A couple of posts at Slugger have witnessed criticism for going off topic in the comments zone. This in itself is not an altogether irregular occurrence, but something about it got me thinking.

Slugger is a great source of news and views on Northern Ireland (and a bit further afield) but I wonder if it's sheer volume of posts, something that no doubt keeps readers interested and gives them an incentive to regularly check the site, is partially to blame for the poor quality and/or off-topicness of many of the comments. Don't get me wrong, some of them are truly informative, but the majority are either rehashes of old arguments or petty tribal/party point-scoring.

Going Off-Topic

The two threads in question are by Mark McGregor and Pete Baker. Mark highlights upcoming protests from socialist, republican microgroup Eirigi while Pete warns that there are actually folk out there who seriously want creationism taught as a scientific "theory".

Follow up:

Mark's post went over old ground (42-day detention without trial) to publicise Eirigi's publicity stunts and was peppered with the usual republican hyperbole. Commenters immediately proceeded to mock Eirigi's paltry numbers, liberal use of graffiti and lack of grounding in anything resembling reality. Pete's post, also rehashing a topic covered many times before, developed quickly into a discussion about the credentials of Richard Dawkins rather than the teaching of Creationism/Intelligent Design as science.

Same Shit, Different Day?

The common factor, from what I can see, (aside from going off topic) is that they both cover material covered before. The 42-day detention has been done to death, both on Slugger and elsewhere, and Pete is never slow to blog when the local bible-bashing nutters are let near a microphone.

So is it because people are bored by the same old same old that the comments veer off on a tangent? While I've been guilty myself of going on (and on) about my own pet peeves, I do try to restrain myself sometimes, or post in other fora where the audience is specifically interested in the issue at hand. I also try not to blog things that have been covered adequately in the mainstream media (including Slugger, which is mainstream compared to my wee site) unless I have something different I want to add. This often means that, despite wanting to post regularly and hopefully keep readers interested, I've nothing to say.

Perhaps it's just the fact that I read Slugger almost every (week)day that creates enough familiarity to breed contempt. I suppose that it's at times like this I'm really thankful for blogs like Unionist Lite that offer something different. Maybe it's just a case that Slugger readers should 'get out more', as it were, and visit some different sites. Thoughts?

Footnote: I'm in no position to criticise the way Mick runs, to paraphrase, the biggest blog in the country, and certainly not suggesting I could do it better. I'm only thinking out loud. Further, Pete and Mark aren't the most predictable or pigeon-holed posters (there's at least one other regular who is leading the pack from some distance on that score); it's just that they posted these articles in quick succession and the comments followed a similar pattern which was pointed out in both threads.