https://hackmd.io/@yHA610uMRs2oICzljUpTuw/SJ_YfBqcbe

Mar 27 Friday - Bemused

The Three Wolf Effect

When navigating online spaces, there are numerous occasions where certain details will seem “off”, and you aren’t able to point out exactly what’s wrong. More times than not, the opinions you formulate when reading articles or reviews, are almost predetermined by what you see first—whether it’s the earliest comments, the way information is presented, or the tone that is already set before you even engage with the content. This idea is detailed in Chapter 7 of Joseph Reagle’s “Reading the Comments”, where he details the concept of bemusement. In the chapter, there is a graph that perfectly summarizes the relevance of how social media engagement works, favoring quantity and speed over quality. The bar graph shows the price difference between a professionally developed ad campaign versus a comment based one, highlighting the ease and inexpensiveness while still outputting similar results.

This confusion is also found on multiple rating based services. Multiple product reviews have led to products blowing up and peaking on the Amazon top 100 because other customers found the reviews to be entertaining. For example, Reagle, details the story of the three wolf shirts and how a review about the pros and cons of said shirt led to insane levels of success. However in order to properly rate something, you must fully comprehend the rating system itself, and Reagle breaks down the confusion behind rating systems. I related this rating system breakdown to similar experiences in my hometown friend group, where we were convinced that a proper rating skill was based on a more global level, making most of our ratings on various products not breaking the 5 or 6 marks out of 10 score.

Reagle also connects this to ideas like implicit association tests. Just like with early comments or ratings, people assume they are making independent judgments, when in reality those judgments are influenced by factors they cannot fully see. Overall, these examples show that what feels like personal judgment online is often shaped by hidden structures we barely notice, which leads me to wonder the extent to which our opinions are actually our own, and how much are they influenced before we even realize it?

https://hackmd.io/@OwAnd/SkAaMUmoZe

Reading Response #1: March 27 - Bemused

They say getting the last word in is best, because it must mean you won the argument, right? In an internet-based world where the conversation never truly stops, the next best option quickly becomes the one everyone sees—-the first comment. Especially given the speed at which people often skim through comments, reviews, and the like, being one of the few that can fit in the top area that everyone sees makes the difference for you in terms of how many people see you, but also in proving as a validation and consensus agreement with the media with which you are interacting. With the internet only getting fast and faster and more optimized to keep us scrolling to see as many ads as possible (or annoy us enough to pay to remove them), mistakes, and poorly thought out messages, are all the more common. Having spent much more time on twitter than I’d like to admit, I find this idea very relatable in that its very easy to have something little tick you off and rebut it and end up digging yourself and the original poster into a hole much deeper than either of you ever needed.

While some posts are made in haste, lack of thought, or true malicious intent, they all often meet the same responses. With multiple high-profile cases of people making tweets that are seemingly in bad taste simply coming from lack of awareness, it can often be hard to tell who’s covering their tracks in the face of backlash and who was genuinely unaware. I have personally witnessed this happen when a Dutch woman ended a simple tweet about losing to a Brazilian in a tournament with an orangutan emoji, which sparked outrage due to deeply rooted racism involving calling Brazilians monkeys. She quickly deleted the tweet and pointed to previous tweets in which she had used various animal emoji, including other monkey emoji in clearly non-racial contexts, but the damage was already done, with Brazilian fans loudly cheering when she was eventually fully knocked out of the tournament. The line between excuse and truth is often blurry, but there is unfortunately only ever so much that can be done to see inside the brains of others.

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/KId051rWS06xtji-E8vSxA

Reading Response: https://hackmd.io/nEctHqJTQfO4KrdCMZVdCA

Hackmd:

Mar 27 Fri - Bemused Why do professors at this school constantly make you rate your group members after a large group project? And based off of what? “Reese showed up to every meeting on time but he smells and I’m jealous of his ability to grow facial hair. 5/10”. Does the 5/10 mean he was an average teammate or does it mean he sucked and I never want to work with him again? Reagle (2013) covers a wide range of topics but they all attempt to make sense of the funny, weird, and confusing comments left on the internet, including the subjective use of rating systems. This chapter is split up into 3 distinct sections or themes. The first section discusses how the date a comment is posted is rewarded over the quality of content of the comment itself. This ties into the concept of preferential attachment which is the principle that people must get an audience first over everything else because “equally compelling competitors who were late to the game might suffer because of their tardiness” (Reagle 2013). The second section covers how comments can have context, filters, and even nuance stripped away. The rating system is a prominent example of this structure because of its subjectivity. Another example explores context and how it travels slower than the comment itself. The third section ends the chapter on a more wholesome note; Comment sections allow people who would otherwise feel isolated to finally find their community due to the sheer volume of commentors on the internet. Although this chapter felt like an umbrella of ideas that were loosely related to each other, the chapter makes some great points about comments that apply to a more general context. For instance, preferential attachment can be related to the concept of blitzscaling which is when firms are pressured to move first and spend as much money as possible to establish themselves in a new market. Blitzscaling works because of the existence of preferential attachment. However, for better or for worse, the scale that makes preferential attachment possible also allows for people of different communities to interact and find each other in a way which would not be possible otherwise. The speed and scale online comments possess are what made online content difficult to trust, but also allowed for people to find each other. There is currently no solution to cut all the bad and none of the good, and there probably will never be one.

Dear Prof,

Please find attached my reading response!

Homepage link: https://hackmd.io/@2NC38q44TROfblYy1SjuUQ/r1Npm1QH-l Reading response link: https://hackmd.io/@2NC38q44TROfblYy1SjuUQ/BkK9hBLq-e

March 27th Fri - Bemused

“WTF” may come across as a throwaway reaction, but in Chapter 7 of Reading the Comments by Professor Joseph Reagle, it becomes a way of understanding how people navigate meanings online. Firstly, the chapter introduces us to the concept of “bemusement” as a defining feature of digital communication. In a space where content is constantly being circulated across varied audiences and contexts, meanings can become undetermined and we (the users) are left trying to make sense of messages that appear out of place.

Furthermore, the chapter argues that online communication is shaped by context collapses and hypertextuality, which make meaning quite difficult to control. When we post something online, it’s rarely understood in its original context that we intended it to be understood in. Instead, it travels across networks where different audiences interpret it based on their own perspectives. For example, Louis C.K.’s tweets show this clearly – what he meant as a simple compliment ended up being interpreted as a political statement because it was pulled into a larger conversation that he didn’t even know he was a part of. The fact that meaning online is not determined by intent but by interpretation is unsettling. That being said, the chapter also highlights the common responses people give when this happens (to them), such as “I was hacked”, which functions less as a claim and more as a set standard for distancing oneself from their own controversial content. Similarly, many also respond with humor through the use of memes, further blurring the lines between genuineness and performativity.

Lastly, something I found interesting about this chapter was how it reframes confusion as a structural feature of digital platforms rather than as a result of communication failure. The concept of bemusement suggests that users have adapted to an environment where misinterpretation is unavoidable; therefore, if meaning is always shifting and dependent on context that is very person-to-person dependent, clarity can be hard to achieve.

Google doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uuab6QZ1PDL6QM11QKnhljrA4Ejyhc4oKJOvA63Z5yA/edit?tab=t.66xdqmwrjpbw

Kind regards, Pari Dewan

Reading Response Link: https://hackmd.io/@brookeelliott/SJKH3V99Ze

Markdown:

Mar 27th, 2026 - Bemused

Online reviews are supposed to reduce uncertainty, but they can actually have the opposite effect. Reagle (2015) suggests that online reviews reveal what a reviewer expects it to be rather than simply what the product is. While ratings may appear objective, they are filtered through individual standards of what the product or experience should deliver. Reagle (2015) illustrates this with an example of a carbon monoxide alarm that saved a woman’s son’s life, yet she gave it only 4/5 stars.

While reading this chapter, I kept thinking back to a prior phone call with my mom. She operates three separate Airbnbs that all have very distinct value propositions. Her first 2 are all positioned as more premium experiences, featuring lakefront views, retro flooring, and strong branding. Her Airbnb averages for these properties are all 4.9. However, in the past few years, she has opened a budget and high-value option (~50/night) in a highly desirable Portland, Oregon location. Despite this, reviews often judge the lower-cost unit against expectations that align more closely with her luxury listings or even hotels.

For example, one guest gave 2 stars for value, citing issues such as how she had to park a few houses down due to a lack of parking, even though comparable listings in the same area range from $100-$185/night. In this case, the dissatisfaction seems less about objective failure and more about a misalignment between price and expectation framing, as Reagle (2015) notes that reviewers often operate under the “confounded assumption that others have similar expectations and competencies.”

Furthermore, Reagle’s argument suggests that review systems collapse multiple dimensions (price, comfort, amenities) into a single rating, which creates distortion. So, for example, a $50 listing is being evaluated as an idealized stay rather than as a budget-friendly option. But with ratings being so subjective, it raises the question of whether they truly reduce informational asymmetry or just replace it with a different type of noise.

Hi Prof. Reagle,

I hope you are well. Here is my reading response for tomorrow. If you could please let me know my grade when its available.

Thank you!

Best, Juliet

Home page: https://hackmd.io/kAPbnMJaSlCjzZluHliJeA Reading Response 2 page: https://hackmd.io/_bMpo_KBR6WVzcodmcp0IQ

March 27 - Bemused

When I go to watch a video on TikTok, my first instinct is to see what other viewers are saying in the comment section. To me, it feels like an extension of the video, adding so many more layers to it. People will make jokes, comment photo memes, and make references I didn’t even think to notice. It adds more creativity to the video, making the experience so much more enjoyable. The video might already be interesting, but the comments add so much more. One will point out a minor detail that I missed, which creates a whole community to comment on it. Then, all of a sudden, all these people are making a joke about something so minor that it is so much funnier than needed. People will also come up with phrases or comment on a completely random meme that somehow fits perfectly. Unlike other apps, TikTok’s comment sections don’t feel like you’re reading other people’s long opinions; you’ll see short anecdotes that create a collaborative space.

Reagle explains how online comment sections aren’t just about reading new information; it’s more of a social space that is shaped by timing, interaction, and behavior. Algorithms play a major role in shaping what you see. In my experience, my comment section on the same video will be completely different from my friends’, just because we interact with the app differently. TikTok shows you comments first that will make you want to engage with the post more. The longer TikTok can keep you reading comments, the longer you’re playing the video on a loop in the background, whether you notice it or not. It’s a win-win situation for the app: you’re enjoying yourself reading the comments, the viewer might be earning a commission from the views you’re generating, and TikTok is keeping you on their app for longer.

What I have found most recently is that top comments will say, “I didn’t expect all of this drama in the comment section,” and when I go to try to understand what everyone is saying about the video, I can’t find it. It seems that people will hate on the video, then people will hate on the haters, and if you’re seeing the video after all of this has happened, you can’t really find the initial hate anymore.

This all just shows how personalized comment sections have become. Algorithms don’t just control the videos you’re seeing, but also the comments that you first see. The app sorts all comments based on your engagement, relevance to you, and keeps you in your filter bubble. This means that TikTok will show me comments it thinks I’ll find funny or interesting. My past behavior on the app controls my future views. So even though some think being the first comment is important, it’s almost completely irrelevant.

Dear Prof, PFA the markdown for my reading response

March 27th - Bemused

“First!!” is a comment that I often see when my friends post on their Instagram. It’s commented, as the word suggests, to showcase that they were the ‘first ones here’. Joseph Reagle’s book Reading the Comments details how this is actually a phenomenon, and the first step to several levels of bemusement that one experiences online. The second step is star rating. Especially on platforms such as Amazon, where our judgments are compressed into a single number between 0-5. Though made to be simpler to understand, they lead to more confusion when ratings lie in the middle ground. Bemused, defined as “puzzled, confused, or bewildered” is a feeling that Reagle argues comments make us feel, beyond informing or alienating.

He details that a comment is hypotextual, shedding context as it travels across the internet, hence creating that WTF effect. When a comment is read far from its place of context, it’s unlikely it makes sense, leading to assumptions and wild connections. Apart from the baffling effect, it can also have serious repercussions. Discussing the example of the hacked AP twitter account, where a simple false report resulted in a loss of over $100 billion from the S&P 500, Reagle highlights how drastically fake information can affect the real world as well. Though hate and false information have always existed, the internet has made them much more prevalent.

I wonder how the race to be the first comment, first like, first view in the digital world translates to human psychology and behaviour. Individuals aren’t exactly contributing anything meaningful by racing to be first, yet why do they do it? Is it for attention? A sense of accomplishment? And if so, is it healthy for the digital world to be promoting these feelings and habits?

google doc link

Thank you, Shritha

Good Afternoon, Professor!

Attached are a link and markdown for my response for tomorrow’s class. https://hackmd.io/@soymilk00usa/HyhjZb4H-e

1. Mar 27 Fri - Bemused

When buying most products on Amazon, users can find recommendations or bundle ideas that they may feel inclined to include in their shopping carts. 9 times out of 10, I ignore this feature. I am not a victim of dynamic pricing and pretty bundles. That is because many online shopping enthusiasts infer that there will always be a better substitute than the ones the platform gives you, no matter the season. In Absurdities: “Elegant Design-Just for Her”, Reagle (2015) points their mouse at a combination of frequently bought items, “men’s khaki pants ‘because you rated Star Wars Trilogy’. Other product recommendations that come by the way of Star Wars include a twelve-cup programmable coffeemaker and a nose and ear hair groomer (Reagle, 2015).” Interestingly enough, a persona has been made of the type of customer who either watches Star Wars or regularly wears business casual.

Recommending a nose and ear hair groomer is not so amusing to me (it is actually); it is the that a large company markets on consumer identity through targeting and segmenting. Not to mention, they were frameworks from my MKTG 2201 class that were highly memorable; it makes me think more about how consumers are treated on the other side of the screen. On one side, we have online users laughing together at crazy reviews, but on the other side lie firms broadly categorizing their customers. By tracking purchase history and what items similar customers are buying, companies like Amazon can analyze that data and turn anyone into a cart that needs to be filled with useless junk (I am not calling the Star Wars trilogy useless junk, as my father is an avid fan of the franchise). But on that note, when that marketing logic becomes apparent in a feature that is recommended to customers, humor also gains visibility in that as well. In this way, the “bemusement” that Reagle (2015) describes is not only about humorous combinations and comments, but also about the unexpected assumptions that are made about us, the consumer.

Have a great rest of your day!

• Vickie Tilley

Homepage: https://hackmd.io/@AlanaUdell/ryYzyhCVZx

Markup:

Bemused 3/26/25

Anytime I want to order something online, especially on Amazon, I’m forced to fight with my mother. Not because the item is expensive or unnecessary, or any other normal reason a parent may have for not wanting their child to buy something. The reason is that my mother only reads one-star reviews. On any site, she goes to the reviews section, clicks on the one-star comments, and that is all she takes into consideration. She wonders why everything online is such terrible quality. The reality is, she never orders the items to find out for herself. She takes these strangers’ opinions as the word of G-d.

The reading mentions that ratings are based on an individual’s expectations, and we assume everyone has similar expectations to ours. Obviously, this is untrue. But my mother will always believe online commenters have the same standards of quality as her. That their needs are equivalent to her needs. Meanwhile, I do as the reading suggests and look at the most helpful comments or comments that reference aspects of a product that are important to me. That way, I get the fullest picture possible of the item I will receive.

I often wonder if this difference in how my mother and I use reviews is due to our age gap. Is it because I am a “digital native”? At the beginning of the semester, we discussed how it is not necessarily true that our age determines our level of tech literacy. However, I wonder if age affects a person’s ability to think critically about what they read online. Especially from comment sections, which are supposedly designed to help the consumer bridge the gap created by not having an item in our physical space. Does age affect a person’s likelihood to trust positive comments? Does it change how they choose to inform themselves?

Version History

Home Page: https://hackmd.io/mkhaAseeTZCQfiqS6hn8Uw?both Reading Response Page: https://hackmd.io/38r2dPSLQzeIDadIGe9a_w

Markdown: Google Doc       Online comments can be viewed both negatively and positively. Negative comments dominate the online environment as they are part of heated arguments and discussions on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and other sites. However, in the book Reading the Comments by Joseph Reagle, he proposed a different approach to these online comment sections, viewing them as opportunities to gather information, generate curiosity, confusion, and humor. In other words, he described these sections as “bemused.”       As the text highlights, not all comment sections on platforms are interested in spreading misinformation or arguing with others. Instead, users react in ways that demonstrate their playful engagement with the content or bemusement. These responses are “slap-dash, confusing, amusing, revealing and weird” (Reagle, 2015). This quote further reinforces the idea of “bemused” behavior on the internet. This could be broken down into components. The “slap-dash” behavior reflects the natural behavior of humans as they respond to the content. The critic about these comments is that they are very “in the moment.” In class, we discussed how human behavior might change in a given moment. This applies to comments, as they are created in response to a context. However, it is extremely important to recognize that the context is relevant in the moment and loses its relevance as it travels to other platforms.       Comment sections are areas where individuals can interpret information and respond in real time. A more extreme version of this would be live streaming on platforms such as Youtube Twitch, Kick, and more. The streamer is flooded with real-time comments that could range from negative to positive. Applying the “slap-dash” behavior, users react to current information in forms of comments that are written without reflection, which varies from harmful to positive. Comments that were made during this time could be easily misinterpreted as they can be manipulated and put out of place where the context was not similar (Reagle, 2015). Understanding and evaluating online comments is a difficult task because context is misaligned or lost in translation as they cross different platforms. The more people who join the conversation, the more the original meaning/context of the thread loses significance and becomes confusing. Should these online platforms take more responsibility for highlighting the original thread to avoid confusion and misunderstandings that lead to further discourses? Finally, if all comments are often bemused, what’s the best way to approach them? Less seriously or not trusting at all?

Home Page URL https://hackmd.io/@kwilson25/Syg1-k7rWx Reading Response Set 2 URL https://hackmd.io/KkD5l8HLTMyJSVJWLlWMgw

Markdown:

Mar 27 Fri - Bemused

How powerful do you think your online comments are? Why comment at all? Joseph Reagle’s Reading the Comments explores the various contexts of online commenting, the dangers, the opportunities, and the hilarious things people post on the internet.

Reagle analyzes various sites and the differences in comments on individual sites from Slashdot, to Reddit, to Twitter, to Yelp. On Slashdot, comments are rated from worst to best and people can filter out the lowest rated ones. This seems like a great fix to irrelevant, unhelpful, or random comments and reviews. However, people can simply get all their friends to rate theirs well, or hack the system some other way. Plus, according to this chapter, early comments got far more attention than they possibly deserved, and certainly more attention than later comments, regardless of how they compared.

What is, in my opinion, the most interesting part of this article is how rating differs among people, cultures, and scales. I was pleased to hear that I am not the only one who finds that the pain scale is annoying and hard to navigate. They say that “ten” is the worst pain you can imagine, but I have a very vivid imagination and can pretty much always imagine worse regardless of how much pain I am actually in. One time, I slammed my finger in a car door and had to go to the emergency room because my finger swelled up so much. The pain got so bad on the way to the hospital that I was genuinely considering asking them to just cut it off. I had never experienced so much pain, but when they asked me for my number on the scale, I said 8 because I was sure there was worse pain even though I had never experienced it. How are doctor’s supposed to actually gauge the pain level you are at if you don’t even know what 10 is? And, what if you’ve been in some sort of pain your entire life but because you’ve never experienced a life without that pain, you think that’s a zero on the scale? My mother and I have had many in-depth conversations about this topic in particular and both of us have come to the conclusion that the pain scale is an annoying measurement method.

I appreciated the final part of this reading because it ended so positively. Nothing in this world is entirely good or bad, online comments included. While many negative things come from commenting, there is also love, support, and connection. The ASMR community formed through online comments. People thought they were alone, with no way to describe what they were experiencing to others, until someone posted it online. People found an entire group of others to relate to, share new videos, and talk about the weird feeling they experience when they see or listen to an ASMR video. The internet may be dangerous and scary in many ways, and many use it for hateful actions, but there is beauty, connection, and togetherness that comes from it as well.