Received a few notes about the Amanda Palmer post (below) and that a place for reader comments was desired here. I suspended the comment option a few weeks ago for a couple of reasons.
First of all, few people were commenting to my posts so I didn't perceive a huge loss taking place. That may have related to my registration requirement for comments - perhaps the worst strategy for building an active blog audience - for the great majority of time that this blog has been around.
Aside from the thoughts about how to build a web audience, I asked myself how useful comment sections really were. Is a user really engaging more strongly with a set of words and ideas if they have the option to blurt out a reaction below? Initially I didn't think so, but that led me to another question. When you comment to a blog, to whom are you actually writing?
The author? Sometimes, but usually there's an easy way to contact the writer through email and leaving a comment isn't necessarily more convenient. I don't think that's what primarily attracts people to comment sections.
When you comment, you're communicating with an idea rather than with a person. But how does one actually communicate with an idea? Well, you don't. We process ideas or act upon them. We can argue for or against an idea, but it's always one way argument. We communicate with other people about ideas, but never with the ideas themselves.
So, from comment boards we most often get a punchy and emotionally charged series of reactions, rather than an organic back and forth of conversation and deliberation that actually leads to something. Reactions don't filter themselves out in such a way where the best ones rise to the top. They simply form an exhibitionist mess. And that mess of communication which we find in the media and government is as central to the times we live in as anything else. This is ironic given that the internet is, yes, the greatest tool of communication ever known to man and one might expect problems to become easier to intelligently identify and solve in this age rather than more difficult. I'm coming to believe that's one of the central paradoxes of the information age.
I suppose the point is that the Web 2.0 tools of superficial democratization like reader comments are amusing as all hell, but in my experience aren't very constructive at the end of the day.
But, ah what the hell...comments are back on.
PS - On this subject, everyone should read George Packer's piece on the dysfunctional Senate in last week's New Yorker. Depressing, but important.
Posts
Some blogs are better than others for comments. There's one in particular that shoots down any disagreement. As a consequence, the comments aren't all that insightful.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, some blogs foster an intelligent community and the discussions are good. The NYTimes, for example, has great comments -- so many, in fact, that I rarely read them. It's overwhelming.
I comment on blogs where I think I can make a contribution or where I see some major holes in the information and want to provide alternatives.
I agree entirely Suzanne and there are myriad exceptions online to my general observations about the nature of commenting. Comment boards can be engaging and useful, but unfortunately that strikes me as the exception to the rule. Their real power (and, often, futility) comes with the anonymity.
ReplyDeleteI've been online for a long time, since 1993. I've participated in a lot of online discussions. The best communities always have people signing their names or at least using a consistent identity. I think the minuses of anonymity outweigh the pluses. I believe in the value of "owning your words" so that you take responsibility for what you say.
ReplyDelete