# Rethinking Online Commenting: From Questions to Etiquette
Written on
Chapter 1: The Dual Nature of Online Comments
As is common among internet users, I have a complicated relationship with online comments. At times, I appreciate how comment sections can foster community connections through shared experiences and interaction. Conversely, I also recognize that these spaces can harbor negative sentiments and ideologies prevalent in our society. Consequently, a significant portion of my research delves into distinguishing constructive comments from unproductive ones, aiming to reshape our perception of comment sections from a notorious part of the internet to an essential aspect of the online experience.
In my role as an educator, I uphold the belief that there are no foolish questions; however, I do encounter numerous unhelpful comments—many of which are essentially questions. Instead of utilizing search engines like Google or Yahoo for information, I often observe social media users turning to other users' insights in comment sections. In an age rife with misinformation, this reliance can have detrimental effects on users.
This is an opportune moment to critically assess the types of comments we encounter online, what they reveal about individual users, and how the design of social media platforms encourages specific behaviors. By voicing my concerns regarding online comments, I hope to initiate a conversation about developing a more mindful approach to commenting and engaging online.
Section 1.1: Understanding Taxonomy and Folksonomy
There's a notable difference between folksonomy and taxonomy in the realm of social media research. Folksonomy refers to how tagging and web indexing help categorize online content, often overlapping with metadata—essentially data about data. In contrast, taxonomy pertains to the scientific classification and organization of content or objects.
Online comments straddle the line between taxonomy and folksonomy, as more users are creating categories to classify various comments. While some of my categorization methods arise from user input, I present a humorous take on the common types of comments I frequently encounter and how I mentally classify them.
Subsection 1.1.1: Not a Comment, But a Question
Despite my understanding of the Digital Divide and the diverse devices people use to access the internet, I hesitate to make sweeping generalizations about users' online capabilities. Nonetheless, it baffles me how often I stumble upon comments that are mere questions—queries that could easily be resolved through a quick Google search.
These inquiries perplex me, as comments should serve as a medium for asynchronous communication. Unlike direct messages, the conversation in comment sections is not immediate. It seems logical to direct questions to a search engine rather than the comment space, yet I encounter this type of comment in nearly every section I analyze.
Section 1.2: It's in the Syllabus
Building on the trend of questions in comments, I typically identify two categories: general inquiries that could be resolved with a quick search and specific questions best answered by the content creator. Comments labeled "It's in the Syllabus" fall into the latter group. Many of these specific questions relate to information explicitly outlined in the content description or on the content creator's platform.
Content creators, much like teachers, often design their material to anticipate common inquiries through detailed captions and tags. Despite this effort, there are always a few commenters who pose questions clearly addressed in the content or available elsewhere. Understanding why these redundant comments persist from multiple users remains a conundrum that I will ponder indefinitely.
Chapter 2: The Repetition and Phantom Comments
The first video, This Is More A Comment Than A Question, discusses the dynamics of online discourse and highlights the pitfalls of miscommunication in comment sections.
The second video, Comments vs Questions, elaborates on the distinction between meaningful engagement and mere inquiries in digital discussions.
As I analyze comment sections on platforms like YouTube, I notice a fascinating phenomenon: users frequently echo specific phrases or sentiments. While this repetition can foster a sense of community when expressing shared feelings, it can also stem from a failure to engage with existing comments.
The act of not "reading the room" contributes to this issue, as many questions have already been answered in the comment section. Users often comment without first reviewing what others have said, leading to a proliferation of identical inquiries and statements that clutter the discourse. This redundancy can be frustrating from a research perspective, as it diminishes the richness of the dialogue and skews the perception of comment sections as spaces for genuine conversation.
Another curious occurrence linked to this lack of engagement is what I refer to as "the phantom comment." This term describes a comment that doesn't exist but is instead a projection of what users assume others might say. Such comments often arise in discussions surrounding social justice issues, where users preemptively react to perceived criticism that isn't actually present.
The phantom comment phenomenon can create unnecessary conflict within online communities, as users react defensively to imagined backlash. While preemptive action can be beneficial, this approach can lead to unwarranted tensions that the commenters aim to avoid.
Lastly, the rise of the "internet expert" complicates the landscape of online comments. The anonymity of the internet allows anyone to claim expertise, which can dilute the credibility of genuine experts. I often see users presenting themselves as authorities on various topics, regardless of their actual qualifications. This trend not only undermines meaningful discourse but also blurs the line between valid expertise and mere opinion, making it harder for accurate information to emerge.
The Etiquette and Affordances of Online Commenting
Through my examination of online comments and the repetitive nature of certain types, I suspect that a general lack of internet etiquette underpins these behaviors. In the early days of the internet, users seemed to possess a more intuitive understanding of online norms and practices, which has since diminished.
Today, many users engage with platforms without a thorough grasp of their affordances and expectations. For example, TikTok does not display timestamps on videos, meaning that comments made on the For You Page may not reference the most recent content. Understanding this nuance is crucial for commenting effectively on TikTok compared to platforms like Twitter, where immediacy is key.
Unfortunately, users often attempt to apply norms from previous platforms to new ones, which can lead to miscommunication. Initially, I believed these etiquette breaches were generational; however, my research on TikTok reveals that even younger users can fall into these traps, highlighting that everyone is still learning how to navigate the digital landscape.
Perhaps, with time, users will become more adept at commenting productively, leading to more enriching online interactions. Until then, I hope that raising awareness about these comment types will encourage us to reflect on the norms of user engagement that persist across platforms.