Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
NewsCut
Bob Collins

The future of comments

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

Is the end of online commenting on blogs at hand? Probably.

Multiple online sources are reporting on the fascinating result of a recent study that shows what people take away from a blog post depends on what early comments are attached to it.

The research hasn't been presented formally yet but in short, researchers took a post on nanotechnology and showed it to people. In one version, nice comments were added to the post. In another version, a flame war of comments was added.

"The nasty comment thread polarized the opinion of readers, leading them to misunderstand the original article," Scientific America blogger Bora Zivkovic writes.

The assumption is that on hot topics, like climate change, readers already come to the article with pre-concieved notions, and thus the civility of the comments would have no effect on them - they are already polarized. Chosing nanotechnology as a topic was a way to see how comments affect "virgin minds", i.e., how the tone of comments starts the process of polarization in new readers.

They specifically chose a topic about which most people know very little and do not already have any opinion. Neither the article nor the comments contain sufficient information to turn the readers into experts on the subject. So they have to use mental heuristics - shortcuts - to decide what to think about this new subject. Uncivil, aggressive comments resulted in quick polarization. Readers, although still not well informed about the topic, quickly adopted strong opinions about it.

Complaints about comments online have been registered for decades, now. But defenders insisted falsehoods would be corrected by the overwhelming audience. That does not appear to be happening, especially -- as Poynter's journalism blog points out -- there are so many places for reactions to be posted.

Smart people with something constructive to say about your article may be posting their thoughts to their Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr. Your comments section could be left as a second-class wasteland suitable only for logical fallacies and trolling.

Over to you Vi Hart: