“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”

  5. I’ve noticed that the number of comments on O’Leary’s posts as “News” are lower than average for the site, as if the regulars are not too keen on her posts.

    Of course who am I to comment — I’m just a “retirement-age Darwinist bitching from blogs somewhere”, one of those “orthodox has-beens” who “get their living fronting past-sell-by-date stuff from their Breadbasket”, supported by “funded corruption”, a member of “a no-holds-barred pressure group, where stakeholders have plenty of money, status, and power to protect”, one of the “whinging culprits faced with career ruin”, one of “Darwin’s tenured asshats”, a “tenured Darwin bore” for whom “Darwinism is a pension fund”, a “tenurebot soaking students for money they can’t afford to get degrees that won’t help them”, when “all the wrong people are in charge of it [Darwinism]”.

    She certainly does have a talent for invective.

  7. DiEb,

    One of these words is not like the others. I think the lesson is that Joe should cut down on his replies to Mung.

  8. Joe Felsenstein:
    I’ve noticed that the number of comments on O’Leary’s posts as “News” are lower than average for the site, as if the regulars are not too keen on her posts.

    Of course who am I to comment — I’m just a “retirement-age Darwinist bitching from blogs somewhere”, one of those “orthodox has-beens” who “get their living fronting past-sell-by-date stuff from their Breadbasket”, supported by “funded corruption”, a member of “a no-holds-barred pressure group, where stakeholders have plenty of money, status, and power to protect”, one of the “whinging culprits faced with career ruin”, one of “Darwin’s tenured asshats”, a “tenured Darwin bore” for whom “Darwinism is a pension fund”, a “tenurebot soaking students for money they can’t afford to get degrees that won’t help them”, when “all the wrong people are in charge of it [Darwinism]”.

    She certainly does have a talent for invective.

    You are just another British toff.

  9. John Harshman:
    DiEb,

    One of these words is not like the others. I think the lesson is that Joe should cut down on his replies to Mung.

    It’s a ruse and you’ve all been played. If you want a world class education in evolution, come here and pretend to be a creationist!

  11. VJT can’t even get a rudimentary education in Genetic Algorithms here.

    Alan Fox thinks I’m an “evolution skeptic” but doesn’t even seem to know what the word “evolution” refers to. Stuff changes. Who ever thought otherwise?

    I know, let’s name 2017 The Year of Evolution at TSZ!

    We can all evolve together.

    Even Patrick.

  13. Joe Felsenstein: You are just another British toff.

    Well, I am at least honorarily British.

    O’Leary has described Darwin as an old “British toff”.Here is one example:

    On other occasions she has conceded that he is one of the greats.Consistency is a bugbear of small minds.

    And I am embarrassed to admit the we both went to the same high school in Toronto (different decade) and now we both live in Ottawa. If I run into her I will ask her about her journalist credentials.

  14. Acartia has not got the block structure of the above comment quite correct (WordPress’s reply function got it wrong and it needs to be overridden and corrected). The statement by Acartia starts “And I am embarrassed …”, the rest is from my comment preceding.

    Also the statement that I am just a “British toff” is not mine but is from the tongue-in-cheek comment by Acartia which I quoted.

    Acartia (and others): when you quote a comment that itself has embedded quotes, see if you can insert extra <blockquote> and </blockquote> tags to get the quotes-within-quotes to look right. I have (painfully) learned to do it. (Hey, Joe, how did you type those tags without them taking effect? 🙂 )

  16. DiEb:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    Wow, first time that I edited someone’s comment (hi, Arcartia, hope you don’t mine) – there was just one <blockquote> too many…

    Not a problem. I do most of my comments on my iPhone 4, and I have big thumbs. What you did is what I intended.

  17. Frankie:

    newton: So true,KF and BA are a huge plus

    Compared to what you have here, they are a huge plus.

    You should spend your time commenting at UD with those you admire so much.

    Oh wait, you can’t. You’re treated better by people you revile than those with whom you identify.

  18. Mung:
    VJT can’t even get a rudimentary education in Genetic Algorithms here.

    Alan Fox thinks I’m an “evolution skeptic” but doesn’t even seem to know what the word “evolution” refers to. Stuff changes. Who ever thought otherwise?

    I know, let’s name 2017 The Year of Evolution at TSZ!

    We can all evolve together.

    Even Patrick.

    I know you only mention me to increase the number of arrows pointing toward your name in the 2017 results. Here’s your reply anyway.

  19. Joe Felsenstein:
    I’ve noticed that the number of comments on O’Leary’s posts as “News” are lower than average for the site, as if the regulars are not too keen on her posts.

    Of course who am I to comment — I’m just a “retirement-age Darwinist bitching from blogs somewhere”, one of those “orthodox has-beens” who “get their living fronting past-sell-by-date stuff from their Breadbasket”, supported by “funded corruption”, a member of “a no-holds-barred pressure group, where stakeholders have plenty of money, status, and power to protect”, one of the “whinging culprits faced with career ruin”, one of “Darwin’s tenured asshats”, a “tenured Darwin bore” for whom “Darwinism is a pension fund”, a “tenurebot soaking students for money they can’t afford to get degrees that won’t help them”, when “all the wrong people are in charge of it [Darwinism]”.

    She certainly does have a talent for invective.

    Oh no. O’Leary deserves a defence.
    She has great posts. She punches home themes. Shes up on the new concepts in a list of subjects. I often posted in them and killer knockdowns of evolutionism, in sundry subjects, was done.
    She is a writer and so witty and clever in writing.
    INVECTIVE! Well placed jabs is par for the coarse. In fact she is decent, and mild.
    She is cAnadian and Catholic Christian and her writing shows it.
    Everybody has something to say about the other sides leadership and structures.
    She is a woman in a man’s interest and dominance in origin subjects especially where no money or jobs are involved.
    She keeps up with boys.
    I am loyal to her as she has done a great job and is so needed. Also as a writer she is better then the others who are not.
    I like to think she would be more faithful to free thought and speech then onthers there and less banning and nurturing a culture of people to request banning.
    she adds and brings forth conversation on these great issues.
    she is a intellectual leader therefore in these small circles and because creationism will prevail SHE will prevail.
    You should get her autograph now methinks.
    No offence Mr Felsenstein but i gotta defend the lady!!

  20. Robert Byers: she is a intellectual leader therefore in these small circles and because creationism will prevail SHE will prevail.
    You should get her autograph now methinks.
    No offence Mr Felsenstein but i gotta defend the lady!!

    I do not take offence. I will take your support for her with the same degree of seriousness that is due all your comments.

  22. Dick see picture. And is funny picture, makes laugh him!

    TSZ more funny picture than UD. UD worst TSZ.

    Now TSZ many more comment!

  24. Patrick: You should spend your time commenting at UD with those you admire so much.

    Just because they are better than you and yours doesn’t mean that I admire them. At least they try to support ID whereas you couldn’t support evolutionism if your life depended on it.

    I like posting here exposing you and yours as the hypocrites that you are

    You’re treated better by people you revile than those with whom you identify.

    Not in this life, anyway.

  25. 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.

    I added the TOP 10 commentators without posting rights to the picture thereby including Dionisio…

  26. DiEb: I added the TOP 10 commentators without posting rights to the picture thereby including Dionisio…

    It looks like he was responsible for all but two of the comments in the Mystery at the heart of… thread in 2016. Quite the obsession going on there.

  27. Frankie,

    FrankenJoe: “At least they try to support ID…”

    I must have missed those OPs. How is the opposition to same sex marriage, women’s choice, muslims, AGW, subjective morality, scientists, peer review, and anything liberal, a support for ID?

    And even when they post OPs on any subject, their attention span is very short and the thread is easily de-railed (thanks Mung). Here is the beginning of comment 21 on Barry’s childish cartoon about climate change (Friday Chuckle):

    “When I was at the age of 14, my mother, one Sunday, (the Lord’s day), hung herself from a bedroom door hook. Shock took over. Years later, I had the following dream:”

    I don’t want to downplay they horror of this event, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it has to do with climate change.

    As I mentioned before, I used to take a perverse (childish) pleasure in derailing threads at UD. I commented under names such as Tintinnid, William Spearshake, Acartia, Indiana Effigy, Ziggy Lorenc and several others. When I saw William J. Murray commenting in a thread, I could derail it simply by bringing up subjective morality. If Mullings was there, any mention of homosexuality or same sex marriage would work.

    I am not suggesting that threads at TSZ don’t get derailed, but I see it far more infrequently than at UD. I suspect it is because they are far more emotionally invested in their religious beliefs at UD, and all of its baggage, than the majority of commenters at TSZ are.

    There is also a philosophical difference between scientists (who are more likely to post at TSZ) and the entrenched theists (who are more likely to post at UD). The theist will twist himself/herself in knots, and twist the evidence as well, in an effort to avoid having to question their beliefs. That is why people like KF and WJM will vehemently argue against things like homosexuality and same sex marriage. There isn’t a scientist alive, however, who does not have wet dreams about discovering something that is a game-changer.

  31. DiEb, it looks like your post has been noticed by UD in the Fake News thread (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-popular-culture-what-is-fake-news-do-we-believe-it/#comment-623417).

    Dionisio:”Here’s another inaccuracy in the link provided by DiEb, where we may read this [emphasis added]:

    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.

    All comments?
    That’s not true.

    There were several serious comments posted by other people in that thread in 2016. Also a couple of completely irrelevant comments written by a politely-dissenting person. Details available upon request.

    I would like to give Dionisio my heart-felt apology for misrepresenting the facts. Dionisio was only responsible for 939 of the 948 comments in that thread in 2016. Other commenters were Querius (x1), Gpuccio (x5), Pind (x2) and Butifnot (x1).

    So far this year Dionisio has posted 77 comments to this thread. At this rate, he will have posted over 2800 to this thread by the end of 2017. One of his earlier comments now makes perfect sense:

    Dionisio: “Looking at UD takes most of my spare time.”.

    Not to be left out of the discussion, Mullings posted this on the Fake News thread:

    “PPS: if you think the core ID contentions can be similarly dismissed as irresponsible, unscientific fakery, deceit and falsehood — “fake news” in the latest intended media drive-by smear — etc [something TSZ and others of like ilk seem to believe], I suggest that we may want to have a look at here and also here (as well as ES’s guest post here and this review of Crick on text in DNA . . . oops, I forget, Sir Fred Hoyle as discussed here too), most recently.”

    The bolded words are hot-links to other posts that KF uses to support his opinion. Of interest is the fact that these links are all to OPs written by KF with the exception of one posted under KF’s name by ES.

  33. This from William J. Murray in the Fake News thread:

    “Fake news” is a relatively new meme intended to give the useful idiots of the left a tool with which to ignore information which compromises their progressive narrative.”

    Says the man who posted an OP on TSZ about Pizzagate, the debunked fake news story that leaked emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager contained coded messages linking members of the Democratic Party and a non-existent child sex ring.

    My apologies to Woodbine for paraphrasing what he has said at AtBC.

  34. Dieb, thanks for posting the “word cloud” for my comments. I was relieved to see how many of the words were relevant!

    By the way, have you noticed the comment over at UD (Dionisio as comment 3 of the “ID as popular culture” thread) where a Big Problem in our discussion here is found … that you made an English mistake. How exciting!

  35. DiEB, apparently you have pissed off Dionisio again in reference to my original comment that he/she was responsible for all the comments in a specific thread in 2016.

    Dionisio: “If you did, then why did you try to count them yourself after I offered the details upon request?

    Anyway, apparently your counting wasn’t accurate: gpuccio posted five comments in that thread in 2016.”

    Damn. It is even worse than that. You said four when I said five. Another inaccuracy. Oh the horror!

    My entire point was a throw away comment that Dionisio was responsible for all of the 948 comments in a specific thread in 2016. The fact that I was off by 9 (a fraction of 1%) and that he/she is pissed off because you related my count with an error of one out of 948 (0.1% error) is very telling.

    It says nothing about the fact that he/she has already posted over 77 comments on the same thread so far this year. Or that he/she has posted 14 consecutive comments on a different UD thread on January 11 alone. If these comments had more cut-and-pasta, I would think that Dionisio and BA77 were the same person.

  36. Dionisio: “Actually, as I have declared in this forum before, I’m not an ID proponent.”

    Dionisio: “Basically what we’re seeing here is another example of the wonderfully designed built-in framework that allows flexible (direct or indirect) adjustments…

    There seems to be a disconnect here.

  39. That thread will become a useful repository when all the journal articles ever mysteriously disappear.

  41. DiEb,

    You may have already answered the following question indirectly, but I may have missed it.

    2016 listed UD as having 28,000 comments. How much of Dioniso is the cause of that. Is it 2364 from you graph above? Am I not reading the numbers correctly?

    Thanks in advance.

  43. Well damn…I’m clearly slacking according to the charts provided. There’s no measure for “quality” DiEb? Pity…

  44. stcordova:
    DiEb,

    You may have already answered the following question indirectly, but I may have missed it.

    2016 listed UD as having 28,000 comments.How much of Dioniso is the cause of that.Is it 2364 from you graph above?Am I not reading the numbers correctly?

    Thanks in advance.

    1) I thought you would have spotted that Fig. 5 answers your question: Dionisio contributed 8% of the 28,000 edits, i.e., some 2240 edits (according to my data, exactly 2250 out of 27,987)

    2) The number 2364 indicates Dionisio’s number of comments at the the thread “Mystery at the heart of life” over the time of two years. I’m sorry that this wasn’t obvious, the barplot was drawn without great diligence.

  45. @Dieb:
    For UD I get a different number of comments by iterating over their monthly archive index (without actually visiting the articles):

    1858 articles and 26637 comments for year 2016
    1887 articles and 50826 comments for year 2015
    2276 articles and 57211 comments for year 2014
    1748 articles and 42838 comments for year 2013
    1979 articles and 28143 comments for year 2012
    2902 articles and 43528 comments for year 2011
    896 articles and 25186 comments for year 2010
    881 articles and 41585 comments for year 2009
    773 articles and 23200 comments for year 2008
    900 articles and 23006 comments for year 2007
    1087 articles and 23225 comments for year 2006
    584 articles and 8683 comments for year 2005

  46. DiEb:
    . . .

    2) The number 2364 indicatesDionisio’s number of comments at the the thread “Mystery at the heart of life” over the time of two years. I’m sorry that this wasn’t obvious, the barplot was drawn without great diligence.

    Sal is only proficient at analyzing data when he thinks he can twist it to somehow support his religious beliefs.

  47. PopoHummel:
    @Dieb:
    For UD I get a different number of comments by iterating over their monthly archive index (without actually visiting the articles):

    1858 articles and 26637 comments for year 2016
    1887 articles and 50826 comments for year 2015
    2276 articles and 57211 comments for year 2014
    1748 articles and 42838 comments for year 2013
    1979 articles and 28143 comments for year 2012
    2902 articles and 43528 comments for year 2011
    896 articles and 25186 comments for year 2010
    881 articles and 41585 comments for year 2009
    773 articles and 23200 comments for year 2008
    900 articles and 23006 comments for year 2007
    1087 articles and 23225 comments for year 2006
    584 articles and 8683 comments for year 2005

    year
    2011
    2012
    2013
    2014
    2015
    2016

    DiEb
    41,400
    28,400
    42,500
    53,700
    53,100
    28,000

    PopoHummel
    43,500
    28,100
    42,800
    57,200
    50,800
    26,600

    Thanks for the information – and the problem it poses! There is a difference from up to 6.5% – I will look into it: a first cursory check showed that more than 600 out of 17,700 threads differ in the number of comment . It is entirely possible that I missed comments when I parsed the articles, but I’m surprised that that I reported more comments in 2014.

    I’m confident that all this won’t change much of the results, but I should have used your method to control my numbers – I had disregarded the number stated in the archive index as gathering the comments took quite a time and so it would have changed (but not very much). I shouldn’t have relied on sampling only a few threads to verify my numbers.

    So, thanks again!

  48. DiEb,

    Just to be mischevious, how do the counts work with deleted comments and posts? For instance, as Aurelio Smith, I made quite a few (don’t know, maybe a few hundred) comments in 2016 and the whole lot was erased. Would they still be included in the archive numbers? What about deleted posts with comments attached?

  49. Patrick: Sal is only proficient at analyzing data when he thinks he can twist it to somehow support his religious beliefs.

    And you couldn’t analyze data if your life depended on it.

  50. Frankie: And you couldn’t analyze data if your life depended on it.

    I’ve seen his work with Markov chains. I’ ve seen your “count the letters of the caek recipe” work.

Leave a Reply