Ive had comments deleted from ESPN before. Then i just started railing people... especially this guy Dave Wright... If you see him on there troll his a$$. He jerks off to curry every night im convinced.
What kind of comments were deleted? Did it seem random, or did deleted comments follow any particular pattern?
I posted a screen-shot of his comment on the facebook link. One does not need insider. Find the comment on the ESPN Facebook post. Hint: you won't. It's not a nutty conspiracy theory, and it illustrates an agenda they are clearly pushing. You do not need to actually go onto ESPN.
OK. I didn't see your friend's post, but I saw several others which were taking a pro-Harden stance in the MVP race. So, is your theory that someone behind the curtain saw the most popular first comment was pro-Harden and thought that wasn't acceptable? Why would they care so much? Couldn't it have just been the work of some sloppy intern who's job it is to moderate comments? If anything, ESPN would welcome different opinions on a topic like this, because it creates more interest/buzz, and consequentially gets more web page hits and TV ratings. It doesn't make sense to me, at all, that there is some organizational agenda to stifle pro-Harden MVP arguments.
You would have to take my word when I state that: 1) The screen shot was early: it got 198 likes last time I checked before it was taken down. 2) There were 4 other pro-Harden comments (all 70+ likes), that were clearly moderated. Believe what you want; it is a fan-forum. Quite frankly, the evidence provided illustrates that there was a said "popular" comment moderated, thus establishing (my) credibility, and the site at hand has repeated instances of favorable bias towards the other candidate. There is clearly a difference in a viewer's interpretation of popular opinion when the pro-Harden comments "like" numbers dwarfs pro-Curry opinion. You even said yourself, several others were taking a pro-Harden stance. But they did not have the popularity. Thus, it is the best of both worlds for ESPN.
I honestly don't want Harden to get the mvp "this season". I want him to go down the road like Hakeem did. Lose the mvp trophy to the rivalry. So the loss could drive him more in the playoffs. Make him angry and play out of his mind. Just like how Hakeem did when he lost in the mvp race. Individual accolades are still obtainable in the future.
Again, I still don't understand why you think "ESPN", as an organization, cares what's in the comment section? When you refer to bias towards other candidates, you're referring to the opinion of writers who are for the most part following other teams, and in my view their opinion mirrors the general sentiment of fans around the country. I don't think this should be construed as a purposeful anti-Harden or pro-Curry agenda by ESPN. That you think this really is just a consequence of your own personal biases, which all fans have.
Obviously, in this scenario/debate, I wish I had a larger sample size with more ESPN article posts and screenshots. And really, I only stumbled on this one because my friend took the screen-shot of his own comment. But in this context, the evidence provided is: 1) a top comment is obviously deleted. 2) whether you believe it or not, my data set has 4 other top "pro-Harden" comments deleted in his post. What are your conclusions for scenarios 1) and 2)? If you are arguing correlation does not equal causation, yes, I agree. But one can make conclusions and get results with a correlation. This happens in economics all the time. It can easily be argued that because it seems like such a trivial matter that would make little affect, ESPN would do it because, like you said, it requires grunt work from an intern that takes very literally 60 seconds. While small in proportion, the bank for the buck is large in context.
It was a comment about their facts during the a game and them embellishing on how we barely won..when it was just garbage time. Maybe because i always call them Disney.
I'm so sick of the "don't win it this year, be like Olajuwon and get mad" narrative. It's like everyone forgets that Olajuwon actually won his MVP the year of the first title. It was the second title run where he got mad and watched Robinson get the MVP.
Oh, and here is what Hakeem says about the 95 MVP award: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...nson-deserved-the-1995-nba-mvp-203838896.html
Everyone saying Harden is the no brainer and "right" are just as biased and stupid as the people saying Curry is hands down the MVP. The reality is both of these guys are deserving. I dont blame people for giving the edge to the team who has won more than the Rockets and have destroyed the competition, add to that the style difference between the two and it makes it even more skewed towards Curry. People just enjoy great shooters more than great drivers.
Curry is the sponsor's choice and therefore defacto ESPN's as they make money by running the ads I'm sure there is already a 'most valuable' assist segment lined up with State Farm that will roll tape a week or so after Curry is given the award [not to take away the fact that Curry and the W's did have a great season btw]
I do trust you when you say that those comments were deleted, but I can't draw any real conclusion from that. Were the responses only pro-Harden, or were they perhaps anti-ESPN? The latter would be a more plausible reason for some intern they hired to have deleted the thread entirely. Not defending it, mind you, but that would make more sense to me. OK ... but what does ESPN get out of it? It was an opinion piece from one of their writers. So what if many commenters have a different view? Its not exactly an uncommon thing for opinion in the comment section to be opposed to the article's content. And, in any case, what percentage of people that go to ESPN actually read the comments? I think you are overestimating how much ESPN cares about the views expressed there. If its inflammatory or suggesting ESPN is crooked, that's a different thing.
threes and frees https://public.tableau.com/shared/TGSG297KB?:display_count=yes&:showVizHome=no <script type='text/javascript' src='https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/viz_v1.js'></script><div class='tableauPlaceholder' style='width: 654px; height: 709px;'><noscript><a href='http://statcenter.blogspot.com/2015/04/threes-and-frees-james-harden-is-all.html'><img alt='Dashboard 1 ' src='https://public.tableau.com/static/images/4W/4W88KRF4S/1_rss.png' style='border: none' /></a></noscript><object class='tableauViz' width='654' height='709' style='display:none;'><param name='host_url' value='https%3A%2F%2Fpublic.tableau.com%2F' /> <param name='path' value='shared/4W88KRF4S' /> <param name='toolbar' value='yes' /><param name='static_image' value='https://public.tableau.com/static/images/4W/4W88KRF4S/1.png' /> <param name='animate_transition' value='yes' /><param name='display_static_image' value='yes' /><param name='display_spinner' value='yes' /><param name='display_overlay' value='yes' /><param name='display_count' value='yes' /><param name='showVizHome' value='no' /></object></div>
They were not anti-ESPN. Your terminology of "thread" should have been utilized by me previously since there were replies to each of the comments. I didn't think about that. Can we make an assumption that ESPN does not want its writers to look out of touch? Furthermore, would having the top 5 threads/comments pro-Harden illustrate the writer being off-based? Thus, this would be what ESPN would get out of the moderation: it would preserve the value of the piece/writer. Would you agree with that statement, despite how small the percentage of people this would actually be relevant to? A viewer's instant reaction (from seeing comments) could change from: "Wow, the author doesn't agree with anybody" to "A thought provoking article", based on the split discussion. Obviously, this is the equilibrium desired, and it does have comments opposed to the article's content. The article discusses why Steph Curry is an obvious pick, and everybody is pro-Harden? Um... I would believe the writer's credibility would take a hit, in the eyes of the, albeit, small percentage as you stated. Would you agree? In terms of percentages of who reads the comments, it is small, which is what you are insinuating. I agree. But what is the percentage of an intern's work-day spent towards moderating comments? Negligible. This small percentage is still thousands of viewers when discussing the lump sum numbers. That can be classified as a market. One could argue that this market includes readers that are more engaged as well. I am not overestimating how much ESPN cares about the comments: the amount they care can be quantified with 60 seconds of an intern's salary. Less than a dollar? But, this action can lead to 2 conclusions (under correlation and small sample size condition): 1) Agenda for Curry 2) Preserving Integrity However, there are other ESPN posts out there, where all the comments are opposing, like you stated. This eliminates option 2 in my thought process. So why did this one get moderated? Did I miss something in my logic?
