Colloquially Constructing the Taxonomy

There's a notable distinction between folksonomies and taxonomies in the realm of social media research. Folksonomy refers to the user-driven tagging and indexing of content, often overlapping with metadata—data about data. Conversely, a taxonomy involves a more scientific classification of content or objects.

In this context, online comments exist in a space between these two concepts, as users increasingly categorize various types of comments. While some categorizations emerge organically from user behavior, I’ve compiled a list that reflects my own observations about the recurring comment types I encounter during my research.

1. Not a Comment, But a Question

Given my understanding of the Digital Divide and the diverse devices people use to connect to the internet, I hesitate to judge users' capabilities. Nonetheless, I find it perplexing that many individuals who have access to social media also possess the means to search the web. It is astonishing how frequently I encounter comments that pose questions easily answered by a quick Google search.

These inquiries are particularly puzzling because comments serve as a space for asynchronous discussion. Unlike direct messages, comments do not guarantee immediate responses. Therefore, directing questions to search engines seems far more logical than posting them in comment sections. Yet, this pattern persists across nearly every platform I investigate.

2. It’s in the Syllabus

Building on the trend of question-based comments, I've noted two primary types: general inquiries that could be resolved with a Google search and specific questions best addressed by the content creator. Comments like "It’s in the Syllabus" typically belong to the latter category. Often, these specific queries pertain to information readily available in the content description or on the creator's website.

Just like educators, many content creators have long been engaged in building online communities. They design their content to preemptively address potential questions through detailed descriptions and tagging. Yet, despite these efforts, certain commenters still pose questions that have clearly been answered elsewhere, raising further questions about why such redundancy occurs.

3. Read the Room

A striking feature of online comments is the repetition of phrases or sentiments within a single thread. My analysis of YouTube comments reveals that many sections feature repeated remarks, which can either convey a sense of shared emotion or indicate a failure to engage with the existing dialogue.

This tendency to overlook previous comments often leads to redundant questions and information, contributing to an overwhelming amount of repetitive content. From a research perspective, this is frustrating, as it dilutes the richness of user interaction. Moreover, a lack of thorough reading creates a one-dimensional environment where users focus solely on their own contributions rather than fostering dialogue through engagement with others' comments.

4. The Phantom Comment

The tendency not to read prior comments also gives rise to what I refer to as the "phantom comment." This phenomenon involves users conjecturing about hypothetical responses from others, resulting in comments that do not actually exist or carry little weight in the discussion.

This issue is particularly prevalent in discussions surrounding social justice, where a creator might post content about cultural gatekeeping, only to see comments speculating about backlash that never materializes. Such phantom comments can create an atmosphere of unnecessary defensiveness, as users rally to protect creators from imagined criticisms, thus generating conflict where none exists.

5. The Internet Expert

For years, researchers have grappled with the notion that online anonymity allows anyone to claim expertise, complicating the assessment of identity authenticity. A concerning trend is the emergence of self-proclaimed "internet experts." As an academic, I often comment from a researcher's standpoint, but this has become a running joke, as many users assert their "expert" opinions without any real qualifications.

For instance, a video featuring a dog outside in winter will likely attract comments from users declaring themselves "veterinarians" who criticize the dog's presence in the cold. This can escalate into a frenzy of self-proclaimed expertise, undermining genuine discussions and leading to trolling behavior aimed at silencing dissenting views.

While these comments may seem harmless, they contribute to a climate where both experts and laypersons struggle to be taken seriously. The prevalence of "expert opinion" comments diminishes the credibility of true expertise, reflecting a broader trend where popular opinion often overshadows factual knowledge.

The Etiquette and Affordances of Online Commenting

In my exploration of online comments and their repetitive nature, I suspect that this phenomenon stems from a lack of basic internet etiquette. I posit that early internet users were more attuned to specific behavioral norms and codes. Much of this understanding was rooted in a foundational knowledge of how platforms operated.

Today, many users engage with social media without grasping the expectations and affordances of each platform. For example, TikTok does not display timestamps on videos, leading to different commenting practices compared to more immediate platforms like Twitter. Users often apply the norms of one platform to another, which may result in faux pas that reflect a broader misunderstanding of online etiquette.

While I once believed that such behaviors were primarily generational, my research on TikTok has revealed that younger users are often the most frequent offenders of these missteps, indicating that everyone is still navigating the complexities of online interaction.

As we continue to spend time in digital spaces, I hope that we can cultivate a more thoughtful approach to online commenting, fostering a community that values meaningful engagement over repetition and superficial interactions.