A large number of content based websites or blogs currently employ a comment section. This interaction has become a somewhat necessary part of employing a sucessful website. As A Networked Self describes, comments can strongly influence user interaction with original content.
The influence of Web-based social comments on perceptions of individuals extends beyond the inspection of recommender systems, and even beyond the deliberate consideration of others’ comments. Peers’ online comments can also influence readers’ attitudes and perceptions about the news.
There are multiple reasons why comments and immediate interaction appeal to an online platform, so its ultimately quite interesting when a site, video or other new media platform chooses to disable comments.
Pitchfork Media is one of the few music blog sites that does not incorporate an interactive comment section. Often criticized for the paradoxical concept of being a music giant within an underground culture, this lack of comments ultimately seems a source of control. With strict requirements for rating, Pitchfork sets trends for the rest of current culture. For those who strongly disagree with these ideas, they are forced to go to third party sources. Commenting on reblogs, tweeting about it, or posting extended commentary within their own social network, this lack of comment ability within Pitchfork forces shares otherwise, which will most likely be more representative of personal taste. As A Networked Self points out, comments can strongly influence others opinions, so because Pitchfork chooses to disable this option, the company may either be trying to silent the noise and allow users to only intake the site’s opinions or trying to minimize criticism.
As the ‘top dog’ among undergound music, Pitchfork’s lack of a comment section encourages reblogs, creating a sort of heirarchy. Pitchfork has grown as a giant due to longevity and fitness. Surprisingly, the lack of comments and user interaction has not lowered their fitness, but actually increased links and references to Pitchfork.
Comments help create a community, which is particularly important among such a niche market.
When brainstorming other music blogs that disable commenting, I could not think of one prominent site.
But when browsing YouTube, videos that disabled comments were often ones that included marketing or subjects that could potentially attract unnecessary negativity. This Obama video for example, now has disabled comments.
With user interaction being so important, why would a site choose to not include this feature? Can you think of any famous examples?
Sometimes comments on a video or blog post can have real value. But I think once a video goes “viral” comments loose almost all value. Whats worth more is the amount of response. The words or comments in the comments do not mean much, it is the amount of comments that means much more.
To be honest I think If I had a viral video I would disable comments. Because no matter what the comments say, as a viewer I would still watch it. The comment section is also a breeding ground for a ton of unimportant and off topic comments and sometimes spam.
I worked at a Newspaper in High School and I created an online version of the paper. The first question to me was about comments. The administration wanted them turned off for fear of hate comments or just purely ridiculous ones. So I was forced to turn them off for fear of loosing the online paper. What I would have liked to see was the ability to moderate comments on stories. I think this format encourages comments and cuts out the spam and trolls.
Its interesting that you point out Pitchfork as not allowing comments, this was something I was not aware of. Do you know how long that has been in effect? I can’t picture them having comments on their content because they are such a powerhouse. They have grown out of the underground scene and into the light. If they don’t need the comments to keep the community, why bother? Unless this will negatively effect them in the long run, which I doubt. Was there any loss in viewers by doing that?
I agree with Paul about the strength of moderated comments over the influx of spam and trolls that are seen on most viral videos. I would like to think that moderated approaches to comments lead to less spam, but based on what I see with things like WordPress moderated comments, trolls always find a way.
I am pretty sure that Pitchfork has always disabled a comment section. They are such a powerhouse, but I still feel like there should be some discussion allowed. It might just end up being a spam warehouse or something because there is no localized audience (for example— Dallas Observer music blog has a lot of community, identity developed in comments section).
As they break more and more news, I wish there was a section for people to disagree. If the NY Times didn’t have a comment section, there would be a huge issue. Pitchfork already receives a lot of criticism so I can’t even imagine what the comments section would be like if there was any sort of controversial issue.
I feel like comments on pitchfork would be a pain? It has such a large readership, the comments would probably be like those on youtube or soundcloud – consistently ridiculous and nothing to do with community.
And I guess in a personal sense, if I read something about a Best New Track and played the embedded track, and scrolled down and saw comments like “THIS IS SO SICK” it would probably hurt my opinion of the music.
But also, by forcing the conversation to take place on blogs and in person, it’s probably doing something great for music discourse as well as its own brand.