems like a reasonable practical balance.

  47. Your blog and knowledge of relevant topics is excellent. I started reading your work back when the first climate crap hit the fan and now with the plandemic, I knew you’d be front and center.

    Your work is on a short list of other data scientists (PANDAs), and other genomics researchers I read daily.

    Thanks for sharing your talents…re: comments, KISS, and move on and let us decide who deserves more attention and we’ll ignore the rest.

  48. In the Big Picture the comments are trivial.

    The Big Picture is that for decades the Government and the Media have been lying to the citizenry, since the 1950’s at least. Then came the Internet and average folks, the non-Elites, suddenly had a voice. Much of the Ether is nonsense (cat pics e.g.), and much is repetition of the Big Lies, but in recondite corners the Truth is being told.

    The Internet Giants hope to squelch Truth, and have had some minor success. But the Truth is too powerful, the truth tellers won’t go away, and the recondite corners are winning.

    It may not seem so. It may appear that the Culture War is lost, the Commies have won, and Doom approaches apace. But have a little faith in the Truth. Most people are not blind. Sites like this one are exposing the Lies. The New Totalitarians are reeling from the counter punches.

    The comments have some merit. They demonstrate the extent to which the Truth penetrates and resonates. Or doesn’t. Some people just don’t get it, and trolls are numerous. But the message gets through regardless. Let them in, keep them out, it makes no difference. Your site, your voice, your message are what are important, whether the peanut gallery agrees or not.

  49. Well, why not just have a line: above it anything you find interesting, constructive, pertinent.
    And below any dross remaining, so that folks may see and, if they so wish, mock 🙂

  50. I actually appreciate Brigg’s engagement with commentators on matters of statistics. A lot of clarity has been achieved whenever he corrects misunderstandings, reaffirms his premises and provides further elaboration.

  51. Personally, I wouldn’t bother with any kind of moderation filter. Inevitably it will do what it’s not supposed to do and become not simply a filter to catch idiot commentary but a censor preventing legitimate comment.

    It’d be nice if we had the capability to endorse another’s comment that we find significantly insightful. (The ‘thumbs down’ capability offered on Disqus is needless).

    The very fact that you obviously take the time to read at least some of what shows-up here is remarkable, in and of itself. Much appreciated! (As is you blog in general!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.