People often wonder and ask, why would anybody click on the red arrow after a comment?
First, it could be a mistake.
Second, it could be a child or low intelligence person who is simply clicking on arrows or even a dog clicking all over the page, or a back pocket mis-call on a phone left on in somebody's pocket. Or it could be a troll, somebody who likes to disagree with others just to provoke emotion, excitement, reaction, attention, to feel important.
Sometimes a comment is so badly worded that you hardly know which half of the remark you are agreeing with. For example, a comment such as, 'The burglar should not have been in the house - but he did not deserve to die.' You might be racing down 200 comments clicking and start to read the comment and click on red or green to agree or disagree with the first half, before seeing the second half, or vice versa.
An article in a newspaper, about a news event, not a chat column. Maybe after a features article it would be reasonable to give your emotional reaction. People want to read your reaction same 'gosh - how awful, I'm depressed, so sorry'. Others think the place for that's a Facebook condolence page, not a newspaper.
Serious articles such as health reports attract useful comments by medical people. Murder appeals attract comment suggesting clues and motives. Stories of suicides attract useful comments on where to go for help such as the Samaritans in the UK and the US equivalent. I understand why judgemental types might red arrow people who clog up the comments pages with up to 450 repetitions of 'so sorry' until the newspaper moderators shut down the site because it takes too long to read and moderate, readers get bored, and useful comments and debates are pushed out by attention seekers describing their emotional reactions. Add News. Add emotional comments only if you need to balance for and against an opinion, not to fill up space in a NEWS paper.
First, it could be a mistake.
Second, it could be a child or low intelligence person who is simply clicking on arrows or even a dog clicking all over the page, or a back pocket mis-call on a phone left on in somebody's pocket. Or it could be a troll, somebody who likes to disagree with others just to provoke emotion, excitement, reaction, attention, to feel important.
Sometimes a comment is so badly worded that you hardly know which half of the remark you are agreeing with. For example, a comment such as, 'The burglar should not have been in the house - but he did not deserve to die.' You might be racing down 200 comments clicking and start to read the comment and click on red or green to agree or disagree with the first half, before seeing the second half, or vice versa.
An article in a newspaper, about a news event, not a chat column. Maybe after a features article it would be reasonable to give your emotional reaction. People want to read your reaction same 'gosh - how awful, I'm depressed, so sorry'. Others think the place for that's a Facebook condolence page, not a newspaper.
Serious articles such as health reports attract useful comments by medical people. Murder appeals attract comment suggesting clues and motives. Stories of suicides attract useful comments on where to go for help such as the Samaritans in the UK and the US equivalent. I understand why judgemental types might red arrow people who clog up the comments pages with up to 450 repetitions of 'so sorry' until the newspaper moderators shut down the site because it takes too long to read and moderate, readers get bored, and useful comments and debates are pushed out by attention seekers describing their emotional reactions. Add News. Add emotional comments only if you need to balance for and against an opinion, not to fill up space in a NEWS paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment