Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web

by Joseph M. Reagle

Online comment can be informative or misleading, entertaining or maddening. Haters and manipulators often seem to monopolize the conversation. Some comments are off-topic, or even topic-less. In this book, Joseph Reagle urges us to read the comments. Conversations "on the bottom half of the Internet," he argues, can tell us much about human nature and social behavior.Reagle visits communities of Amazon reviewers, fan fiction authors, online learners, scammers, freethinkers, and mean kids. He shows how comment can inform us (through reviews), improve us (through feedback), manipulate us (through fakery), alienate us (through hate), shape us (through social comparison), and perplex us. He finds pre-Internet historical antecedents of online comment in Michelin stars, professional criticism, and the wisdom of crowds. He discusses the techniques of online fakery (distinguishing makers, fakers, and takers), describes the emotional work of receiving and giving feedback, and examines the culture of trolls and haters, bullying, and misogyny. He considers the way comment -- a nonstop stream of social quantification and ranking -- affects our self-esteem and well-being. And he examines how comment is puzzling -- short and asynchronous, these messages can be slap-dash, confusing, amusing, revealing, and weird, shedding context in their passage through the Internet, prompting readers to comment in turn, "WTF?!?"

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Internet, Psychology, Social Science, Technology

241 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 1, 2015

Reviews

[Ian Divertie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this ws an excellent companion to "Why We Can't Have Nice Things" a book also about the internet and its various sub-cultures. This book is somewhat more wide ranging but also less detailed than "Why We Can't Have Nice Things", you can take your choice, if you must read one book on the subject. I'd recommend both though as the ultimate path.
I feel compelled to describe my rating system for books on Goodreads, as Goodreads itself is a subject of this book, "Reading The Comments", --and such drama too, tsk, tsk.
My rating system outlined: 5 stars for those books that I read because I am genuinely fascinated by the subject and I think you should be too. You don't have to be, its totally subjective on my part. 3 stars for those subjects I was compelled to read due to my career path. 1 or 0 stars for those items in my general area of personal interests with which I am probably going to disagree but feel I should read to understand the oppositional viewpoint. Or, I guess, a zero or 1 is a book you should or must read to be fully involved with the tenor of the philosophical discussion in the subject area, it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to like the opinions.

[Bob H · Rating 4 out of 5]

Website comments, “likes”, ratings and feedback are, as we see in this book, a major part of the internet’s social and economic fabric, not simply background chatter. Major retailers like Amazon do include users’ comments, and many sites are devoted to reviews and critiques, Goodreads, Yelp, Zagat – rating different goods and services and in differing presentations.

We also learn how the comments are a variable culture, with its trolls, bullying and misogyny, and a source of manipulation, of ratings, businesses and customers. We learn about the manipulators – the “fakers, makers and takers” – in this area. It’s a lesson in Web sociology as well as consumer economics. It’s a detailed tour, but it’s a lively story at times, as the author brings up some of the controversies, conflicts – and victims – and puts them in context. We see how this culture can shape, shake and sometimes distort the internet. In all, it’s an important look at a new, vital and sometimes-troubling Internet subculture, and he keeps it within 185 pages. It's the dictatorship of the commentariat, such that it is. Highly recommend.

[Christine Zibas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This fascinating book by Northeastern University Professor Joseph M. Reagle, Jr., captures the wide panoply of reactions found online in the comments section. We have become a society that loves to judge, and nowhere is this better documented than online. From likers to haters, to reviewers and raters (as well as those who would seek to manipulate the results), we have taken to social media like ducks to water. The results, however, are a decidedly mixed bag. For every thoughtful comment, there may be two or more hate-filled rants. For every supportive message, there may be two or more messages filled with judgment and insults.

We depend on these online judgments, whether we're buying a computer or deciding where to have dinner, but can we trust what we read? Is it really important to have lists of books and authors not to read, as well as those we shouldn't miss? Do we really need all those selfies or people to answer the question, "Am I hot?"

Reagle covers all these topics and more in his book, "Reading the Comments." There's probably no topic more timely, more universal, or more controversial going forward than how do we create the society we want when it comes to social media? Adding to his own interesting conclusions is the work of numerous scholars in the field (that readers can locate via footnotes). One only wishes he had also included a bibliography of these, instead of having to hunt for other fascinating work among his footnotes.

Still, this is an endlessly engaging work, with lots of food for thought. For anyone who spends a significant amount of time online (and who doesn't these days?), this is a book that will entertain, inform, and inspire. Kudos to Reagle.

[James Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great or, say, a fantastic book by Joseph M. Reagle. It deals with the different forms of commenting, such as trolling, adding expertise, or fomenting protest. In reality, the modern comment is quite different from communication that came way before it. This book highlights several arguments within the commenting community. Many think this book is a perfect companion to another famous book ‘Why We Can’t Have Nice Things.”

Also, talking about books, I know about a website, Crazy for Study, that offers first-class textbook solutions in an instant. This website helped me a lot with my subject and provided accurate answers to my queries.

[Omar Delawar · Rating 3 out of 5]

Readability: Hard ---o- Easy
Practicality: Low -o--- High
Insights: Few -o--- Many
Length: Long ---o- Short
Overall: Bad --o-- Amazing

[John Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Joseph M. Reagle Jr. obviously put quite a bit of time into amassing a deceptively slim but massive text on the bizarre, funny, and disturbing ways our increased access to all manner of technological opinionation has enhanced our cultural reflection, refining it in both innovative and cartoonish ways.

Here he focuses on the "comment culture" ultra cyberspace has engendered. Anyone anywhere can indulge in the basest or loftiest of opinions about anything at any time and it is public domain in a nanosecond. The beginnings aren't all that surprising.

"In 1966, twenty eight year old Stewart Brand was at the beach, tripping on LSD and gazing at San Francisco's skyline, when he noted the slight curve of the horizon and mused that if he ascended, the curve of the earth would become more pronounced until he saw the whole of the earth. Such a perspective could be the jolt that people needed to appreciate that planet Earth was "complete, thing, adrift." After gaining this insight, people would never "perceive things the same way" and would get on with the business of "getting civilization right." Given the frenzied activity of NASA and the Soviets, why had we not seen a picture of the earth yet? The next morning he began printing buttons and posters with that very question. A couple years later, theApollo 8 moon mission delivered the photography, and Brand's "Whole Earth Catalog, published regularly between 1968 and 1972 and intermittently thereafter, featured the image of the blue and green marble on its cover. Working as a biologist at Stanford University while organizing the Trips Rock Festival, he took careful note of who "liked what" at these concerts, what they bought, and his magazines were occasionally edited by "Wired" magazine editor Kevin Kelly who consistently made notes that "we are as gods whether we want to be or not" was an excellent technological sales slogan."

This really weird tying of the 60's counterculture lingo to the corporate world now isn't a huge shock, since it consisted of so much fantastique sci-fi semantic--codes, the loss of context and the inability of almost 89 percent of the population to really and truly tell the difference between reality and virtual reality is what is bothersome. He talks about the evolution of even ancient lingo like "LOL", or the new and sexy ones like "FTWWTF". Comments--even the most common--are alarmingly revelatory of our biases. If the phrase "letting it all hang out" ever had a meaning, it certainly has one now.

"People found this 4/5 review to be a perplexing example of the inscrutableness of others. One commenter quipped that "some people are just impossible to please. Is this the case?" And is it even a genuine review?After some searching, I found that it was indeed areal review on a Canadian houseware site by user KayBe:

This morning my son called me at work to tell me the alarm was going off..I called my husband (who luckily was not far away) and he headed home. He checked our furnace....and discovered the burner was "cartooned up" so it wasn't burning properly..If he hadn't caught it and cleaned it the CO would have built up and our son might not have woken up in time. Scary thing to have happen but so glad this unit did it's job!"

(Anyone who has had access to dial up since 1998 or so or even before is almost certainly lying if they claim they haven't said and done offensive things online. Either that or they are just very admirable people.)

And he asks a good question: when we talk about combatting sexism and homophobia and transaphobia everywhere, are we being honest when we provide the practitioners of this kind of thing the almost absolute anonymity and power to do so? I was recently on a YouTube site that featured the later work of a well known band called Alice In Chains. A girl said she would die to meet Layne Staley and something a little sexual, and a guy responded by saying: "you're such a slut but i'd still pee in your butt."

That comment is just about as vile as it gets and it got more than a few likes. And people encouraged to kill themselves over and over and over; not that should effect a mature person who knows the difference between reality and online fantasy, but those distinctions are becoming less and less recognized. What is a bully now? What is a troll? These are all concerns nailed down very very well in this book, which I would recommend to any thinking person.

[Rama Rao · Rating 4 out of 5]

Communication in the digital world: A study of the online reviews and comments

In this book, Joseph Reagle urges us to read the reviews about product and services and readers’ comments below it. This tells us much about communication in the digital age, the social behavior and human vulnerabilities. The comments on reviews inform and improve things; it can also alienate, manipulate and shape things. In some cases it is bemusing. But we can also learn about the advantages of moving first, the challenges of communication and the science of rating systems. Hate and harassment are also a part of online comments for which there is no easy solution. Ignoring trolls and haters do not end the problems. Identify the abusive behavior as odious and unwelcome, and support the targets of abuse, says the author.

The author observes in his research that people traffic in the illicit markets of comment. Many restaurateurs give coupons in exchange for reviews; authors ask friends or family to write reviews of their work, sometimes they may do that themselves; sock-puppets edit Wikipedia biographies; pundits purchase fake followers and friends; sites profit by manipulating user’s praise and pillory. There is an obsessive desire to rate and rank everything; this is a part of “Review–Demand” dynamics in the digital world. At Amazon.com, a merchant offered a refund to customers who would write a product review for the Amazon community. If the reviews do not mention the refund, they are likely in violation of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission guidelines of 2009. This rule requires disclosure of non-obvious “material connections” such as payments or free products. Amazon Vine program is dangerously close to this area and there are material connections. This rule also applies effectively from 2013 to tweets on Twitter. In Sep 2103, NY State Attorney General’s Office compelled 19 companies to stop fake online reviews and pay more than $350,000 in penalties. Many companies are willing to post fake reviews on Yelp, Google Local, and CitySearch by way of freelance writers from Philippines, Bangladesh and Eastern Europe for $1 to $10 per review.

The immense value of user’s online comments is clear and visible in the market place. In 2013 Amazon purchased Goodreads website, a book review and discussion site for $150 million. TripAdvisor was purchased by Expedia for $200 million, and Google purchased restaurant rating guide Zagat for $150 million. In chapter 7, entitled “Bemused”, author Joseph Reagle visits communities of Amazon reviewers and find fan fiction authors, online learners, scammers, freethinkers, and adults with mean spirits. He also notes that the television actor George Takei is well known Amazon community reviewer with a very large following. There is a considerable humor embedded in Takei’s reviews weather it is about a sex lube or radioactive materials or Geiger counters sold at Amazon.com. Tuscan whole milk, Three Wolf Moon t-shirt, and banana slicer are few other products which carried tremendous selling potential for humorous reviews, and they sold like hotcakes. Incidentally, reviews and comments and like/dislike votes are protected from First Amendment. In 2013, The U.S Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled that mere liking of a post on Facebook is still a “symbolic expression” and a substantive speech protected by the First Amendment. This simply goes to tell the power of online reviews and the comments below it. This is fun reading and I would recommend it to anyone interested in communication in digital age.

[#ReadAllTheBooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is kind of a hard one to review. I liked it overall so I'm giving it four stars, but I really heavily caution readers to exercise some caution as far as purchasing goes.

The book's main downfall is its length, as the book itself (minus notes) is under 200 pages. This wouldn't be so bad except that Reading the Comments covers a *lot* of material. What this means for the reader is that many topics will be given a fairly brief overview - something that can be problematic when you also consider that Reagle tries to neutrally document things, which can give off the impression of ambivalence to some readers as can be seen in some of the other Vine reviews for this book. It also runs the risk of people going "but... this also happened" when it comes to some topics like STGRB doxing reviewers - Reagle does mention this, but he didn't mention that STGRB's doxing went somewhat beyond regular doxing (giving out basic contact information like names, addresses, phone numbers, etc) and actually gave out information on some reviewers' family members (children, spouses) and in one instance, actually detailed locations where the reviewer liked to hang out and walk.

As someone who did know some of the people involved, the cursory overview did make me a little irritated and I can see how others can easily take Reagle's neutrality in a format other than what was likely intended. However at the same time I can also see where he was trying not to take sides and these are topics where people tend to like reading works where someone takes a clear definitive side. If this wasn't a textbook then he likely would have, but this is something that was fairly clearly written with the intent to be used in a classroom or academic setting. That's somewhat my biggest concern about this: if someone is not already aware of the topics in the book and they're not in a setting where they could easily be educated about them, I can see someone getting confused or even the wrong impression from some of the book's contents.

However I do have to say that I'm very impressed with how much Reagle was able to squeeze into one slender tome. This is the type of topic that really would warrant a far larger work, easily about 400 to 500 pages because there is just *so much* to cover. I was also impressed by how readable this was for an academic work, as many of those tend to fall into the dry academic speak that can be so extremely common. This is something that could very easily be picked up by the average non-academic reader, however I would have some reservations about this based on my earlier statements.

So I suppose the question here is "should you get it?" My answer would be yes, for the most part. If you're a teacher wondering if you should get this for a class that focuses on the Internet, get it. This would work extremely well with students at various levels and would open up a large amount of discussions. If you're someone who is familiar with the general topics in this book, I'd also recommend getting it, although you may want to proceed with caution if you're looking for a specific viewpoint. If you're not familiar, I'd probably recommend that you do a little homework in order to familiarize yourself with some of the topics in the book, as you'll likely be left wanting a bit more information about the topic.

(ARC provided by Amazon Vine)

[Tuna · Rating 5 out of 5]

The overview of the various commenting platforms on the internet provided in Reading the Comments is an interesting refresher course on the human condition as it relates to communication skills when people are shielded by screens. While one could believe that most of the hateful comments that the writer focuses on are due to the element of anonymity, Mr Reagle shows that that is not always a barrier to inhibit comments. For example people tweeting disappointment in the actor chosen for Rue of Hunger Games fame using their real names and even school affiliations shows that people dont need to be anonymous to make rather rude comments.

I enjoyed the mix of both overview of different areas in which comments provided both comedy (Amazon parody reviews) and also provided the way for dialogue to be opened for handling cases of threats and other malicious deeds. Focusing on the malicious deeds dialogue seemed to be opened as it related to a case in which a League of Legends player was jailed for a joking threat made online. This opened the door for debate about how to tell serious from non serious threats. On the other end were the known cases of the videogame academic Ms. Anita S who faced the threats made by people who disagree with her analyses of things as harmless as videogames. Then there were the cases of people who lost jobs over their actions at coding conferences (one who took photos of people who were making bad jokes, and another who was involved in an elevator scheme). All these cases bring to light that much discussion is needed in technology realm that people need to have some sort of training with both assessing the risk to whistleblowing, but also more importantly, people assessing that they shouldnt be making rude comments to their peers.

The time spent on analyzing the human condition using known cases from human studies (the usual scenario of the school teacher who had students treat each other differently based on eye color, or the case in which study participants administered a shock based on their attire, and lastly the usual student study in which some are prison guards in a scenario) was enlightening in how it could be related to understanding why people act the way they do online in comment sections, or in Usenet, or even Linux developer discussion groups. I only wish it lasted a bit longer and was a bit more woven into the main narrative. Perhaps if it was at the beginning of the book.

All in all it was a great read. I was initially interested due to the Amazon review focus as that has directly relation towards me, and I was pleased to see time taken into analyzing not only fraudulent reviews or votes, but also the comments that people leave on them. I also liked the time spent on how some people leave reviews that are misplaced or even the paragraphs spent on people debating what makes a 4/5 review different than a 5/5 review (example use was the Kaybe carbon detector). And lastly for Amazon the time focused on paid reviews, verified reviews, and the insight into top Amazon reviewers and vine ones, as well as Goodreads bullying. I wonder if more could be said of them in a future book as it seemed the writer could have had a whole lot more content there.

Good read, good insight into review systems, comments, and more (malicious ones included).

[Angie Boyter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally I wrote this:
See my Amazon review: http://www.amazon.com/review/R35VD0EU...
At some point my Amazon review disappeared!!!! Who knows why? I put it back up, but here it is:
In Reading the Comments, Communication Studies professor Joseph M. Reagle explores the world of online comments, which he defines as online communication that is reactive (responding to something), short (reactions to long comments being summed up in the acronym “tl;dr” for “too long; didn’t read”), and asynchronous (not necessarily occurring immediately after its provocation). Although the book gives more attention to the many dangers and pitfalls in online comments, Reagle recognizes their benefits and conveniences as well. The book is not anti-comment .
After defining the scope of his subject, Reagle devotes the first two-thirds of the book to the various ways online comment can be used: to inform, manipulate, improve, or alienate. He goes into the history of online comments from the early days of computers, even before the internet, and talks about MANY online sites, blogs, apps, and services, from Facebook and Amazon to lesser-known names like Foursquare and Formspring. I learned a lot of interesting things, like the fact that Kirkus will review self-published books for $425, but there is probably too much data crammed into these chapters to keep the interest of an average reader.
The last part of the book discusses what online comments say about us and how they affect people and society. I found this part of the book more interesting and would have liked more emphasis on it. This section discusses, for example, how the “buffet of choices” available thanks to online dating services can change our perception of relationships. It also has examples of how online comments show people at their best and their worst. A good example is the comments below a YouTube video by a gay teen who committed suicide soon after posting his documentary, which ranged from “Stop all the hate. RIP Jamey” to “GO KILL YOURSELF… …oh wait lol.”
Reagle did an impressive amount of research on his subject and documented his sources in extensive footnotes. The index, however, could be more complete. For example, the Vine program is discussed in several places in the book but is only mentioned once in the index, under Vine reviews, manipulation, p. 151-152 (which is not about how Vine reviews can be manipulated but about the fact that Vine reviews are often posted before an item is available to the general public, which gives Vine reviews an advantage). Also I wanted to go back to a reference the book made to a statement by Daniel Kahneman but did not find him in the index at all.
It seems ironic or maybe recursive to be writing a Vine review about a book that discusses Vine reviews. If you read this book you will probably be more wary of online comments of all sorts afterwards, but I can assure you that, like most reviewers, I had no motive in writing this review other than to give you a sense of whether you would enjoy the book. If you are reading this review, you probably use online comments extensively to help you choose products and services. I certainly do, and I hope they stay alive and honest for a very long time!

[Nancy Kennedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book, the author examines what he calls "the bottom of the web." For Mr. Reagle, this includes a broad range of what he calls "comment," making it a genre of writing in and of itself. He examines fan fiction, responses to online articles, reviews of purchases and experiences, and engagements with posts made on blogs and social networking sites, to name just a few sub-genres.

This is a scholarly tome that likely won't appeal to the casual reader. But you can't expect a book written by a professor and published by the MIT Press to be anything but scholarly. The author includes comics to lighten the tone, and for the most part, they do make the book a more engaging read. But one comic in particular was jarring for me. In a geek-and-poke comic strip, one character says, "Did you passed the exam and get your master degree?" Is English not the first language for this comic? Why include something with such obvious errors? I'm also thinking this book will have a short shelf life, as websites, social media outlets and apps come and go, and terms of service change almost daily.

The one thing the book did open my eyes to is the fakery that pervades web reviews and social media sites, where people pay for engagement with their content; for example, in the form of "likes" on a facebook post or "helpful" votes on an Amazon review. In a vague sort of way, I knew that not everything you see is real, but I had no idea of the big business that fakery has become. And, I finally know what CAPTCHA means and how it works!

Mr. Reagle does a fine job integrating his points with sociological and psychological concepts and research. It lends a certain gravitas to the subject; perhaps too much, in my opinion. Do internet "trolls" really need to be legitimized in this way? "What insights are gleaned from sifting through the muck?" the author asks in his concluding chapter. That's a worthy question to ask.

Personally, I mourn the days when the only way to make your voice heard was to write a letter to the editor. It took time and effort to gather your thoughts and communicate them clearly; if you weren't coherent, the letter was spiked. There's only so much sifting I want to do online, especially when most comments devolve to the lowest level of communication. But I see MIT Press has published a book devoted exclusively to internet trolls -- This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture. Maybe that book answers my question.

[Jill Meyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Okay, why am I writing a review of Joseph Reagle's book, "Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web"? And, why are you reading my review? I'm writing the review because I like to give my opinion on a book or other product and you're reading the review because you're trying to figure out whether you should spend your time and money on reading the book. It's great for both of us - we're working as a team here. The only problem that may come up is your not liking the book, even though I've recommended it. Because, who am "I"? Just the 32nd reviewer of this book, so far. You can take a look at my other reviews, read a few, and then decide whether my advice is worth following. Some people will approve this review and others will not approve it. I'll get marked with either a "Yes, this review was helpful" or "No, this review was not helpful". All the "yeses" and "nos" are tabulated daily and my Amazon rank is decided, for that day at least. So, that's where I'm coming from as a reviewer of this book. Where are you coming from as a reader of reviews?

Getting back to Joseph Reagle's book. He looks at the on-line world - including Amazon, Reddit, Facebook, and many other blogs and sites - and asks "who is commenting?" Or, "who is reviewing?" Who is going on these personal rating blogs and asking "Am I hot, or not?" Why do people put their faces and body parts out on the internet? And how do they cope with the responses they often receive?

The world of the blog and news commenters is often cruel. Bloggers have sometimes stopped accepting comments on their blogs - tired of the often sick and cruel responses they receive on their ideas and their writing. I read a few political blogs everyday and I am often surprised and shocked at how mean some of the comments are about political figures in the news. But, I am also sometimes amused by the comments. As a reader - and occasional commenter - my identity is secret. Unlike Amazon where I review under my own name, I comment on blogs using several aliases. As do most people, Reagle writes. Does anonymity give the poster a freedom of expression? It sure does.

Joseph Reagle has raised - and answered - some interesting questions about on-line life in the past 20 or so years. His book is very good.

[Biblio Files (takingadayoff) · Rating 4 out of 5]

What makes you think that this review isn't planted by a friend of the author? And if you don't like the review, what are the odds you'll post a comment telling me what an idiot I am, or worse?

Joseph Reagle, a communications studies professor, studies online reviews and comments to see what's motivating us and what does it all mean. The result is this slender but substantial study of the online content we should ignore, yet can't resist.

As someone who's been online since the CompuServ days of the 1990s, I've seen my share of online shenanigans and know that there are a lot of people who use the anonymity of the net to sling vitriol or just try to stir things up for entertainment. There are some who don't even care if they are anonymous or not. And there are always the people trying to work the system for their personal benefit.

In principle, this isn't really any different than writing anonymous slander on the restroom walls ("latrinalia", according to Reagle) or sending threatening letters through the mail. What has changed is that Facebook and Twitter have made us all the equivalent of public figures now. Our innocent comments might set off someone halfway around the world. Our pathetic attempts to explain the misunderstanding could go viral and result in death threats or the loss of a job.

Maybe you can stay clear of these traps by sticking to sites such as Goodreads? Reagle says not even a literary-minded bunch such as Goodreads members is immune. He recounts a fight among fan fiction writers that got out of hand.

But it isn't all threats and bickering. Reagle also tells about the trend of writing phony, and often very funny, reviews of products such as a pen designed especially for a woman's hand (?) and an outrageously expensive gallon of imported milk.

As for me, I'll keep reading the comments and trusting the reviews (within reason).

Oh, by the way, I did receive a copy of this book free of charge from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

More than just about comments, this book explores online discussion in many different forms. From the beginning of the internet and the early days of flame wars on usenet, to today’s many, many ways to express our opinions – blog comments, product reviews, Facebook posts, tweets, etc – commentary on the web affects us every time we log on.

Because I’m an avid reviewer, not only of books but also products, I was quite interested in what the author had to say about us. He researched various sites such as Amazon, TripAdvisor, Angie’s List (does pay for membership system make it more reliable?), and Yelp to name a few, and discusses his findings in several chapters. He also touched on Goodreads, the book review site, and talked about the authors vs reviewers war a few years ago–I’m sure many of the book bloggers remember that.

I can’t say I was shocked to find out there are fake reviews, but I was surprised at the lengths people will go to to buy five-star reviews and manipulate the ratings. There is an entire industry set up around it. And there is good reason why. Research has found that people do read reviews and act on them, and the earlier reviews with more likes tend to have more weight.

The book is written in a text-book format (as I would expect from MIT Press, so no surprises there). Despite the style, I found it very interesting, informative, and able to hold my attention. I mention this because many books today aimed at a more general audience provide graphs, illustrations, sidebars, and fun facts and figures to keep the reader’s attention from wandering. The author does sprinkle a few of his favorite cartoons, many from xkcd.com, among the text in each chapter. But mostly this is a more scholarly book, although still very readable and occasionally even humorous.

At about 200 pages long, the book packs in a lot of well-researched and annotated information. It is sure to appeal to those who like detail, facts and figures, but still contains a lot of good information for general reader.

[Ken · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read

It funny that I hesitate to write a comment on this book about comment. This was a good read and provided interesting insights into the "bottom of the Internet" and prompted me to think about my own experiences - specifically why I very rarely comment.

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a solid commentary and addition to internet studies. Intriguingly, GoodReads features in a few of the chapters, probing the nasty and negative reviews that are personal rather than professional. They focus on the man and woman, not the book.

There is nothing here that is wildly innovative or challenging. Theory is lacking. Examples are strong.

I was hoping for more analysis of 'the Bottom of the Web.' I was disappointed.

[Eryk Salvaggio · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough reference of the phenomenon of comments that would provide a crucial backdrop for a wider theoretical analysis. The chapter on harassment and bullying online is extremely compelling, and the book has a smart, funny edge to it without losing any of its academic rigor.

[Allison · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not what I expected - very dry and dense. More like a scholarly textbook than a fun book to read.

[Katharine Holden · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and detailed.