4 ms·

Where is the proof that "real names = better quality." That argument gets paraded everywhere but I've yet to see an actual study or proof of this.

shawnz 13y ago
So does that mean Google should not even experiment with the idea, just because nobody else has published data about it yet? Why does there need to be "proof"? It is Google's choice, just like it is your choice to use Google products.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  I'm not saying they shouldn't "experiment" - experiment all they want. It's when they parade out the idea that "real names = better quality" as the reason for a change - without citing it. Especially since it's such a cross-product change that effects literally every single one of their products.
- Zecc 13y ago
  I don't remember ever choosing to use G+.
  - shawnz 13y ago
    I never said anything about choosing to use G+. You choose to use comments on youtube, and one of the consequences of that choice is that you must have a G+ page.
jlees 13y ago
Here's a recent paper: "Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion" by Ian Rowe of the University of Kent. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/Rowe_Civility_2%200_EPOPpdf.pdf http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/Rowe_Ci...
- vdaniuk 13y ago
  Thanks for posting a first bit of data in this "personal anecdote about some bad Google product UX" trumps everything else thread.
- im3w1l 13y ago
  “an easy fix - anyone receiving welfare should not be allowed to vote anyway they are effectively children that simple change would shave about 40million off the voting rolls where they have no right to be anyway.” “Many revolutions start with one small spark, President Obama has set this one off with his presser with the children and his use of the executive orders. The question is, is this the revolution that he had in mind? Time will tell.” These are examples of comments the authors count as uncivil. They advocate for using real names so that people will not (dare?) post such things. I am of the contrary opinion. I think it is important that such opinions are posted and debated. The criteria they used: "A three item index was developed to determine whether or not online comments violated standards of democratic discourse as defined above. If a comment 1) verbalized a threat to democracy (e.g. proposed to overthrow a democratic government by force), 2) assigned stereotypes (e.g. associate person with a group using labels), or 3) threatened other individuals’ rights (e.g. personal freedom, freedom to speak), it was coded as uncivil and the type of incivility was noted." They also, separately studied impoliteness, which I assume we can all be in favour of. Interestingly, they found civility increased, while impoliteness did not "However, unlike incivility, both [anonymous] Website and Facebook comments contained a similar amount of impoliteness." Thus I would argue that the conclusion would be that using real names lowers the quality of debate.

shawnz 13y ago

So does that mean Google should not even experiment with the idea, just because nobody else has published data about it yet? Why does there need to be "proof"? It is Google's choice, just like it is your choice to use Google products.

joelrunyon 13y ago
I'm not saying they shouldn't "experiment" - experiment all they want. It's when they parade out the idea that "real names = better quality" as the reason for a change - without citing it. Especially since it's such a cross-product change that effects literally every single one of their products.
Zecc 13y ago
I don't remember ever choosing to use G+.
- shawnz 13y ago
  I never said anything about choosing to use G+. You choose to use comments on youtube, and one of the consequences of that choice is that you must have a G+ page.

jlees 13y ago

Here's a recent paper: "Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion" by Ian Rowe of the University of Kent. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/Rowe_Civility_2%200_EPOPpdf.pdf http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/events/epop2013/docs/Rowe_Ci...

vdaniuk 13y ago
Thanks for posting a first bit of data in this "personal anecdote about some bad Google product UX" trumps everything else thread.
im3w1l 13y ago
“an easy fix - anyone receiving welfare should not be allowed to vote anyway they are effectively children that simple change would shave about 40million off the voting rolls where they have no right to be anyway.” “Many revolutions start with one small spark, President Obama has set this one off with his presser with the children and his use of the executive orders. The question is, is this the revolution that he had in mind? Time will tell.” These are examples of comments the authors count as uncivil. They advocate for using real names so that people will not (dare?) post such things. I am of the contrary opinion. I think it is important that such opinions are posted and debated. The criteria they used: "A three item index was developed to determine whether or not online comments violated standards of democratic discourse as defined above. If a comment 1) verbalized a threat to democracy (e.g. proposed to overthrow a democratic government by force), 2) assigned stereotypes (e.g. associate person with a group using labels), or 3) threatened other individuals’ rights (e.g. personal freedom, freedom to speak), it was coded as uncivil and the type of incivility was noted." They also, separately studied impoliteness, which I assume we can all be in favour of. Interestingly, they found civility increased, while impoliteness did not "However, unlike incivility, both [anonymous] Website and Facebook comments contained a similar amount of impoliteness." Thus I would argue that the conclusion would be that using real names lowers the quality of debate.