Comment, Comment on the Wall, Are You Community or Not at All

One of the coolest things about posting at Freakonomics is the chance to be educated by your high-quality comments, which add to our posts and sometimes correct our mistakes.

But to be honest, every once in a while I have been depressed by the harsh general tone of criticism. (For example, the comments here got me down. To be specific, it’s not that commenters sometimes disagree with a post; it’s that they claim that the post is insufficiently related to Freakonomics-type thinking.)

Peter Ubel suggested that some of these comments may be the byproduct of Google Alerts and not come from regular readers of this blog. In an earlier post, I made a mistake in describing how often the open-source statistical software, R, is updated, and dozens of knowledgeable R users appropriately corrected me. I’m betting that most of these comments came from Google Alerts (plus indirect links on message boards). The Google Alerts comments are real comments, and as this example shows, they are often helpful comments.

For some reason, it eases my mind to think that some of my flaming may come from Google Alerts instead of from regular readers of this blog.

It might be interesting to have a public signal about whether the comment was based on an alert or not. An indirect signal would be for Google to create an “Alert Trends” feature. Alert Trends would allow you to find out how many people had signed up for Alerts on particular character combinations (just like the existing Trends feature lets you know how many people have searched for a particular character combination).

Using this feature, bloggers could figure out how many alerts a particular post generates. Knowing this might improve distort this marketplace of ideas as authors goose their language to increase their Google Alert readership.

Google Alerts is also a great substitute for email, at least for the thousands of academics, journalists, and webheads who have alerts on their own names. Quasi-famous people who might not have time to read your email might read a Google Alert post that includes their name. To wit:

Hi John Dickerson,

I really loved your Slate article on Obama‘s donor database. It would be incredibly non-burdensome for the Obama webheads to disclose the three million donors that gave less than $200.

It’s better than even money that, thanks to Google Alerts, John will read these words.


I think Google Alerts can be both annoying and really helpful. I can't count the amount of times I've been in a situation of adding, deleting, adding and deleting the same Google Alert.

On the comments, I think some people are probably looking for some sort of attention in clearly a very popular - like an ad trying to break through the wall of advertising monotony. Whether they're Google Alerts people or not. So they make harsh comments.

I've also come to learn that people develop a high sense of loyalty to the subject matter of specialist blogs. Similar to the way a reader becomes loyal to novel style as the plot and characters develop. Challenge that and they get upset. Maybe, your ability to think outside the box worried and offended their sensitive natures.

That may be another reason. Of course, they may just be the type of people to find any reason to bring someone down.

Who knows. Try not to let it get to you though - this is a great blog with many many fans the world over. Consider a compliment, instead, that they choose to challenge and interact with you.

My blog comment count for today is ... 0. :)


Howard Tayler

I manage several communities and discussion areas for the comic strip I pay my bills with, and regardless of where the commenters come from, I get depressed by flame-wars in the group.

This is a risk any online community runs regardless of the subject matter, and regardless of where the commenters are coming from. True, those who are blog regulars are more likely to be civil, but attracting regulars means opening comments to the population at large, and that means there will be trolls at the gate.

I see the solution coming from the evolution of our socialization online. We will, over time, grow up.


One of the tricky issues with blogs is that if they are somewhat focused (around the aspects of economics from the Freakonomics book in this case), people expect them to stay within that. Readers often become the force that keeps a blog within its focus area by critique. I note that Nate Silver had that happen to him over at
So, your wedding ring posting came across as purely political rather tying politics to economics. The funny thing about economics is that it connects to almost everything (including politics, social issues, etc). If your post had been on less people buying wedding rings because of lack of Gay marriages, no one could claim it was outside the bounds of the blog. Whether they agreed or disagreed would not matter.
As to Google Alerts, I agree that it affects who reads a posting, although the cost of registering before you can comment normally prevents too many extra comments in general.
As to the R language issue, I think a lot of R users would read the blog since R is used by economists, statistical psychologists, statisticians, and others.



well Ian, I think I was the first one to suggest I don't understand how your pro-gay-marriage postings fit into the Freakonomics void. I guess almost all issues can fit into a cost/benefit analysis, but when your posts seem to be a broken record on the same topic I see it less as you creating discussion or analysis and more of a propaganda for your beliefs.

And no, I don't use Google Alerts.

p.s. I went back and read all those posts - I think any kind of discussion on this matter should begin on "what are the foundation of beliefs for both sides" and based on that why do people support what they do? I have yet to find a gay marriage supporter who will acknowledge that my views are shaped by my foundation of beliefs - not bigotry - and I have as much right to hold my foundation of beliefs as you do to yours. And I will acknowledge that if I didn't believe in a premortal life where we were created by God and where gender was an essential characteristic and part of an eternal plan for us to return to live with Him (as families) again -- I would agree with you 100%, I really see where y'all are coming from, but I don't agree with it.

Any discussion that you begin without acknowledging those things is pointless at best.


Roy Huggins

I recall that post and the nasty comments about "liberal guilt" that came with it. As a fellow married man who supports the cause of justice in America, I think your gesture -- not wearing your wedding ring in support of same-sex couples that were legally prohibited from marrying -- was both appropriate and useful.

I appreciated it even though I didn't post. Perhaps I should have? It seems that people in agreement are often silent when they need to be noisy.


There are several sources for flames and harsh comments, among them:

1. Internet history. For those of us who were around before the web became populist, the standard tone of discussion was often harsh. That was part machismo, part because the knowledgeable reacted with fury toward the newbies and the crackpots (who used to post with great frequency in academic lists), and for many other reasons. That history lives.
2. Harshness can have value. As opposed to flames, a poke that a post is "idiotic" is a reminder this is a different form of peer-review and that one should be both prodded from time to time and prepared to defend one's ideas in a free-for-all. Academia was often like that in the past, and the House of Commons and other Parliaments still at times are.
3. The "Doofus Quotient." That's my term for the people who write "first post" on slashdot like life is a video game and that helps then on a quest in virtual reality.
4. "Drive-bys." In one discussion group I'm involved with if something negative reaches the headlines then we get drive-by posters who want to chime in. The problem isn't that they post but that they are usually nasty, even to the crackpot end of the scale.
5. What old net users might call the "Sick World Syndrome." It's a sick world, full of hatred and misshapen minds. There's a lot of anger and a ton of that is ignorant and prejudiced.

My recommendation for improvement is the same as for improving financial performance, voting for the best movie Oscar, etc.: de-couple them in time.

If we voted on Oscars for the best picture of 5 years ago, how often would that be the same as the winner for the current year? (I'm saying in that case, it would be great to have a new category, for the best films as seen as time passes, because I can't imagine we'll give up current voting.) Imagine how different the financial mess would look if bonuses were paid based on the performance of a deal over and after 5 years instead of at the artificial end of the current quarter or year? Same with posting. If you allow cookies, as you must, then you could prevent posting on the first visit to an article - first session, too, to prevent refreshes. A requirement to "come back again to post" would be a think about it opportunity. You could also, for certain material, track if the person clicked the provided link, though you wouldn't know if they actually read the stuff.



Kristine @4, it is not about your beliefs. You are allowed to believe what you want. But, public policy is about something more. The 1st problem you have is that you think marriage is a religious thing; it is not. Marriage is a legal contract related to property and rights. The fact that religions are allowed to perform marriage ceremonies (as are clerks, sea captains, etc), does not make it yours in any way. Your religion perhaps also did not believe in marriage between two races 40 years ago, did that make it right? In other countries, your religion has tried to stop others practicing different religions, does that make it right?
Ian's point was never about your beliefs, but about what is legal and about equal protection under the law. We have a separation between Church and State in the US for this very reason.


I have no comments on Google Alerts, but since you bring up the gay marriage question:

I think the dialogue has missed the real issue. The question is why the government has a role in certifying marriage. Then, once we understand the public policy purpose of marriage, then we can discuss how it may or may not apply to nonstandard couples.

For example, marriage may simply be a mechanism that allows people to contract a value increasing division of labor. If so, then it should have nothing to do with love or sex - simply two (or more?) people who enter into a long term agreement that is costly to break up.

If that's the case, we can title it something else "registered domestic partnership" and leave marriage for religious or social but not legal use.

Alternatively, marriage may have something to do with social policy. In other words, my marriage has externalities that affects my neighbors well being. Then one could argue that the makeup of a couple does matter.

I'm not saying which is right or wrong. I'm simply saying that the question should not be "should we allow gay marriage?" Instead it should be "why do we as a society care about marriage at all?"



The comments are one of my favorite things about this blog. I don't always agree with what people say, but the level of knowledge and tone of conversation are awesome. It's probably not much comfort, but the flame wars here aren't nearly as off-putting to me as those on other blogs.

Although the post on wedding rings was acrimonious, it never hit the level that I stopped reading. There are some academic blogs that I won't click through from my rss aggregator because of the comments - there was one that conflated homosexuality and child abuse.

My only real complaint about the comments is that when I hit tab from inside the window it takes me to the top of the page instead of the submit button. And that's pretty minor.


Hot button issues seem to bring out some people who don't seem to be regulars... In the wake of Prop 8, gay marriage is about as hot button as they get.



If it's any consolation, I thought your article was one of the best I've read all year on the Freakonomics blog.

A proud reader


Just wanted to chime in that I really like the posts from you and Justin Wolfers.

Dubner's been okay lately, but Levitt seems to be short on time. His posts tend toward random weblinks these days rather than the economics speculation and news (especially when it's not about macroeconomics) I like to find when I come to Freakonomics.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Jim Goulding

Jonathon is soooo correct!
"4. "Drive-bys." In one discussion group I'm involved with if something negative reaches the headlines then we get drive-by posters who want to chime in. The problem isn't that they post but that they are usually nasty, even to the crackpot end of the scale."

I'll betchya drive-bys are 95% of harsh criticism. For some reason this seems to relieve people of their anger. Basically, they're dumping on you. don't deserve it.

hang in there,


Mr. Ayres,
I am a daily reader of this blog, and consider it among the best on the Internet. I am also of the mind that the majority of your posts don't belong here. At your best, you focus on things only tangentially related to freakonomics-type thinking. At your worst, your opinions are downright contrary to that school of thought. I would count your gay marriage post solidly among the latter.

I happen to be pro-gay marriage myself, but I don't come here to read about it. My humble suggestion would be to start your own blog, which like-minded readers can patronize if they so choose.

Bobby G

I agree with Hilary.

The comments here are just about as important to me as the subject matter itself. I also have a couple gripes regarding the infrastructure of the page: I wish there was a search function within comments; I wish we could go back to the days before we had 25 comments per page (so we could manually search if no search function existed), but I deal.

Hopefully Ian you can tell who your true frequenters are and who isn't. I recognize several names/aliases that tend to read and post on the same articles that I do, and it's definitely true that there is at least a community developing on my very micro scale. There is no better place that I've found to have quick, interesting, unconventional, but economically-based discussions with a generally politically mixed crowd (although I tend to feel that there are more conservatives like me these days... not surprisingly). Not to brown nose but several of my favorite articles of the blog have been yours. Most recently the dollar auction article about spawned discussion and conversation between me and my co workers for about a week, and caused me to write a blog post of my own.

Flamers come and go. If someone flames and is gonna stick around to make sure their opinion counts, they're going to have to defend it... with enough discussion they might even be assimilated into the community itself! Ultimately though you shouldn't worry. You've got a pretty strong community from what I've seen and it'll take a lot for us to abandon something we enjoy.


Joe Smith

Mr. Ayres

With all due respect: politics has never been a subject for calm and reasoned debate - the game does not get played that way by any faction. Partly that is a result of the fact that a lot of political disagreement reflects a differences in views as to the underlying facts. Without a common set of axioms, there can be no reasoned debate.

When you post on a subject as politically explosive as gay marriage you should be neither surprised nor disappointed if some of the comments are a bit (ahem) forceful.

If you walked into a biker bar, climbed on a table and shouted: "you're all sissies", would you be surprised if someone bounced a beer bottle off your head? Same goes for a blog post. If you start trying to pick fights (which your blog post about gay marriage did) don't be surprised when the metaphorical beer bottles start flying.

I'm not trying to deny the problems created by flame wars. I used to post comments over at PatentlyO (an excellent blog) but my point of view was so unpopular with some regulars that any post by me automatically triggered flame responses. I stopped posting there.



A natural by-product of posting on the internet is getting "flamed." You either needs to accept that or turn off the ability to comment.

As a whole, however, the comments on this site seem much more civilized than anywhere else I frequent.


I'm not sure there's a whole lot of value in trending Google Alerts against comment, ah, venom. My guess is you'd have difficulty nailing anything down, particularly since the ecosystem in which this blog resides is incredibly complex and ever-changing.

There is no -- at least none that I can see -- one-to-one comparison of any two posts on this blog. Consider these factors:

-Some Freakonomics posts appear on the NYT home page, others do not.
-There are a number of ways to consume this content (Google Alerts being one, but also RSS, syndication -- both regular and irregular -- on other sites, and so forth)
-Subject matter

The best you might be able to do is study posts with comments mostly from frequent visitors against posts in which the comments are mostly newcomers. Even this is an imperfect model, as the NYT doesn't require a login for commenting, and exercises the option to delete comments. Still, you might try this out first, operating under the assumption that frequenters are either direct hits or subscribers and irregulars are the Google Alert types.

As a Web analytics geek, I think it would be interesting to trend Google Alert or irregular visitations against the tone of comments, but (as a web analytics geek, heh) I would warn against taking that experiment too far.


Allan C. Ecker

I find my knee jerking up into the table with a hearty "OMG INCENTIVIZE!!!"

This ~is~ the Freakonomics blog, after all.

But how do you do it? Unfortunately it'd require a registration system, since the only available resource for incentives is posting privilege itself, but here's my suggestion:

Everyone registers and gets some number of "posting credits". One spends them to post, is awarded them for good behavior, penalized as well, and so on.

There are likely some really interesting economics problems to solve to get posters to act the way one wants, but some websites are already using them and Freakonomics using them just seems like a natural fit.

Deb Morrissey

I liked the article, and agreed with it's stance, but I don't think the Freakonomics blog was the right place for it to be posted. I am a regular reader of the blog, and I do expect its topics to be economics related, like additonal (short) chapters to the book. I have been annoyed in the past by other articles suck as the highly annoying "bleg" posts, which I have finally set my RSS reader to filter out, along with the "Indexed:" posts.