Popular Science online shutting down its comment section

[GDS_Starfury]

because it burns when wet and it is hot enough for long enough that it will start wet twigs

kinda like a certain Canadians GF.  ;)

[Windigo]

because it burns when wet and it is hot enough for long enough that it will start wet twigs

kinda like a certain Canadians GF.  ;)

terrible metaphor but yeah

[LongBlade]

Meh. This isn't about science. It's about crowd control.

Popsci made the right call.

[Bison]

I don't know if they made the right call or not; it really doesn't matter to me.  But it's Popular Science for crying out loud.  How unruly can it possibly get? 

[GDS_Starfury]

as unruly as the internet allows.

ie  a bunch of stupid fucktards.

[Windigo]

as unruly as the internet allows.

ie  a bunch of stupid fucktards.

egged on by their oversexed Jewish overlord living in south beach I figure     :o

[GDS_Starfury]

dont I wish.

[Windigo]

dont I wish.

just need to start looking for minions tomorrow....

[airboy]

There is a fatal flaw in the reason that Popular Science gave for eliminating the comments section.  People who read the articles do not necessarily read the comments section.

The percentage of people who read the comments is probably tiny compared to the number who read the article.  I know the data on those who look at a magazine vs. those who look at the ad within the magazine; and the people who see a website and actually read a banner ad (which are both reasonable comparisons).  The read the magazine/read the ad and the view the website/view the banner ad are both tiny (around 4% and about 1% in terms of free recall).

My guess is that Popular Science just did not want to deal with comment sections any longer - so they banned them.  My guess is also that some of their more thin skinned writers also did not want to read the comments.

Poor babies.  I have little sympathy.

[LongBlade]

There is a fatal flaw in the reason that Popular Science gave for eliminating the comments section.  People who read the articles do not necessarily read the comments section.

The percentage of people who read the comments is probably tiny compared to the number who read the article.  I know the data on those who look at a magazine vs. those who look at the ad within the magazine; and the people who see a website and actually read a banner ad (which are both reasonable comparisons).  The read the magazine/read the ad and the view the website/view the banner ad are both tiny (around 4% and about 1% in terms of free recall).

My guess is that Popular Science just did not want to deal with comment sections any longer - so they banned them.  My guess is also that some of their more thin skinned writers also did not want to read the comments.

Poor babies.  I have little sympathy.

LOL

[Windigo]

There is a fatal flaw in the reason that Popular Science gave for eliminating the comments section.  People who read the articles do not necessarily read the comments section.

The percentage of people who read the comments is probably tiny compared to the number who read the article.  I know the data on those who look at a magazine vs. those who look at the ad within the magazine; and the people who see a website and actually read a banner ad (which are both reasonable comparisons).  The read the magazine/read the ad and the view the website/view the banner ad are both tiny (around 4% and about 1% in terms of free recall).

My guess is that Popular Science just did not want to deal with comment sections any longer - so they banned them.  My guess is also that some of their more thin skinned writers also did not want to read the comments.

Poor babies.  I have little sympathy.

thin skin is a bad characteristic to have on the interwebz

[GDS_Starfury]

isnt it now.  :P

[Windigo]

isnt it now.  :P

you're male & Jewish... what the hell would you know about thin skin^... yours was removed shortly after birth....   *double  :P  *