The troll wandered into the virtual world, hiding behind fake names and diverting innocent discussions to dark places. But in our age, surfers are more attracted to vinegar than honey
Keren Maron Galileo
The troll we know from the legends and stories is an ugly demon that lives under the bridge and makes the life of every person who wants to cross bitter. With the beginning of the digital age, the troll moved to the Internet, and instead of hiding under bridges, he hides behind fake names.
However, the purpose of the troll has not improved with technology - internet trolling hurts and disturbs surfers, sows ugly comments in online forums and diverts innocent discussions to dark places. (It is enough to look at the list of talkbacks on a common news site to despair of the future of humanity...).
Now, a group of researchers from Great Britain, Poland and Slovenia show that not only the trolls are responsible for the sometimes disgusting verbal nature of the Internet - the blame is also on us, the "good" surfers. It turns out that surfers are attracted to discussions of a negative nature and show more involvement in them, while when positive or sympathetic things are presented, surfers get bored and ignore them.
Love less? Bottle more
In two studies, the scientists analyzed the level of activity of surfers in public forums in relation to the types of emotions to which they were exposed. For this purpose, they analyzed the activity of forum participants on the BBC website and of users on digg.com, a website where surfers share links to news on the Internet and other users respond.
To analyze the types of emotions expressed by users in forums and discussions, the researchers developed a text analysis algorithm. The software "learned" to recognize whether a text was of a negative, positive or neutral nature based on texts that humans had classified, and then applied the knowledge it acquired to classify new texts.
The researchers found that if a discussion is long (meaning it contains many responses) the chance that it is of a negative nature is much higher than the chance that it is positive or neutral. On top of that, the level of negativity of a discussion increases the longer it lasts (in terms of the number of responses). Conclusion: Those who wish to provoke a discussion and preserve it, it is better not to say something too nice. Also, the researchers discovered that users with a more negative point of view used to post more comments on websites.
These results will probably not surprise the owners of blogs and internet content sites, who have long ago discovered that it is possible to attract more clicks (and therefore advertising revenue) with vinegar than with honey, and write accordingly.
There is, of course, a way to stop the trend of negativity - stop "feeding the trolls" and refuse to click, and on the other hand support positive statements. But who are we working for? Legends and research alike show that it is not the troll who approaches us, but we approach the troll. He has something we want, and we won't stop until we get it.
Karen Maron is a science reporter and editor
The full article was published in Galileo magazine, February 2011
29 תגובות
Stupid research nonsense
Trolls can completely destroy communities of forums where a community actually exists or incite in addresses in talkbacks to all kinds of illegitimate opinions indirectly with sock puppets.
People are drawn to heated discussions. Maybe. But not for trolls.
It seems to me that this study was conducted by 2 geeks whose hobby is being trolls.
?
Right…
Just be clear:
David (22) is lying.
Tuttov the Dwarf:
The meaning of the term "negativity" by which the author means was defined at the beginning of her words:
"The Internet troll hurts and disturbs surfers, sows ugly comments in online forums and diverts innocent discussions to dark places. "
Therefore there is no justification for your comment.
"It turns out that surfers are attracted to discussions of a negative nature and show more involvement in them, while when positive or sympathetic things are presented, surfers get bored and ignore them."
Negativity is in the eyes of the writer, it is likely that in the eyes of those who write things of a "negative nature" they think the opposite, and in their eyes it is positive, all in all it is people's opinions.
I may see something that is negative to you but to me it will be positive and vice versa.
And obviously when you see that someone writes something you agree with, you don't have too much to comment on, you already agree with him and don't feel the need to answer him, because there is an understanding..
In my opinion, a troll has a different definition, he comes more to harass and anger people than to show his "negative" opinions.
22 – lol – did you tape it?
The censorship's sickle made a harvest in the responses - lol - now all that's missing is the hammer and the crowbar...
Yehuda:
do what you want.
If you didn't understand - you probably won't understand.
In your opinion, the commenters should be rated differently (ie - those who "hurt and disturb surfers, sow ugly comments in online forums and divert innocent discussions to dark places." should not be rated as "bad" or as a troll).
so be it. That explains a lot of things.
In your opinion, the question that the author did not address (are the things in line with the consensus) should be considered to rank the commenters - but then - one must not say that these are good and those are bad - that is - it is not clear in what sense this should be considered and in what sense it is a ranking.
so be it. This "logic" also explains many things.
Tired of all you trolls!!!!
to M
The writer said what she said and I said that in my opinion she is not ranking the commenters as I think they should be ranked.
Am I allowed to think like that, or do you not allow me?
So maybe tell me what I'm allowed to think so I can respond next time?
I will thank you very much for that.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Bonnie: Hug, I suggest that everyone stand in a circle and everyone sniffs the ass of the person standing in front of them.
Donny: I didn't understand, if clockwise or counter-clockwise?
Yehuda:
I don't understand why I have to repeat the article in the comment.
The article defined what a troll is:
"The Internet troll hurts and disturbs surfers, sows ugly comments in online forums and diverts innocent discussions to dark places. (It is enough to look at the list of talkbacks on a common news site to despair of the future of humanity)."
It's something I guess you'll agree is bad and not good.
Do you not agree?
Do you think it's good to disturb surfers, sow ugly comments and divert the discussion to dark places?
That's why the article didn't just make a division, but a division that I think even you accept. It was not division for division's sake.
After you complained about a division that you agree with and claimed that you do not agree with - you make claims as follows:
"It is not fair that those who do not agree with the rule, to define them as bad as trolls, as vinegar and to define all the others as good, the honey."
Do you understand?
You invent yourself the concepts of good and bad that the article seemed to use even though it didn't at all - and then you complain and try to plant in the reader's mind as if the article opposes those who think against the consensus.
But know what?
I am no longer amazed.
Dear Guy
What's important is that I'm not a guy and be happy that you're not a Sabdarmish
good night and sweet dreams
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish:
Oh.. sorry, my mistake. I thought you were Galileo.
Accept my apology.
To Guy
I went to the link you sent me to.
Compulsive drudgery - that's the definition your majesty defined me
What's my fault - right, I don't believe in the existence of dark mass and energy
I must tell you that at first I was offended but then I saw that I was in good company
Do you remember there was one Galileo, how many tried to convince him to stop his troubles and him?
In the end he said: And yet move on move. How compulsive was this moron.
You know Cecilia Payne?, just a compulsive troublemaker, when the whole world knew the sun was made of iron only this compulsive troublemaker claimed it was made of hydrogen. It's her luck that she agreed to add to her doctoral thesis the line "There is no doubt that I'm wrong and this abundance of hydrogen in the sun can't be real" that's the only way her wretched lecturers agreed to approve her degree.
Want more examples?, for what?, it is not worthwhile and there is no use in trying to convince you.
To be clear: I really don't care what people like you think about my comments and opinions.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I didn't read the news!
Can someone tell me what this is about?
Sabdarmish:
Don't worry, the nickname "trolls" is not intended for people of your kind.
They invented another nickname for you:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%99
to M
The writer said what she said and I said that in my opinion she is not ranking the commenters as I think they should be ranked. Why do you say I'm forcing her to do something? I'm not forcing anything at all. Just expressing my opinion.
It's just amazing to see your reactions and conclusions.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For commenter 9, Daniel, the Wynet website belongs to Yediot Ahronoth, it is difficult to define them as right-wing,
In my opinion, in "Vinet" they publish articles with a left-wing flavor in order to attract reactions from the right, and on the other hand, censors sit only on the right side of the political spectrum. The left's comments are systematically censored, thus creating the impression of a right-wing "majority" or "consensus" among the commenters. This is about something much more trendy and cynical than attracting potential respondents. Always always always ask yourself who is behind the medium in question. (Who owns/has the interests of that website or newspaper)...
Thanks for the article.
Gentlemen, the real trolls are the polycystic companies. The TV and the newspapers are the real trolls.
Let them run this algorithm on journalistic articles. The journalists are the real trolls, and they won't confuse your brain.
I asked for falafel with spicy and not with shit
Yehuda:
this is simply amazing!
The author didn't say anything about consensus but you decided first of all to turn her words into talking about consensus and then attack the result of the distortion you created yourself!
The trolls are well defined in the response.
By the way - the rest of the commenters after you (and before) reveal their trollishness already in the way they identify themselves.
Another poor article
The author ignores one key aspect, which can be seen for example in the vignette.
The editor himself censors reasonable and good comments and approves tabloid and rambunctious garbage.
In fact, it's a well-known trick that they plant the first reaction that will be super provocative and offensive
To attract readers.
Proceed from the assumption that in general a massive percentage of the responses are from stakeholders who pay companies to push their agenda (at any cost)
By the way, even a website known for its censorship of news it doesn't like is also known.
In short, there are many things under the surface.
I agree with Yehuda
Tired of all you stinking trolls
: )
I would not agree to defining reactions as negative and positive. I would define responses that are with the general agreement - the consensus, or against the general agreement.
It is not fair that those who do not agree with the rule, to define them as bad as trolls, as vinegar and to define everyone else as good, the honey.
Now it is clear that a debate will be more interesting if there are also those who disagree with the consensus.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda