To Hell With Comments

[MaddKossack115]

Well true, and I think Yahtzee shot himself in the foot when he basically admitted "I could have turned off the comments, but then I wouldn't have gotten to complain about it". What, he couldn't just take the option to turn them off, and then complain that we should really turn the comment option off first chance we get?

I can't say I'm fond of this line of reasoning, even if most of the time it's completely correct. There's lots of stuff where it makes sense to just 'turn it off', but that shouldn't excuse completely flawed designs.
There are very few situations I can think of where letting players throw down commentary on the level/game IN the level/game where it not only doesn't destroy immersion into the game, but actually makes sense.

The only one that comes to mind is Dark Souls, which restricted user comments to semi-predetermined phrases, all of which were oriented towards the gameplay as it happened. Turning it off didn't really lose you much, but you'd sometimes get useful hints or at least some amusing comments about what's happening as you experience it yourself.

But If you were to try and drop user comments into most other games, it doesn't make nearly as much sense. Mario, Zelda, Unreal Tournament, Mass Effect, and so on.
Sure, you could turn off the feature, but if it adds exactly nothing, and likely directly inhibits the game experience, why is it there at all?

As for the article, I can't say I was bothered by it. It was, as I read it, intentionally overzealous to get a rise out of people that think they were being insulted - but as others pointed out, he's directly asked for comments on stuff he makes before, like his games.

I think it's less 'no one should ever talk other than content creators' and more 'if the comments aren't, or even CANNOT be relevant, why would we even allow it?'
Rules on the forums here keep things from being snap comments, and as on-topic as possible. Random facebook comments, or basically anything on youtube will never have that, and so it makes you question why you would want that garbage to share space with the content you put effort into producing.

While I do admit the ingame comments section isn't the brightest move from the gaming industry, there are lots of other gaming industry trends (making games more linear with less gameplay, stripping narratives down to cliched bones, forcing the customers to not just pay $60 upfront, but also lay down hundreds of more dollars in microtransactions in order to get content that should've been part of the game in the first fucking place, etc.) that are more prevalent and far more threatening to the wellbeing of games that they dwarf whatever threat ingame comments would have.

To put this in perspective, if turning every game into a "spunkgargleweewee" (overly linear, greyish brown, and boring as hell) and charging ludicrous microtransactions are the video game industry equivalent to grand larceny, ingame comments sections barely rank above spray-painting graffiti on a bathroom wall.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And finally the point behind the initial joke:

I consider it an insult that material created by trained people with experience and qualifications and talent is forced to share space on my computer screen with the musings of uninvolved people with no qualifications bar a keyboard and bottomless twattiness.

The rest of the article goes on about specific cases where commentary was useless or insulting with some light deconstruction towards the end of about who the comments are really for in a particularly weird case. If you took those statements away from the context of the opening joke I don't think that many people would be complain about the article.

So, how is any of that funny?

Jokes are supposed to be funny, and I don't see any punchline, or any humorous content in the article - it's all just unfunny whining. I mean, "comments suck" - wow, what an original and edgy position to take. Nobody has ever had that thought before.

 

[Gaius Livius]

It is all about moderation. If you have a clearly defined and enforced set of rules and guidelines to follow then it filters out a lot of the unwanted stuff. By the way, you can disable the Facebook comments in your Forum and Notification options of your profile just in case anyone wants to get rid of them.

 

[Gaius Livius]

Since this thread is now up to page 7, would now be a good time to point out that Yahtzee doesn't even read his own comments threads?

Yes although I would argue that this thread is for the viewers to discuss in rather than the content creator. You still have a point though and it is good of you to inform people who may not know that so we can avoid messages aimed directly at Yahtzee. The curious thing though is how does he know about the reactions to his videos and articles if he doesn't read the feedback? I would assume other people tell him or that he gets direct emails and letters.

 

[keniakittykat]

You make some very valid points. Seeing as how this is not a non-profit website (I assume that you're correct in that), it doesn't seem right in having volunteer moderators.

I've always wondered how often moderators are paid. I used to frequent Bethesda's forums, and wondered if their mods were paid or not. And EA's forums (specifically, Battlefield's)... knowing EA, nope (found one example of a moderator on their Need For Speed forum, and they were not paid).

I was moderator at "mlparena" (My little pony collector's forum) for a while in 2009 and 2010, and they didn't pay back then. When they updated the site and got all pro they offered to pay, but I didn't live anywhere near their office. I forgot how much they payed though =S

 

[EvilRoy]

They don't need to be careful of their words, they need to have a backlog against which we can qualify future opinions. They can be as biased or rude as they want, but having a face and a name guarantees that those things stay on the record rather than dying with each avatar and handle.

You're doing it wrong.

A person's writing should be judged on the content of that writing, not their track record or their status. You should judge things on their facts and merits, or in the case of opinion, how well thought-out and supported the opinion is, not who is comes from. It is entirely possible for person with status and a good track record to write something stupid and wrong, just as it is for someone antonymous to come out of nowhere and write something brilliant and true.

Got busy last week so I couldn't even log on until now. I wasn't going to respond since the conversation was left behind some time ago, but since the thread is apparently still alive I decided to go ahead anyway.

I think you're misunderstanding what I mean when I say "qualification". A better way for me to put it would be "the basis on which the work is judged." You've said that a work needs to be judged on its own merits rather than the character of the author - which is fine, and not necessarily contrary to my claims - but the question becomes, on what basis is that content judged?

So starting with your first example, we have a technical paper having been written on, say, the resulting impact loads from sudden column removal on standard connections. So lets assume that you don't know much about this topic, how are you able to determine if what is written in this paper falls under "stupid and wrong" or "brilliant and true?" As a person with no expert knowledge on the topic, you can't reasonably confirm the validity of the statements within. You might defer to the review board that OKed the paper for publishing, but how do you know those guys can be trusted?

Popping over to your second example, we have an opinion piece reviewing a very popular and much enjoyed game, Annoying Stick, on a technical and personal level. Assuming again that you have yet to play this game, how might you determine if the review is a good one? As a player of games you may be better suited to confirming the technical information conveyed in the review from an outside perspective, but how do you determine if the ultimate recommendation and authors praise of the game aligns with your personal taste? Can you, without having actually played the game, determine if the opinions are well thought out, or supported at all?

In both cases you can depend only on a knowledge of the writers and editors past work to determine if you would find the conclusions reached to be comparable to those you would reach yourself given the necessary background in each field.

In the case of the technical paper you are depending on both the author and the review board to have the necessary experience and good judgement to produce a valid final product. You essentially assume that, based on their current position in life, the review board is qualified through experience to judge the validity of the authors work, and both the author and review board are kept honest only by the threat to reputation that having a face and name provides. You can't be sued for drawing a bad conclusion in a technical paper, no matter how many people it ends up killing.

In the case of the game review, you can only base a decision on whether or not the authors recommendation applies to you on their track record of having preferences that do or do not align with your own. Bar playing the game there is no other way to determine whether the opinions presented in the work are in any way valid from your own perspective. You may be tempted to aggregate a consensus on the game by polling various works on the same topic, but in addition to not always being an option, this typically produces results that are only useful on a technical level as individual opinions are too varied to collect and categorize in such a manner.

If the author and editor/review board of each of those works was anonymous, there would be no way for you to reasonably determine their quality, bar performing the experiments or playing the game yourself. One might produce excellent arguments or well formed opinions, but if they are based on false axioms or backed by false evidence then they are still wrong. Without the threat to reputation in either case there isn't even a reason for the authors to ensure the quality of their work beyond "looking good" or "seeming about right."

 

[Atmos Duality]

If the author and editor/review board of each of those works was anonymous, there would be no way for you to reasonably determine their quality, bar performing the experiments or playing the game yourself. One might produce excellent arguments or well formed opinions, but if they are based on false axioms or backed by false evidence then they are still wrong. Without the threat to reputation in either case there isn't even a reason for the authors to ensure the quality of their work beyond "looking good" or "seeming about right."

Well, we had better delete every hobbyist and technical help board off the Internet immediately, because the majority of guides, technical manuals, and discussions are done so anonymously under screen names and therefore aren't held to any form of accountability (internal or otherwise) to ensure their accuracy and validity.

How could such information possibly help anyone? Especially in "the real world".

Lets start with GameFAQs and work our way up to, say, ArsTechnica then perhaps onward to the wikia series.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's fascinating how everyone was a fan of Yahtzee's character-assassinations... until they're the character in question.

 

[EvilRoy]

If the author and editor/review board of each of those works was anonymous, there would be no way for you to reasonably determine their quality, bar performing the experiments or playing the game yourself. One might produce excellent arguments or well formed opinions, but if they are based on false axioms or backed by false evidence then they are still wrong. Without the threat to reputation in either case there isn't even a reason for the authors to ensure the quality of their work beyond "looking good" or "seeming about right."

Well, we had better delete every hobbyist and technical help board off the Internet immediately, because the majority of guides, technical manuals, and discussions are done so anonymously under screen names and therefore aren't held to any form of accountability (internal or otherwise) to ensure their accuracy and validity.

How could such information possibly help anyone? Especially in "the real world".

Lets start with GameFAQs and work our way up to, say, ArsTechnica then perhaps onward to the wikia series.

Most of those websites have posted disclaimers explaining how anything bad that happens as a result of following the hosted guides is not their fault as well. Not surprising considering the disturbingly high number of guides available that may result in damage to property or loss of life should there be an error in the execution or the guide itself.

Use at your own risk, no complaining if anything goes wrong. Another advantage to using resources that have faces and names attached. Which is what the conversation was about.

I'll admit it is hard to tell so many quotes later, but the discussion was originally with regards to why something produced by a person with a face and a name (thus long lasting accountability) inherently has more value/validity than something produced by an anonymous individual. Not, as I interpret your statement to mean, why nobody should ever listen to anonymous people. If you want to then go ahead, but as I mentioned above, no complaints if it doesn't work out.

 

[LeQuack_Is_Back]

I'm okay with comments, actually. I've seen plenty of videos where the comments correctly point out some glaring issue in the original video. Or call out the video maker for being a tosser when he genuinely is. I'll take the ability for that to happen even though it means a lot of bullshit comments will also be posted.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Most of those websites have posted disclaimers explaining how anything bad that happens as a result of following the hosted guides is not their fault as well. Not surprising considering the disturbingly high number of guides available that may result in damage to property or loss of life should there be an error in the execution or the guide itself.

...

Use at your own risk, no complaining if anything goes wrong. Another advantage to using resources that have faces and names attached. Which is what the conversation was about.

*chuckles*
Guess I'd best keep a close eye on my computer next time I use a guide from GameFAQs.

Of course, if we assume what you say is true, I don't know why they would even bother with a disclaimer since by your own assertion, an anonymous source cannot be held accountable for anything. But that's just nitpicking, I confess.

In the case of the technical paper you are depending on both the author and the review board to have the necessary experience and good judgement to produce a valid final product. You essentially assume that, based on their current position in life, the review board is qualified through experience to judge the validity of the authors work, and both the author and review board are kept honest only by the threat to reputation that having a face and name provides. You can't be sued for drawing a bad conclusion in a technical paper, no matter how many people it ends up killing.

Use at your own risk indeed.

I'll admit it is hard to tell so many quotes later, but the discussion was originally with regards to why something a person with a face and a name (thus long lasting accountability) inherently has more value/validity than something produced by an anonymous individual. Not, as I interpret your statement to mean, why nobody should ever listen to anonymous people. If you want to then go ahead, but as I mentioned above, no complaints if it doesn't work out.

That's fair enough. I agree that accountability provides the potential for additional validity.
It just doesn't ensure it. (which is why Appeal to Authority is a fallacy)

Experts are called experts presumably because they demonstrate provable understanding in finding and interpreting valid evidence. Not because they have some title from having spent X amount of time doing Y.

So towards that end, I will gladly take valid evidence over just someone's word any time; even that of an expert.
It's the standard my own work is held to scientifically (I am a meteorologist, if that matters) so it's the standard I have to accept both professionally and personally. Also, it's why I don't agree with Mr. Croshaw's little rant over anonymous comments either, as I have made very practical use of information provided anonymously (both for my own amusement and professionally).
I just need to exercise an extra bit of caution is all.

It's fascinating how everyone was a fan of Yahtzee's character-assassinations... until they're the character in question.

There's a difference between "comedy" and "contempt".

Metaphorically, it's the difference between how Blazing Saddles uses racism and how the Klan uses racism.

And nothing in the article suggests that Yahtzee is being ironic here.

 

[YodaUnleashed]

This article reminds me of when Bob Dylan released the album 'self portrait' in the 1960s at the height of his fame attempting to make his own fans dislike him and his music and get them off his back by releasing something so bad. If that's your tactic for whatever reason Yahztee then its probably going to work on me as I really don't feel like giving you the time of day now after being called a twat for writing this right now, as if only being paid as a professional makes your opinion worthwhile and valid whilst all other commentators are just twats.

 

[Hebby]

The fact that I can comment here defeat the purpose of your article Yahtzee. It would have been quite fun if you closed the possibility to comment on this. That I would like. I would imagine the build up of pressure from the readers who had so much to say about what they just read, but were unable to.

Would put a smile on my face.

 

[EvilRoy]

Most of those websites have posted disclaimers explaining how anything bad that happens as a result of following the hosted guides is not their fault as well. Not surprising considering the disturbingly high number of guides available that may result in damage to property or loss of life should there be an error in the execution or the guide itself.

...

Use at your own risk, no complaining if anything goes wrong. Another advantage to using resources that have faces and names attached. Which is what the conversation was about.

*chuckles*
Guess I'd best keep a close eye on my computer next time I use a guide from GameFAQs.

Of course, if we assume what you say is true, I don't know why they would even bother with a disclaimer since by your own assertion, an anonymous source cannot be held accountable for anything. But that's just nitpicking, I confess.

The disclaimer protects the host, not the author - although in the case of a named author the disclaimer may be extended to the author. I'm surprised you don't know this, it's pretty standard. If you check wikiHow they have a full section in their Terms of Use explaining in detail how users are not supposed to post things that could get someone killed, and how even if it does it isn't their fault. They also have a wikiHow on how to write a Terms of use section.

Game walkthoughs have and continue to contain exploits or directions to known glitches that could result in loss or corruption of data. It might not be as bad as your monitor falling over and smashing your fingers, but it is still your fault for trusting anonymous information.

In the case of the technical paper you are depending on both the author and the review board to have the necessary experience and good judgement to produce a valid final product. You essentially assume that, based on their current position in life, the review board is qualified through experience to judge the validity of the authors work, and both the author and review board are kept honest only by the threat to reputation that having a face and name provides. You can't be sued for drawing a bad conclusion in a technical paper, no matter how many people it ends up killing.

Use at your own risk indeed.

Yup. I mean, there may be an issue of conscience in there as well but people have slept off worse. In order to actually be held accountable for such a thing I believe they would need to prove intent, gross incompetence or gross negligence. If that's ever actually happened in my field then nobody talked about it.

I'll admit it is hard to tell so many quotes later, but the discussion was originally with regards to why something a person with a face and a name (thus long lasting accountability) inherently has more value/validity than something produced by an anonymous individual. Not, as I interpret your statement to mean, why nobody should ever listen to anonymous people. If you want to then go ahead, but as I mentioned above, no complaints if it doesn't work out.

Experts are called experts presumably because they demonstrate provable understanding in finding and interpreting valid evidence. Not because they have some title from having spent X amount of time doing Y.

Actually either of those two options are acceptable routes to becoming an expert. Being an expert requires either substantial skill or substantial knowledge. You can gain either of those things by doing X for Y, and there probably won't be a test at the end.

So towards that end, I will gladly take valid evidence over just someone's word any time; even that of an expert.
It's the standard my own work is held to scientifically (I am a meteorologist, if that matters) so it's the standard I have to accept both professionally and personally. Also, it's why I don't agree with Mr. Croshaw's little rant over anonymous comments either, as I have made very practical use of information provided anonymously (both for my own amusement and professionally).
I just need to exercise an extra bit of caution is all.

Right, but that falls into the problem of "are you qualified to decide what is valid" that I got into earlier. If you lack the expertise to determine if a work is correct, reasonable or accurate, on what basis are you accepting this evidence? Its great that you've found anonymous information that has helped you, I have as well, but I, and I assume you if you've used this information professionally, have fact checked the information as thoroughly as possible before using it. That is, I found someone with a face and a name that I trust a bit more to confirm the theory, or confirmed it independently myself.

The idea being, at one point or another you are going to have to take someones word for it, because there aren't enough hours in a lifetime for you to learn everything you need to know to do otherwise. And if you have to take a persons word for it, its a safer bet to take it from a guy with a face you can punch should the occasion demand it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The disclaimer protects the host, not the author - although in the case of a named author the disclaimer may be extended to the author. I'm surprised you don't know this, it's pretty standard.

Fucking EVERYTHING has a disclaimer on it.
They are so overblown as to be completely meaningless.

Just yesterday, I read a tag on a blanket that had a list of disclaimers and warnings starting with the words "Do not wash with " where was every conceivable method of washing a cloth from cold scrubbing to washing machine to fucking DRY CLEANING.

And it's not because the material is impossible to wash, but because the manufacturer is terrified of being sued by someone who screwed up and injured themselves while washing it.

Game walkthoughs have and continue to contain exploits or directions to known glitches that could result in loss or corruption of data. It might not be as bad as your monitor falling over and smashing your fingers, but it is still your fault for trusting anonymous information.

That's not even remotely consistent enough to claim as normal.
As in, what you described applies to a tiny fraction of all guides posted there.

Yup. I mean, there may be an issue of conscience in there as well but people have slept off worse. In order to actually be held accountable for such a thing I believe they would need to prove intent, gross incompetence or gross negligence. If that's ever actually happened in my field then nobody talked about it.

Bankers and lawyers rule the world. They just allow us to live in it.

Actually either of those two options are acceptable routes to becoming an expert.
Being an expert requires either substantial skill or substantial knowledge. You can gain either of those things by doing X for Y, and there probably won't be a test at the end.

There's a world of difference between spending time within a subject and actually comprehending it to any useful degree.
An expert's value is directly related to their comprehension of relevant information.

Right, but that falls into the problem of "are you qualified to decide what is valid" that I got into earlier. If you lack the expertise to determine if a work is correct, reasonable or accurate, on what basis are you accepting this evidence?

If you lack the expertise, then you look for consistency and do a bit of research.
It obviously doesn't work for every problem, but it's stunning how many issues you can understand and solve just by learning the basics. Especially today with so much information readily available.

The idea being, at one point or another you are going to have to take someones word for it, because there aren't enough hours in a lifetime for you to learn everything you need to know to do otherwise. And if you have to take a persons word for it, its a safer bet to take it from a guy with a face you can punch should the occasion demand it.

Agreed. But that doesn't really justify Yahtzee's contempt for comments, which is kinda the issue people are taking with him here.
He thinks the world would be better if it were run only by qualified individuals and fuck everyone else.
I'll do him one better; I think the world would be better if it were run by COMPETENT individuals, not just those with the title of "expert" or self proclaimed "qualifications".

(I've met plenty of incompetent "experts" who were "qualified" in their field, especially in health care. So pardon me if I sound a tad jaded here.)

 

[EvilRoy]

Game walkthoughs have and continue to contain exploits or directions to known glitches that could result in loss or corruption of data. It might not be as bad as your monitor falling over and smashing your fingers, but it is still your fault for trusting anonymous information.

That's not even remotely consistent enough to claim as normal.
As in, what you described applies to a tiny fraction of all guides posted there.

How often it happens doesn't matter, just that it does happen. Knowing that something can happen, but believing it is unlikely to happen to you is an excellent way to have a totally preventable terrible day in the future.

The idea being, at one point or another you are going to have to take someones word for it, because there aren't enough hours in a lifetime for you to learn everything you need to know to do otherwise. And if you have to take a persons word for it, its a safer bet to take it from a guy with a face you can punch should the occasion demand it.

Agreed. But that doesn't really justify Yahtzee's contempt for comments, which is kinda the issue people are taking with him here.
He thinks the world would be better if it were run only by qualified individuals and fuck everyone else.
I'll do him one better; I think the world would be better if it were run by COMPETENT individuals, not just those with the title of "expert" or self proclaimed "qualifications".

(I've met plenty of incompetent "experts" who were "qualified" in their field, especially in health care. So pardon me if I sound a tad jaded here.)

I think our disagreement here is based on the use of qualification. To my mind Yahtzee's qualifications are his backlog of other reviews and writing. So your determination of his competence is completely predicated on your opinion of his backlog. That is to say, how much weight you give his reviews is determined by how much you agreed with his previous reviews. Its not that there is some unknown entity that simply grants qualifications in this sense, they have to be developed in order to exist. Perhaps you have never agreed with a single review he has produced. In that case, his qualifications are bunk, but only to you.

In order to determine competence, you have to build a set of qualifications. From my perspective this is exactly what you are doing when you read an anonymous comment and then choose to confirm it by researching the info presented and establishing a consensus. If an anonymous poster comments on a video, that comment is only useful until you've taken the time to confirm what was said. Put another way, if I posted some of my work online here on the escapist, the only comments I'm going to care about are the ones given by my colleagues, because the rest just aren't qualified. I could do the work to qualify them, by fact checking every single post, but that is likely not worth the effort.

 

[Roxas1359]

I find it funny that I went onto YouTube, and then I saw this video from PBG, ProJared, JonTron, and The Completionist about the comment section in general. Talk about a coincidence no? XD

 

[Atmos Duality]

How often it happens doesn't matter, just that it does happen. Knowing that something can happen, but believing it is unlikely to happen to you is an excellent way to have a totally preventable terrible day in the future.

Every second, it's possible for a meteorite to plummet to earth and ruin my day.
Yet, I don't worry about it because I don't let extraordinary exceptions define the norm.

I think our disagreement here is based on the use of qualification. To my mind Yahtzee's qualifications are his backlog of other reviews and writing. So your determination of his competence is completely predicated on your opinion of his backlog.

You changed subjects here, from you to me, mid rebuttal. So I'm just going to ask for some clarification.
As I read it here, to your mind, the only qualifier you offer is the quantity of material Yahtzee has produced and nothing else.

If that's the case, well, prepare yourself for disappointment or denial in the future when an expert proves unreliable.
Quantity isn't the same as quality.

That is to say, how much weight you give his reviews is determined by how much you agreed with his previous reviews. Its not that there is some unknown entity that simply grants qualifications in this sense, they have to be developed in order to exist. Perhaps you have never agreed with a single review he has produced. In that case, his qualifications are bunk, but only to you.

I cannot reasonably comment without clarification of the above except that I already understand how advocacy and the value of opinions.

In order to determine competence, you have to build a set of qualifications. From my perspective this is exactly what you are doing when you read an anonymous comment and then choose to confirm it by researching the info presented and establishing a consensus. If an anonymous poster comments on a video, that comment is only useful until you've taken the time to confirm what was said. Put another way, if I posted some of my work online here on the escapist, the only comments I'm going to care about are the ones given by my colleagues, because the rest just aren't qualified. I could do the work to qualify them, by fact checking every single post, but that is likely not worth the effort.

Fair enough. I don't fact check every single post.
But at the same time, I don't automatically dismiss every single post purely out of spite either.

EDIT:

Eh, I think I'm just going to cut it off here. Not to be rude, but I've lost interest in the conversation a little while ago and judging by your response its starting to show in the form of me not paying close enough attention to my responses. For what it's worth I understand your point, I just feel that it is overly optimistic in terms of the usefulness and trustworthiness of anonymous comments in general.

The value of information is in what you make of it. *shrugs*
All communication, whether it's from anonymous nobodies, accredited writers, Pulitzer prize winners or your own parents, all stems from some sort of trust. I get that some are obviously more trustworthy than others, but nothing is absolute.

Not even the highest standards can remove the ability to deceive or err from humanity.
It's why I trust good evidence above all else.

 

[Mad World]

You make some very valid points. Seeing as how this is not a non-profit website (I assume that you're correct in that), it doesn't seem right in having volunteer moderators.

I've always wondered how often moderators are paid. I used to frequent Bethesda's forums, and wondered if their mods were paid or not. And EA's forums (specifically, Battlefield's)... knowing EA, nope (found one example of a moderator on their Need For Speed forum, and they were not paid).

I was moderator at "mlparena" (My little pony collector's forum) for a while in 2009 and 2010, and they didn't pay back then. When they updated the site and got all pro they offered to pay, but I didn't live anywhere near their office. I forgot how much they payed though =S

Interesting. At least they ended up paying their moderators. I'd like a job like that (at least until I am ready to get into my real profession).

Wonder how much it was. I don't imagine it being anything considerable, but who knows?

 

[EvilRoy]

Snip

Eh, I think I'm just going to cut it off here. Not to be rude, but I've lost interest in the conversation a little while ago and judging by your response its starting to show in the form of me not paying close enough attention to my responses. For what it's worth I understand your point, I just feel that it is overly optimistic in terms of the usefulness and trustworthiness of anonymous comments in general.