By adamg on Wed., 5/24/2006 - 10:00 am
Jay Fitzgerald takes exception to Bryan Person's assertion that only blogs with comments are credible.
Topics:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Jay Fitzgerald takes exception to Bryan Person's assertion that only blogs with comments are credible.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Mountain, Meet Molehill, Molehill, Mountain
By CS
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 10:21am
A closer reading might be in order here.
Bryan said that the Globe's attempts to initiate a dialogue via their own blogs isn't credible because they don't allow comments. Nowhere did he say that all blogs without comments are not credible. Many blogs, even with comments, wouldn't be credible: Michelle Malkin for example, or Instapundit, to name two prominent conservative blogs which don't allow the hoi polloi to respond.
Comments on Boston.com blogs
By Bryan Person
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 12:09pm
Perhaps I might not have implied the absolutist view that *all* blogs without comments are not credible. But Boston.com's attempt to "faciliate a regular, public conversation" rings hollow when it doesn't allow those readers to engage with the bloggers on the blog itself, wouldn't you say?
Yes, there may be compelling reasons for not allowing comments, and that's certainly not a requirement of a blog. However, not allowing them for fear of negative feedback -- which is one of the primary reasons that Boston.com cited to me -- does, in my mind, mean that the company is not practicing what it preaches.
Interesting
By Abby
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 11:35am
I was just talking with Jon from Bostonist about this last night. Bostonist is not written in first person, so the authors all present themselves as "Bostonist." For example, "Bostonist checked out the such and such event and thougt...," and I was saying that when it isn't first person, there's less of an imperative (at least to me) to comment. That said, Bostonist is an excellent blog with a large readership. I think it's all about the presentation and the community that builds up around each blog. I know that on my blog, my mother has become part of the terrain because she comments so much. She is almost a co-author in ways - or the nutty neighbor across the hall. She adds to my blog's texture. On the other hand, a popular city-themed blog like Bostonist is certainly well-read, but the affect it has is more evidenced by the number of links TO it than by the total comments on it.
---
http://proactivebusybody.com
Of course, there is a big
By Abby
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 11:51am
Of course, there is a big difference between a blog not having many comments just because they don't, and not allowing comments. I think you really leave out a huge potential for interesting interaction, and the comments taking on a life of their own - adding to the overall presentation of the information. There's an ownership and an involvement commenters feel that keeps that more engaged with the material. Why you'd disallow that, I just don't get. It's probably luddite shit where they are afraid of spam. That stuff is manageable. Just takes a little work.
---
http://proactivebusybody.com
Comment spam
By Bryan Person
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 12:17pm
Abby, I agree with you (my one-month-old blog falls into the category of one that doesn't have many comments because it doesn't :))
I have moderated comments on my blog, and I do so to filter out the spam. I don't disallow critical comments, but I do stop one-liners that link to sites for porn or penis enhancements.
In the case of Boston.com, there would need to be someone who moderated the blog comments to make sure that spam posts, or those that used "inappropriate language" as defined on the blog(s) -- some folks use the "kitchen rule" -- were removed.
As you write, Abby, it can be done.
Kitchen Rule
By Abby
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 12:39pm
I've always thought of it as the living room rule, but yeah, same thing. I actually have comments open with spam filters set up. Only rarely have I taken down inappropriate or trolly comments. Maybe it's the good spam filters I have, but I haven't had too much trouble, and my blog has been active and up for almost two years now.
---
http://proactivebusybody.com
The issue with large Web sites
By adamg
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 1:02pm
First, I'm all in favor of blogs with comments.
That having been said, a newspaper site faces a potential issue of a far greater magnitude than we small fry - people WILL attempt to hijack discussions to bash Bush or Clinton or cats or whatever, and they will do so repeatedly and will ignore your at-first-very-polite requests to not do so and before you know it you're dealing with 6,000 threads all involving your alleged jackbooting of the First Amendment and aha, I know you were just a tool of the fascist or communist or Martian conspiracy, you scum.
Whoa, Wicked Good Conference flashback (see the Stupid Crap forum), sorry!
Yes, the above can be managed, but it will either take a dedicated moderator-type person or (and here's the critical point) writers who really want to be blogging (see the Philadelphia Inquirer's Dan Rubin or, for that matter, Dave Barry), as opposed to people who "blog" (cough*Richard Chacon*cough) because they have to.
HEY!
By Abby
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 1:15pm
You calling us small fry? The NERVE!!
---
http://proactivebusybody.com
msm vs. blogosphere
By jon
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 11:53am
I'm not weighing in on the credibility issue here but only stating personal preference for blogs with enabled comments. If you check out what the Herald has done with their online presence - not only are blogs more seemingly integrated onto pages of topical content (sidebar links, bottom links, etc...) than boston.com and the globe bloggers, they also allow comments - see Jay's professional blog: http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/econoBlog/
I'd say it's a helluva lot better than (IMHO) the boston.com forums for starting a conversation on a topic.
British tabloids
By timlav
Wed, 05/24/2006 - 1:11pm
British tabs are what they are, but one thing they do well is use the Internet. Most American papers, tab and boring broadsheet, can learn a lot from them. The London Sun (a Murdoch paper) allows comments on its Internet-published news stories. I would love that feature on this side of the pond. Both for commenting and reading. The Herald, for its part, allows users to rate stories, which are then queued in a top-rated section, and boston.com has a widget for most-e-mailed. These are steps in the right direction, but commenting is the key. What I don't understand is why the bloggers at the Globe can't moderate their own comments. Are their fingers too pretty to bother?