“Uncommon Descent” and “The Skeptical Zone” in 2016

Posted on by

(For last year’s results, see “Uncommon Descent” and “The Skeptical Zone” in 2015)

Fig 1

In 2016, “The Skeptical Zone” (TSZ) overtook “Uncommon Descent” (UD) – at least with regard to the number of comments:

Number of Comments 2005 – 2016

year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
UD 41,400 28,400 42,500 53,700 53,100 28,000
TSZ 2,200 15,100 16,900 20,400 45,200 54,200

That is not much of a surprise: the general amnesty of Oct 2014 enlivened UD only for a short time. This trend seems to be spotted at UD, as user Dionisio started to proof the superior quality of edits at UD (I wonder why (s)he didn’t look for “oil of the red herring”…)

Number of Comments

Fig 2 Fig 3
UD has three times at many contributors as TSZ – the need for socks could play a role….
Fig 4 Fig 5

Number of Threads

Fig 6 Fig 7

The situation is reversed with the posts: only a few authors are allowed to start a thread at UD, while the group of authors at TSZ is more diverse.

Fig 8 Fig 9

Obviously, threads at TSZ gather more comments over time and can be go on for quite a while – while the longest living thread of UD is reanimated regularly by Dionisio….

Fig 10 Fig 11

Replies at “The Skeptical Zone”

Commentators at TSZ can (but don’t have to) reply to other comments – this allows to track the interaction between editors:

Fig 12 Fig 13

So, half of all comments were replies! The commentators who gave at least 50 replies are shown in the following graph:

the interaction between editors:

Fig 14

Top 100 Articles

Fig 15 Fig 16
Fig 17 Fig 18

Unique Editors per Month

Fig 19 Fig 20
  1. The number of unique editors per month is between 1.5 and eight times bigger at UD than at TSZ
  2. I had expected a more poignant effect of the amnesty, but it seems that the return of just a few previously banned editors was enough to create a flurry of activity for a couple of months.

Top 250 words used in comments in 2016

Fig 21 Fig 22

One Just God is at the heart of both blogs…

(added Jan 18,2016)

Ann: I gathered TSZ’s data by visiting http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-admin/edit.php?post_type=post&all and http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wp-admin/edit-comments.php – the numbers of threads and comments I got fit nicely the number of all published threads and all approved comments.

For UD, I enumerated the posts using the monthly archives, e.g., http://www.uncommondescent.com/2017/01/ , and then visited each post to collect the comments. This seems to agree with UD’s internal numbering of the comments: E.g., for 2016, I could retrieve 27,987 comments, while the numbering suggests that 28,729 comments were made: A rate of 2.6% of deleted and indefinitely moderated comments seems plausible…

UD’s post Uncommon Descent at 15000 posts: A tribute to Bill Dembski is my 14,999th post (out of ca. 17,700): that is as satisfying confirmation of my method, too.

Alas, I cannot give any guarantee that some edits and posts were not inadvertently omitted, and I’m grateful for any party involved willing to check my results.

184 thoughts on ““Uncommon Descent” and “The Skeptical Zone” in 2016”

  1. vjtorley:
    Hi DiEb,

    Fascinating post. I have a question. How many distinct individuals read TSZ posts on a typical day?

    Unfortunately, the plugin that provided that information stopped working after a recent update, insisting it needs a newer version of PHP than our server provides. Only Lizzie has the keys to the server but I’ll let her know. Prior to it stopping working, the average for unique visitors was running around 5 – 600 daily, with one spike around 1400.

  2. Hi Alan,

    Only Lizzie has the keys to the server but I’ll let her know. Prior to it stopping working, the average for unique visitors was running around 5 – 600 daily, with one spike around 1400.

    Interesting. I happen to know that back in 2015, Uncommon Descent was getting over 50,000 unique visitors a month – or more than 1,667 per day (using a 30-day month). The figure these days is 1,272 visitors, according to http://www.ranksays.com/uncommondescent.com . For some reason, Alexa doesn’t track readership figures for The Skeptical Zone. Anyway, TSZ’s recent success is to be applauded.

  3. The biggest difference I see in the OPs posted at TSZ and UD is the tone in which they are presented. Most OPs at UD (but not all) are worded in such a way to encourage discussion. Many actually as a question. The UD posts are either News’ “science is bad” posts, lectures that actively discourage disagreement by people like Mullings, or condescending rants by Barry. None of which encourage people with opposing views to take part, even if they were allowed to.

  6. vjtorley:

    TSZ’s recent success is to be applauded.

    Yes.

    This is an excellent place for people to get valuable discussion, criticism, and correction for their ideas.

  11. DiEb:
    I added two pictures showing the Top 100 articles at UD/TSZ, grouped by their authors:


    Hooray, I’ve now made it onto one of the charts!

  12. DiEb:
    I added two pictures showing the Top 100 articles at UD/TSZ, grouped by their authors:


    The UD list made me laugh. Especially the OP Mystery at the Heart of Life. All 948 comments in that thread in 2016 were by Dionisio.

  13. “UD has three times at many contributors as TSZ – the need for socks could play a role….”

    In the UD graph I had 9 socks (Indiana Effigy was my favourite), and at TSZ, one. So, you may have a point.

  14. Acartia: The UD list made me laugh. Especially the OP Mystery at the Heart of Life. All 948 comments in that thread in 2016 were by Dionisio.

    That’s a very amusing observation. I added two pics similarly to the previous ones: those show as pie charts the commentators to the threads. Alas, only those who created threads themselves are highlighted – I have to change this for UD 😉

  15. DiEb,

    Is it possible to compile a list of comments where KF mentions the phrases “over the cliff” and “folly”. Actually, before you do that, I think we should start a pool. I pick 128 and 79.

  20. But if we are going to be fair, we should count recurring phrases at TSZ. Might I suggest:

    Your position has no explanation for…;

    There is no theory of evolution;

    Please link to your theory of evolution;

  22. Richardthughes:
    GlenDavidson,

    for record

    END

    PS…………………………………………………………….
    PPS…………………………………………………………..
    PPPS…………………………………………………………
    PPPPS……………………………………………………….
    PPPPPS……………………………………………………..

    Glen Davidson

  23. There’s a fancy technical term for what DiEb has provided us. It’s called a mirror. Even though I see just a little circle on the periphery, when I look at myself in the mirror, the overall reflection gives me pause.

  24. DiEb:
    Robert Byers,

    1) Mostly, not the officers are debating, but only the political commissars…

    2) The one time, ID’s officers were called to battle/debate, the most prominent went AWOL (Dover…)

    3) Most of the debates are just philosophical/theological musings and won’t change any minds.

    I think it is the officiers with a tendency toward those with more stripes.
    Origin matters ends up being fought by the most informed and intelligent on these matters after all. Not for the grunts in any serious way.

    ID/YEC never went AWOL. In fact they are the attackers and have , and are, making ac revolution.

    the debates are not philo/theo musings. They are based on conclusions about origins and so based on the quality and quantity of evidence.
    Thats why evolutionism uniquely as a former card carrying member of science is so, uniquely, threatened and in siege.
    in subjects in science sincerely founded on evidence to justify them as a theory opf science THIS NEVER happens!
    A attrition is happening. UD is helping it greatly but again struggles with freedom of speech issues. Right now losing the struggle for God’s mandated demand that truth should prevail and so speech must obey this demand. no censorship except for malice.

  25. GlenDavidson: PS…………………………………………………………….
    PPS…………………………………………………………..
    PPPS…………………………………………………………
    PPPPS……………………………………………………….
    PPPPPS……………………………………………………..

    Glen Davidson

    Comments off.

  26. “Uncommon Descent handicaps themselves a bit by blocking commenters who remind them of things they’re embarrassed they said.”

    UD has banned more people than any site I’ve ever seen. They’re very insistent on creating a Safe Space for creationists.

  29. Acartia:
    But if we are going to be fair, we should count recurring phrases at TSZ. Might I suggest:

    Your position has no explanation for…;

    There is no theory of evolution;

    Please link to your theory of evolution;

    You forgot:

    “There is a theory of evolution, I am just not allowed to say what it is.”

    That has to be one of the most common phrases here.

  31. TSZ has become the premier place to discuss and criticize ID and creation science.

    And indeed it has become a discussion place as evidenced by the comments going from 2,200 in 2011 to 54,200 in 2016.

    I was rudely booted by Arrington as author around August 2014. TSZ then became my new home where I could speak more freely. Since then, it’s been nice to see the people joining the conversation.

    I hope the trend of more discussion continues.

  32. stcordova:
    TSZ has become the premier place to discuss and criticize ID and creation science.

    And indeed it has become a discussion place as evidenced by the comments going from 2,200 in 2011 to 54,200 in 2016.

    I was rudely booted by Arrington as author around August 2014.TSZ then became my new home where I could speak more freely. Since then, it’s been nice to see the people joining the conversation.

    I hope the trend of more discussion continues.

    It’s a pity then you can’t find the intellectual honesty to deal with all the problems pointed out with your YEC claims.

  35. Wow — Barry’s obsession with “Sev” – Seversky – comes through loud and clear.

  41. Doing a little extrapolation from the numbers of comments at UD, one can see that in late 2017 they will reach zero comments. The last comment will probably be an infinitely-long one by bornagain77, containing cut-and-paste material irrelevant to the post. The post itself will be by kairosfocus, containing his fishing-reel schematic, and predicting the defeat of the West by Muslim hordes who overrun the Holy Roman Empire.

  42. I imagine a long-forgotten server, sitting quietly in a big room of equipment racks, periodically stirring itself to record Dionisio’s latest post on some abandoned thread, before falling back to sleep.

  44. AhmedKiaan:
    I imagine a long-forgotten server, sitting quietly in a big room of equipment racks, periodically stirring itself to record Dionisio’s latest post on some abandoned thread, before falling back to sleep.

    Unseen even by the other internet computers, Barry finally bans the last person on earth, other than himself and Dionisio.

    Glen Davidson

  45. Joe Felsenstein:
    Doing a little extrapolation from the numbers of comments at UD, one can see that in late 2017 they will reach zero comments.The last comment will probably be an infinitely-long one by bornagain77, containing cut-and-paste material irrelevant to the post.The post itself will be by kairosfocus, containing his fishing-reel schematic, and predicting the defeat of the West by Muslim hordes who overrun the Holy Roman Empire.

    Not using OLS regression (probably not the best tool). I could do a Fisher Pry adoption diffusion curve – although I do believe TSZ is substitutional I don’t think we collectively represent the market for this stuff.

  47. Well, I admit I’m using only the part of the curve since 2015, which is a statistical technique related to P-hacking, and known as “wishful thinking”.

    I note that during that period it is not obvious that TSZ’s comments are trending up, but the ratio of TSZ to UD comments is rising, mostly because the number of UD’s comments is falling.

  49. Richardthughes, those are beyond the capabilities of a retail store clerk. Who did you get to do them for you?

Leave a Reply