If you’ve ever read a blog, and I’m pretty sure you have, you’ve seen that the quality of the comments in terms of (a) focusing on the post, (b) grammar and style, and (c) organization of thought varies quite a bit.
For example, examine the comments from this YouTube Family Guy post:
i’m putting this on my i-pod!
omg, that was so, AWSOME! lol
HAHA almost cried! great vid
Compare this with comments from the NYTimes blog on the t.v. sitcom, “Cavemen:”
Look, Cavemen isn’t Arrested Development or even The Office, but at least it attempts to be more than just a one-joke show. Also, Nick Krohl, the ’sarcastic hipster caveman’ is the show’s saving grace, the writers wisely center the show around him, and he’s a good performer. I say give this show a chance, the critics alll want to join in the dogpile, but this show really isn’t as bad as the haters are making it out to be.
“Cavemen” is a truly horrible show. A bad sitcom will at least make you groan from corny or tasteless jokes. “Cavemen” does not even do that. The only reason that it could find a way to survive is that it makes one completely numb. The viewer’s grey matter devolves to the point of a mass of nerve cells vaguely aware of its immediate surroundings.
I’m assuming that the NYTimes is attracting a different clientele than those who watch illegal postings of Family Guy videos on YouTube. I was struck by by the fact that the difference was so large.
The Waterglass is somewhere in the middle (half full, you might say).