philosophy meta-forum

"Likes" at DN

Boetius

117 day(s) ago

This really doesn't matter, but someone is likely boosting up likes artificially in the Lemoine piece at Daily Nous. CDJ's response to Lemoine at 11:26pm went from 1 thumbs up to 29 in about two minutes. (I happened to refresh my browser at an opportune time). Unlikely this is genuine. The totals for her other responses in that thread exploded improbably as well. This also explains the thumb total on certain borderline incoherent responses further up the thread. No one should care about these anyway, but fyi.

Giambattista

116 day(s) ago

It's not beneath Justice Whineberg to tamper with the likes. He's allowing some dissent lately so he has to cover his ass once his base of SJWs starts complaining.

Young

116 day(s) ago

It might also just be people spamming likes on their own comments by reloading the page over and over with a different IP.

Young

116 day(s) ago

Or doing the same for comments they agree with but feel aren't being "liked" enough.

Epicharmus

115 day(s) ago

Probably we shouldn't care this much...but might there not be a way to automatically track such things? I mean, for someone who isn't the page administrator.

Noah

115 day(s) ago

Can you imagine being so petty as to take the time to artificially increase the likes on comments you agree with on a controversial thread? Sadly, I've met many people in philosophy who I could easily imagine doing something like that.

Leon

115 day(s) ago

Is "No one should care about these anyway" and making the effort to post and comment on this point consistent? Anyhow, I'm more inclined to trust the legitimacy of the metric in question than an anonymous posting on a metablog. No one has even anonymously confirmed the observation.

Damascius

115 day(s) ago

Is "No one should care about these anyway" and making the effort to post and comment on this point consistent?

Leon

Quite consistent. What people should care about and what they do care about are distinct.

Anyhow, I'm more inclined to trust the legitimacy of the metric in question than an anonymous posting on a metablog. No one has even anonymously confirmed the observation.

Leon

It's fair enough to question my anonymous testimony, sure (I'm Boetius). But take a look at this incoherent response in that post:

http://dailynous.com/2017/09/19/response-conservative-guest-post-philippe-lemoine/#comment-119422

Do you think 59 people gave that a thumbs up? Dave Millar got savaged in that thread.

Damascius

115 day(s) ago

This example is even better:

http://dailynous.com/2017/09/19/response-conservative-guest-post-philippe-lemoine/#comment-119407

76 thumbs up? No way.

Fyodor

111 day(s) ago

I've got a picture of Justin Wright on my laptop and my Daily Nous profile pic is the biggest one I have ever seen. I am a metaethics institution at a small state college, and I am a teacher of men n women. This is a plan I have: go and read up on the relevant literature, formulate a simple but coherent plan, and teach that damn course. It's not so hard is it? And now I'm coming up to publishing committees with a job search document in which my juniours claim that I am a bad person, and have done terrible things like stealing from them and bribing them. I have to publish at an alarming rate in this climate, and I wonder if this is a thing I can roast up like a little baby chicken I can say goodbye to at night. All I know is that the top five metaethical institutions are an embodied case of unjustifiedly myopic cognition. The whole field is literally a joke. My Quinean sympathies notwithstanding, this is a metre stick example but for the role played by this disciplinary condition. I have a Hegel degree from MASSACHUTSETS, and I will go to bat with my diploma in my hand every time I try to land a metaethics job. It's a closed field out there, go get what y'can guys. I'm having some licorice and going to bed.

Raimundo

13 day(s) ago

Is "No one should care about these anyway" and making the effort to post and comment on this point consistent? Anyhow, I'm more inclined to trust the legitimacy of the metric in question than an anonymous posting on a metablog. No one has even anonymously confirmed the observation.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Raimundo

13 day(s) ago

Is "No one should care about these anyway" and making the effort to post and comment on this point consistent? Anyhow, I'm more inclined to trust the legitimacy of the metric in question than an anonymous posting on a metablog. No one has even anonymously confirmed the observation.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Raimundo

13 day(s) ago

Is "No one should care about these anyway" and making the effort to post and comment on this point consistent? Anyhow, I'm more inclined to trust the legitimacy of the metric in question than an anonymous posting on a metablog. No one has even anonymously confirmed the observation.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Raimundo

13 day(s) ago

Is "No one should care about these anyway" and making the effort to post and comment on this point consistent? Anyhow, I'm more inclined to trust the legitimacy of the metric in question than an anonymous posting on a metablog. No one has even anonymously confirmed the observation.

You should be ashamed of yourself.


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.