From the moment of my registration on Habré, I had a feeling of some understatement in the articles. Those. there is an author, here is his article = opinion ... but something is missing. Something is missing… After a while, I realized that a critical eye was missing. In general, it can be found in the comments. But they have a significant disadvantage - an alternative opinion is lost in the general mass, it turns out to be fragmented and brings more "risks" to its author than benefits. I propose to consider this problem in more detail.
So, comments as a means of expressing an alternative opinion do not work. Causes:
- The reader of an article treats the comments as a by-product of the article itself. So far, I have not met such a person who, in addition to reading the article, studies all the comments. Rather, in 80% of cases they are simply ignored. And in 20% they go to read hype.
- Comments are not structured. This is a tape of disparate opinions. Only the commenters themselves keep the thread in their heads. It is simply physically difficult for the rest to delve into the thread of 100 messages.
- In the comments, often there is a transition to the individual. And instead of reading the essence, you grab a significant share of the negative. This makes you think not with your head, but with your “heart”. Get on someone's side.
- Comments are written, including by “professional” commentators. Those. people who don't write articles. For different reasons. But the main thing is that they do not seek to express their opinion consistently. Preferring commentary style.
- By expressing your opinion in the comments, you are much more likely to receive a minus in karma. Why? See point 3. Given the other points, it becomes pointless to write something in the comments outside the general trend.
- You are limited in expressing an alternative opinion with negative karma.
But there is a way: you write an article in which you refer to the peer-reviewed one. So many do. And here it is - happiness! But no, and here's why:
- Communication of articles is unidirectional. Those. From criticism to substance. This is at least inconvenient.
- There is no clear, understandable mechanism for obtaining existing alternative opinions = reviews of existing, previously written articles.
Why are reviews so important? Because very often articles have populist themes that exploit common misconceptions. Such articles are gaining ratings, which makes them outwardly weighty for inexperienced readers. They are believed a priori. IMHO this is a frank and pure evil. And Habr indulges him.
Separately, I want to say that the review mechanism was invented a long time ago. And for good reason. This is exactly the tool that allows you to express your own alternative view in a structured, consistent and valuable way. It is an artifact of scientific culture.
But reviews allow you to convey far more than just a critical view. It's completely normal to get a positive review from an eminent author. What makes your work valuable both for you personally and for others.
My suggestion:
- Add a review mechanism to Habr;
- The review should be written in the form of a full-fledged article;
- When making a review article, point to the reviewed article;
- If the article has reviews, display them as other artifacts of the article (rating, bookmarks, etc.);
- Implement convenient navigation through reviews.
I am sure that now many people have a question - why didn’t you write to the administration? Wrote. And I got two completely opposite answers. In the first one they promised me to definitely consider the proposal, in the second they frankly said that there were more important things to do. By the way, this is a separate insult to Habr. But not about it now.
It frankly seems to me that I'm not the only one who would like to have such a mechanism on Habré. And I invite you to vote for it.
UPDATE 25.09.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX Administration comment:
Only registered users can participate in the survey. , you are welcome.
Do you need reviews on Habré?
-
Yes
-
No
-
418
498 users voted. 71 user abstained.
Source: habr.com