1. "There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it". Top comment: jacqquesm. Character: sceptical ("Nano machinery is real, it exists, it powers the world, it's called biology.")
2. How to minimize politics in your company. Top comment: abalashov. Character: critically supportive ("There are certain problems [...] that simply cannot be solved or mitigated entirely"; "A few points to add:")
3. Rapid prototyping as a burnout antidote. Top comment: riffer (but admittedly only 16 minutes ago). Character: supportive ("Yes, this really works...")
4. Apple seeking to patent spyware. Top comment: ubernostrum. Character: "sceptical" ("vicious lying stinking reeking bullshit FUD")
5. HTML5 presentation. Top comment: sofuture. Character: meta-sceptical ("I don't have a better answer, and I'm not even saying HTML5 is the wrong path, just pondering!")
That's 2 out of 5 which are basically in support of the article, 2 out of 5 which are sceptical of the article, and one (the HTML 5 presentation) which doesn't address the article so much as address a trend which the article exemplifies.
Given that giving a sceptical response is much easier than giving a vote-worthy non-sceptical response (the latter requires specific domain knowledge, the former doesn't, necessarily), I think that's a pretty good ratio.
It's not just that giving a voteworthy supportive response requires domain knowledge — you also need something to add to the original article. I've seen lots of good articles on topics I know about, but usually I'll just upvote rather than comment because the original article did a fine job by itself. If I do comment, a lot of the time it will just be a minor clarification or tangential thought rather than something that merits a lot of upvotes.
Skepticism, on the other hand, is automatically something meaningful you can add.
Comments
I took your challenge. The top 5 posts, in order:
1. "There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it". Top comment: jacqquesm. Character: sceptical ("Nano machinery is real, it exists, it powers the world, it's called biology.")
2. How to minimize politics in your company. Top comment: abalashov. Character: critically supportive ("There are certain problems [...] that simply cannot be solved or mitigated entirely"; "A few points to add:")
3. Rapid prototyping as a burnout antidote. Top comment: riffer (but admittedly only 16 minutes ago). Character: supportive ("Yes, this really works...")
4. Apple seeking to patent spyware. Top comment: ubernostrum. Character: "sceptical" ("vicious lying stinking reeking bullshit FUD")
5. HTML5 presentation. Top comment: sofuture. Character: meta-sceptical ("I don't have a better answer, and I'm not even saying HTML5 is the wrong path, just pondering!")
That's 2 out of 5 which are basically in support of the article, 2 out of 5 which are sceptical of the article, and one (the HTML 5 presentation) which doesn't address the article so much as address a trend which the article exemplifies.
Given that giving a sceptical response is much easier than giving a vote-worthy non-sceptical response (the latter requires specific domain knowledge, the former doesn't, necessarily), I think that's a pretty good ratio.
Sorry for the sceptical response. :)
It's not just that giving a voteworthy supportive response requires domain knowledge — you also need something to add to the original article. I've seen lots of good articles on topics I know about, but usually I'll just upvote rather than comment because the original article did a fine job by itself. If I do comment, a lot of the time it will just be a minor clarification or tangential thought rather than something that merits a lot of upvotes.
Skepticism, on the other hand, is automatically something meaningful you can add.