Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Steven Farnham, of Plainfield.
[G]iven it is the time of year for New Year’s resolutions, and various other commitments to positive change, I would like to respectfully request that the powers that be at VTDigger consider the following: To eliminate the thumbs-up/thumbs-down option to comments following articles, and replace it with a thumbs-up option only.
When thumbs-ups are added to comments, they add something constructive and communicative to the comment: “What he said,” “I agree,” “Aye, aye,” “Hear, hear,” and so on. When a comment is followed by a number of thumbs-ups, the reader needn’t guess the thumbers’ opinions, because it is stated in the “approved” comment.
But what use is a thumbs-down? It tells the reader nothing. Does the thumber disagree with one sentence, or the entire comment? Is the thumber someone whose philosophies embody a cogent argument against that provided by the commenter, or just some unthinking idiot who spurns all arguments supporting a given idea or politico, regardless of the care and accuracy with which the argument is constructed?
In a recent column by Jon Margolis, on the much-discussed Trump phenomenon, a commenter wrote, “Jon, So appreciate your columns! We are missing you and Sally here in St Johnsbury and hope you both are well!” As of my reading, this comment received thumbs-up: 6, thumbs-down: 14.
What is supposed to be communicated by the 14 thumbs-down? “I hate Jon and Sally?” “Jon is an idiot?” “The writer of the comment is a jerk for liking Jon and Sally?” When the sentiment expressed in a comment is so benign and kind, one can only guess what these 14 thumbs-downers are thinking, but I think it’s fair to conclude that it’s not particularly well thought out, nor is it at all constructive.
A thumbs-down is the written equivalent of kicking a sandcastle into the builder’s face, without having to identify yourself, nor explain your cruelty. It’s just plain mean, and does not belong in a medium of civil discourse.
Mind you, I’m no gushing fan of Jon Margolis. I find some of his commentaries to be elitist, and out of touch (especially some of those he directed against Bernie Sanders earlier in 2016). But that doesn’t mean he’s unlikeable, and it doesn’t mean he has (or deserves) no friends. To give a thumbs-down (never mind 14 of them) to a kind, generous comment, which the recipient likely deserves, and include no explanation(s), communicates nothing. It is the written equivalent of kicking a sandcastle into the builder’s face, without having to identify yourself, nor explain your cruelty. It’s just plain mean, and does not belong in a medium of civil discourse.
Back in November, no less a person than our state auditor, Doug Hoffer, chimed in agreement with my sentiment regarding the valuelessness of the thumbing option. Said Hoffer: “I am inclined to agree that the value of the Thumbs-Up/down is limited at best. Many people vote Thumbs-Down on purely factual posts. Makes you wonder.”
The meaninglessness and destructiveness of multiple thumbs-downs on one comment is raised by an order of magnitude when an entire string of comments is riddled with thumbs-downs: I have long lost count of Digger articles I’ve read which report on or comment on a given controversial topic, e.g., ridgeline wind. Following the article will be multiple comments more or less aligned around some theme. These comments will enjoy an aggregate of say 50 thumbs-ups, and hundreds of thumbs-downs. Same problem — what good are the thumbs-downs? It might be the same group prowling every article on this topic. Or every article by this author. Or every article commented on by this individual or group of individuals. Or every article that expresses a certain conservative or progressive view. Or … ?
About all we know is that the thumbed-down material is highly unpopular among a self-selected group, who choose to communicate absolutely nothing useful.
By eliminating the thumbs-down option, we’re not eliminating the option to disagree or criticize, we’re just requiring that negative feedback be communication, not mere rejection with impunity. Thus, we understand what about an article or comment may be offensive, or erroneous. By keeping the thumbs-up option, it is easy to tally those who agree with existing, clearly expressed sentiment — positive or negative. Eliminating the thumbs-down option will require dissenters to select existing comments to agree with, or, compose their own clearly expressed sentiment explaining their criticism.
I suppose someone could write, “The author is an idiot,” and 135 people could give that a thumbs-up. But most of us realize that such says more about the commenter(s) than the commented material. Moreover, such comments are precluded by Digger policy, so the comment would need, at least, to be adjusted to “This article is idiotic.” Even that may not pass muster with Digger’s screeners, and it still says more of the commenter than of the commented.
The point here is, even if it is criticism, to ensure that added material is informative, and constructive, and to own up to what you express. Keep the thumbs-up option, and eliminate the thumbs-down option. This change is long overdue, and I strongly encourage Digger to adopt it as soon as possible.
Thank you for running a great service to our community, and Happy New Year to all the Diggers!
Cheers!
