After reading and a few cups of coffee in the morning, I like to start my morning off with this radio show out of Austin, Texas. Its host, Dale Dudley, fairly frequently gets fed up with commenters on FaceBook, Twitter and text messages, and just as frequently bans, blocks and busts the balls of the trolls who go off the rails in the comments.
One of my recent morning ritual additions is reading writer John Scalzi’s blog Whatever, who just happened today to have linked to a Scientific American post about commenting on social media. Which, besides making think about my favorite morning radio show, also made me think about just how skewed and rambunctious commenting and commenters can be. I thought this bit about a study to reveal attitudes about commenting was quite revealing:
I have contacted the authors and have received and read a draft of that paper. Since it is not published yet, I will not break all sorts of embargoes by going into details, but can re-state what is already out there. An article about nanotechnology, a topic most people know very little about and usually have no a priori biases for or against, was presented to the test subjects. Half the people saw the article with (invented) polite, civil and constructive comments. The other half was given the same article but with uncivil comments – essentially a flame-war in the fake commenting thread. The result is that readers of the second version quickly developed affinity for one side of the argument and strongly took that side, which affected the way they understood and trusted the original article (text of which was unaltered). The nasty comment thread polarized the opinion of readers, leading them to misunderstand the original article.
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.
Sometimes it’s a street fight out there and all you want to is scream . . .
Sorry for the neglect over the past few weeks. There are times I’ve meant to write interesting posts like the one I had in mind of defending genre fiction, science fiction in particular. I’ll put a link here to China Mieville doing a good job of that, or parts of this piece in The Guardian do so.
I really have intended to write more here. But things were happening that weren’t so great. Or maybe they were. I ran away; I came home; I moved to a new place; I don’t know what to make of all that, except to say my Memorial Day weekend was interesting and maybe one day I can write about it.
Speaking of writing, Blog, one chief reason I’ve been neglectful is because I’ve been writing, almost daily, with a few interruptions (see above). When I get on writing jags, I tend to neglect you.
I’ll try to be more attentive, Blog. But I won’t make any promises.
I took part in a blogging round table discussion of favorite movie tie-ins/novelizations at SF Signal. My favorite was Alan Dean Foster’s novelization of the original Star Wars film. That novel is as responsible for introducting me to the SF genre as any book or film and certainly was an early influence on me as a writer. As you’ll see from the other guest posters, Foster is a master of the novelization. Anyhow, go read the post.
Below is another post on writing, publishing and marketing. Regarding using Twitter as a marketing tool, I think the key word in the title is “meaningfully”. I signed up on Twitter just to see what it was all about. I gained some followers. Tweeted some, but never continually on a daily basis. I still don’t. Sometimes I try to tweet regularly as I have today, at the same time, I wonder how much of me is too much of me. How many of my tweets are really meaningful? Which ones will gain an audience? Which ones might snag a freelance assignment?
This is part five of Big Bad Book Blog‘s series on blogging and publicity. I’m like the Double Rainbow guy when it comes to reading stats. I love looking at my stats, and seeing that at the very least I’m attracting spam, but the stats . . . What do they meaaaaaaan?!
Of course, WordPress doesn’t allow Google Analytics. And I don’t know of any WordPress source for analyzing stats.
Here is the fourth of a series of posts from Big Bad Book Blog on blogging and promoting y0ur blog and your brand (aka, yourself) as a writer. To me self promotion is a necessary evil, and yet even before the Interwebs existed, writers such as Dickens and Twain were out there promoting themselves, their works and their opinions.
As a writer, I have a hard time marketing myself. I’m innately shy. I also don’t have a book to promote — not at the moment. But, I do write freelance, and would like to make more money doing that. I’m also looking for full time employment, preferably as a writer or editor. So getting the word out is important.