My research area (not me specifically) sometimes gets attacked by a handful of people who don't know what they're talking about. I don't have a problem with fair criticism, but these people are just being unprofessional.
To be more specific, the abstract of a critical paper might be something like:
We use technique X. After extensive testing we find that X is completely impractical. Moreover, X fails to do Y or Z. We conclude that X is a research dead end and the researchers working on X don't understand what they are doing.
A more accurate summary of the paper would be:
We implement A - one of many techniques from area X. A is widely known to be inferior to other techniques in the literature of X, but we are unaware of more sophisticated techniques. Some basic tests confirm A's inferiority.
Due to failing to properly use A, it doesn't do Y. Moreover, A doesn't do impossible task Z. (No one claimed that A does Z.) We thereby demonstrate that we don't know what we are doing.
How does such a paper get through peer review? Simple: They publish it in a different community, where no one understands X. Unfortunately, this terrible paper then becomes one of the most visible papers on X in that community.
Most people in my area completely ignore the criticism, although some do try to rebut it. As easy as it would be to ignore the critical papers and hope that others do too, the reality is that the misinformation they spread is harmful to my area.
I was wondering whether others have similar experience and can share what worked and what didn't. Can you win by arguing with an idiot/troll?