Interesting Trend in Digg.com Comments
First published on Jun 28, 2010 by Simon Foust
As an avid reader of the comments on Digg, I’ve noticed something intriguing about the kinds of comments that are “thumbed up”. People tend to promote comments that have some sort of preface that attempts to establish credibility. A typical preface in this context goes something like this: “I’m not even normally a fan of (insert brand x here), but this gadget is the best I’ve ever seen.”
We see these prefaced comments on articles about religion, politics, law, technology, etc. And there are several different flavors of the prefaced comment, such as the one where the commenter claims to have no interest in the subject of the article generally, but makes an exception in this particular case. For instance, on a recent article about an animatronic suit of a character from the popular Halo game, one commenter writes:
I dont even like halo but I’m impressed as shit with that workmanship, GREAT JOB [1]
Another flavor of the prefaced comment is the self-identification with the article’s object of ridicule, followed by agreement with the criticism, as in this comment on an article about how Jesus acted verses how Christians act:
As a Christian I completely agree with this, but that last one was a cheap shot lol [2]
And the last example includes the oft-used, I-agree-with-the-premise-of-the-article-so-don’t-antagonize-me-for-taking-issue-with-a-couple-of-points prefaced comment, this time on an article with a point by point argument that the Android software is superior to the iPhone OS:
Two of those [points] are flat wrong (I own a Droid, and I agree with 8 of them so get off your fanboy rocker.) [4]
Before anyone even BEGAN to hound him about disagreeing with the article in any way, shape, or form, he got defensive. That’s awesome. Aware of the pro-Andoid / open software sentiment within the Digg audience, he preemptively shut them down with his disclaimer.
So there you have a few examples of prefaced comments, and they were all among the most thumbed up comments on their respective articles. So why are these kinds of comments so well-received?
One obvious answer is that we instinctively devalue the opinion of a critic when he speaks on a subject about which he’s biased. So it makes sense that we instinctively pay more attention to someone when they admit their bias, and agree with a criticism of their group. Then we’re ready to listen to what they have to say. I think this is a big part of the motivation behind prefaced comments.
It’s as if we just expect to be dismissed for having an opinion. And surely there is tendency to dismiss, out-of-hand, the opinion of the extremely biased. However, being biased isn’t the only factor that gets you ignored. It’s only when we also disagree with someone’s conclusion that we dismiss him. If we agree with him on the conclusion, it doesn’t matter to us that he’s biased; in fact, we may use a word like “expert” rather than “bias” to describe him.
Curiously, if we disagree with someone on the conclusion, but find him credibly unbiased we are much more likely to “agree to disagree” without a bitter fight. This leads me to believe that prefaced comments are often well-received because of the built-in face-saving. The commenter agrees in some respect with his potential debate partners, creates some sort of credibility, and they in turn feel less inclined to ridicule him for his contrary opinion or beliefs.
Of course, it’s possible that there are some people out there using the prefaced comment tactic only to steer the behavior of those with whom they disagree towards their own convictions. In other words, comments that begin like, “I am among the most liberal of democrats that I know, but even I think we need to realize that a government program isn’t always the answer to (insert social issue here),” may actually be non-liberals who simply want to see fence-sitters go their way. In that case, it’s a cheap tactic that might actually be working, if the widely thumbed up comments are any indication.
The desire to have credibility is obviously worthy. Unfortunately, the way we seem to go about attempting to establish credibility these days is curious at best. In this context, people are trying to establish credibility by simply identifying with a group about which we have preconceived notions.
In the first quote, for example, the commenter puts himself in the group of people who (a) aren’t interested in Halo but who (b) nevertheless, are able to appreciate the time, creativity, and craftsmanship that went into building the suit. He uses the identification with that group to emphasize his appreciation for the article subject. It’s a clever tactic, and it’s probably used without a conscious effort. But what’s most interesting to me is that it’s effective; i.e. people thumb up comments with this kind of sentiment.
Endnotes
- Huge Animatronic Halo Elite Costume That Seeds Fear PICS – digg.com
- What Would Jesus Do vs What Jesus Freaks Actually Do Pics – digg.com
- Americans think soccer is boring – digg.com
- 10 Things Android Does Better Than iPhone OS – digg.com
PS – Regarding prefaced comments, I’m aware that this is not a new phenomenon, and I’m sure it isn’t only happening on Digg. Digg is just one place with which I’m familiar. Also, I realize that prefaced comments are only one of the many kinds of comments that are among the most thumbed up.