Encouraging comments

laffarsmith said:

I think the reason comments and interaction are a large part of blogs is because it is something unique that we (web designers) didn't have without programming it in.

Click to expand...

But so what?

A blog is not just a static web-page; it has all kinds of capabilities plain old vanilla web pages didn't have before - It's got a CMS, it has all sorts of editing features, it has nifty linking and tracking features; WP blogs have a standardized XML format for copying content to other blogs and for backups, they have easy-to-use layout and formatting capabilities and a zillion style templates, etc, etc. It would take me forever to write all this stuff on my own, and I'm a pretty good programmer. But just like any other software, I can pick and choose the features I want.

If you don't want interactivity then you might as well have an old fashioned website. Upload static pages that never change.

Click to expand...

Oh, nonsense! See the above. Blogs are WAY more than interaction engines - interactivity is just one of their many attractive capabilities. Blogging software is a writer's dream-come-true. Just because one of its many features is interactivity doesn't obligate me to use that feature. My current car is capable of towing a boat. Does this somehow obligate me to take up boating?

I guess in a way many bloggers ARE consumer driven. Most of us WANT readers so we adjust to gain readership. Some readers don't care if they can comment or not. Others specifically want somewhere they can have a voice. For those of us actively seeking readers it's important to cater to tastes of as many of our target market as possible.

Click to expand...

As I said, I'm a poet, a painter, a photographer, so I'm more interested in making my art, not satisfying some market. I do manage to sell occasional painting or poem so I know a few people like my stuff.

I think the other thing to remember when it comes to 'feeling alone in cyberspace' is that for every comment you usually have about 10 readers who don't comment. So, for each commenter multiply by ten and you'll have a closer estimate of how many actually read your blog. If you don't get comments it doesn't mean you don't have readers.

Click to expand...

Comments are not the only way to collect statistics - I know I get some readers; that's good enough for me.

Well that just shows where you're coming from. You might as well say that most people are stupid, boring, uneducation, narrow minded, naive. And you are highly educated, cultured, interesting, and perfect.

You're not interested in comments because you don't give a flying hoot what anyone else has to say because you think everyone else is stupid and you're better than them so what other people have to say doesn't matter.

If you got over your elitist snobbery maybe you'd understand why conversations with other 'normal' people are so interesting.

plnelson said:

I'm not sure how we got back onto the topic of privacy but your comment "as a way of not seeming quite that cold" illustrates exactly WHY I don't want my blog to become a conversation. If I'm going to exercise my artistic freedom as a writer I can't do it worrying about how I might "seem". Sylvia Plath and Walt Whitman did not show much evidence in their poems of worrying about how they might "seem".

Click to expand...

Um... I'm not really worrying about it - I blog to blog - it's like a cyber bs session. I don't think about artistic freedom - I just write. The only thing I really think about is not to mention my husband and kids by name. And my books and my blog are not the same thing, nor should they be confused as the same thing. I think enough when I write books. I don't really want to think too much about my blog topic. The day comes I start thinking of blogging as expressing artistic freedom is the day I stop blogging. I'm not trying to impress anyone. I don't care if someone thinks it's deep - I just hope they enjoyed what they read and maybe they'll come back.

bsolah said:

Well that just shows where you're coming from. You might as well say that most people are stupid, boring, uneducation, narrow minded, naive. And you are highly educated, cultured, interesting, and perfect.

Click to expand...

Do you write as poorly as you read? I never said I was perfect. But obviously I prefer my values and tastes. Don't you prefer your values and tastes? If not, then why do you have them? Does that make you elitist?

Have you ever seen US television? If not, you have no right to judge my preference to avoid it. And then there's US politics: I was in a distinct minority here who opposed the Iraq war. So I stand by my assertion that I have more common sense than my fellows.

You're not interested in comments because you don't give a flying hoot what anyone else has to say because you think everyone else is stupid and you're better than them so what other people have to say doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

As I said, you should brush up on your reading skills. I said, above, that I do allow comments if they advance the topic. For example, I had an entry about Tony Blair's legacy and his role in convincing American liberals to support the Iraq War. Several people commented that they agreed with me, but I didn't post any of them because their agreement didn't add anything. If someone had added a useful political or historical detail then I would have posted it.

If you got over your elitist snobbery maybe you'd understand why conversations with other 'normal' people are so interesting.

Click to expand...

I have fascinating conversations all the time, although I suspect you would not regard the other people I converse with as "normal". But I see no reason why my blogs have to be the site of conversations.

Jersey Chick said:

Um... I'm not really worrying about it -

Click to expand...

But you said above that you were at least thinking about how you "seemed".

I blog to blog - it's like a cyber bs session. I don't think about artistic freedom - I just write.

. . .
I'm not trying to impress anyone. I don't care if someone thinks it's deep - I just hope they enjoyed what they read and maybe they'll come back.

Click to expand...

I don't blog as an "expression" of artistic freedom, the artistic freedom comes from not thinking about what impression I'm making on others. You say you hope your readers will come back - how does that hope affect your writing?

And if you do hope they come back then why not put your all into writing your blog? Why don't you want to think too much about your blog topic? I'm hearing mixed signals from you - you seem to care what your readers think but you don't want to put too much effort into it.

You say you blog as a "cyber bs session". I recently had a whole blog entry about BS, including a photo . . .


. . .

So when you say it's a "cyber bs session", how seriously do you take bs? I have the impression that you mean something trivial by "bs", whereas I mean something significant by "bs". To me, cow (or bull) manure is very valuable stuff, the heart of all that is good and worthy. I resent the fact that "bs" has become a colloquialism for a lie or something worthless. The lies that George Bush and John Howard and Tony Blair tell are not worthy of being called "bs".

plnelson said:

Don't you prefer your values and tastes? If not, then why do you have them? Does that make you elitist?

Click to expand...

I do have my own tastes, but these tastes are not counterposed to the mass of people. I happen to like Stephen King despite the fact that he dares to write 'popular fiction.'

Your statement implied that the mass of people have crappy taste and your tastes are so much better than theirs.

And then there's US politics: I was in a distinct minority here who opposed the Iraq war. So I stand by my assertion that I have more common sense than my fellows.

Click to expand...

The majority of people are now opposed to the War in Iraq, and it was no fault of theirs that there wasn't a mass opposition, even though there were huge rallies around the world. It's not like the Democrats were offering any alternative.

As I said, you should brush up on your reading skills. I said, above, that I do allow comments if they advance the topic. For example, I had an entry about Tony Blair's legacy and his role in convincing American liberals to support the Iraq War. Several people commented that they agreed with me, but I didn't post any of them because their agreement didn't add anything. If someone had added a useful political or historical detail then I would have posted it.

Click to expand...

This just implies that you have to be an academic to have an opinion. Lots of people agree and it doesn't 'add to the conversation' but I think it's perfectly valid for someone to just post 'I agree' with little or nothing else to say.

I have fascinating conversations all the time, although I suspect you would not regard the other people I converse with as "normal". But I see no reason why my blogs have to be the site of conversations.

Click to expand...

They don't have to be, but what I was saying that this has become the tradition and norm within the blogging community and I think it's a great thing because it allows for interaction and this is the basis for Web 2.0 which is what blogging comes under.

plnelson said:

But you said above that you were at least thinking about how you "seemed".

I don't blog as an "expression" of artistic freedom, the artistic freedom comes from not thinking about what impression I'm making on others. You say you hope your readers will come back - how does that hope affect your writing?

And if you do hope they come back then why not put your all into writing your blog? Why don't you want to think too much about your blog topic? I'm hearing mixed signals from you - you seem to care what your readers think but you don't want to put too much effort into it.

You say you blog as a "cyber bs session". I recently had a whole blog entry about BS, including a photo . . .

. . .

So when you say it's a "cyber bs session", how seriously do you take bs? I have the impression that you mean something trivial by "bs", whereas I mean something significant by "bs". To me, cow (or bull) manure is very valuable stuff, the heart of all that is good and worthy. I resent the fact that "bs" has become a colloquialism for a lie or something worthless. The lies that George Bush and John Howard and Tony Blair tell are not worthy of being called "bs".

Click to expand...

You're kidding me, right?

I mean, I write because I always kept journals and this is just that - only it doesn't name names. I don't stay up late at night plotting and scheming to make sure every silly little word is perfect. I think about what I want to talk about, and I write. I think you're taking a blog just a little too seriously.

Why don't I put my all into it?? I dunno, because I have a life, maybe? Maybe because then it becomes work and that's the LAST thing I want it to be. I don't spout off political opinions or where I stand on the Catholic church or abortion because it doesn't matter to me (or probably to anyone else). I am usually putting my all into the writing that PAYS me - that earns me readers who pop over into my blog. My blog is fun - plain and simple. As for BS session - I mean talking to my friends. That's it. I don't hang out with my friends and grill them on Tony Blair's effect on anything. We talk about fun stuff because I'm not a journalist (despite what RU says) and I don't want to weigh myself down with unwinnable issues like the Iraq war. I'd rather someone pop over, read it and just think, "Hmm... there's someone I'd like to cyber-hang out with."

Apparently I'm not anywhere as deep as you and that's okay. Frankly, I don't care how it seems to you. I care in the fact that I am not about to bore the pants off of someone with facts and figures if I don't have to. There are plenty of news blogs and world events blogs - I'm a romance writer. I like happy things and funny stories and the occasional rant - I don't mind sharing the day to day about what it's like being a romance writer but my blog is not the end all, be all either. I don't update my website, so this takes the place of it to a certain extent and if it and the way I choose to handle it don't meet your standards, that's just too bad.

bsolah said:

I do have my own tastes, but these tastes are not counterposed to the mass of people. I happen to like Stephen King despite the fact that he dares to write 'popular fiction.'

Click to expand...

But that's irrelevant to the discussion. I like U2 even though they were popular. I don't reject something because it's popular.

But the relevant point to this discussion is that I don't endorse or accept something because it's popular, either! So trying to convince me that blogs should be conversations just because "that's what all the other kids do", is illogical.

Your statement implied that the mass of people have crappy taste and your tastes are so much better than theirs.

Click to expand...

I don't just select my tastes and values at random; (do you?) they are a matter of conscious choice and thought. So obviously if my tastes differ from the majority I must think mine are better, else why would I have chosen them? That's not elitism.

The majority of people are now opposed to the War in Iraq, and it was no fault of theirs that there wasn't a mass opposition, even though there were huge rallies around the world. It's not like the Democrats were offering any alternative.

Click to expand...

The alternative was to not invade Iraq. The Democrats voted to allow the invasion because 65% of the US public supported it and they sensed political opportunity.

This just implies that you have to be an academic to have an opinion.

Click to expand...

As a fiction writer you must have a rich imagination, but there's a time and place for sticking to facts, and your above comment is fact-less. In fact, only minutes ago I voted in a special Congressional election to replace our US rep, who resigned, and I voted for a bricklayer! Some of the smartest people I've ever met are not academic. But they are logical, well-informed and articulate.

Lots of people agree and it doesn't 'add to the conversation' but I think it's perfectly valid for someone to just post 'I agree' with little or nothing else to say.

Click to expand...

You are a master of the nonsequitur. What I said was that it doesn't add to the topic. I've already made it clear that I'm not interested in having a conversation on my blogs.

it's a great thing because it allows for interaction and this is the basis for Web 2.0 which is what blogging comes under.

Click to expand...

Who cares whether it "comes under" Web 2.0? A blog is a piece of software, and when it's your blog you can do whatever you want with it. Saying that it's in the "Web 2.0" box so we have to do "Web 2.0" stuff with it is like saying that cellos are in the "classical music" box so we can't make jazz or folk or rock music with them. It's a totally specious argument.

Jersey Chick said:

I think you're taking a blog just a little too seriously.

Click to expand...

Why should a blog be any less serious than any other writing? Blogging is probably the future of all writing; it has already become a mainstay of serious journalism and bloggers have already gone to jail to protect sources (in fact in the US the record for the longest jail stay for source protection is held by a blogger).

Why don't I put my all into it?? I dunno, because I have a life, maybe?

Click to expand...

But that's what I don't understand. I don't see where the contradicton is. I have a life, too. I travel, I attend music conferences, I have a fulltime job as a design engineer (I was just at work until 9PM), I garden, I cook, I paint, I have a photo studio where I specialize in figure and dance photography, and I write poetry. So I blog about these things. So I am, in effect, putting my "all" into it because I'm putting all my life into it, except for things I have to leave out to protect some people's privacy.

Maybe because then it becomes work and that's the LAST thing I want it to be. I don't spout off political opinions or where I stand on the Catholic church or abortion because it doesn't matter to me (or probably to anyone else).

Click to expand...

So? Who said anything about abortion or the church? I have very little politics in my blog - I think I've had 1 totally political blog entry and a couple more, like the BS one, where I made a passing political reference.

Apparently I'm not anywhere as deep as you and that's okay. Frankly, I don't care how it seems to you. I care in the fact that I am not about to bore the pants off of someone with facts and figures if I don't have to.

Click to expand...

Me neither, bit what is this a reference to? Do you see a lot of facts and figures in my blog entries? Or are you referring to some other blogger whose entries are just facts and figures?

Um...hmm... referring to your response to my post.

Look blog however you want - but don't do the "I fail to see why YOU don't do it the way I do," on anyone who doesn't agree. There's enough work for me - my blog is for fun. I'm not analyzing every word I type in, except to make sure it's spelled right and makes sense. That's enough for me. I don't need your validation of my method, nor do I need you to understand why I choose to do it the way I have. Good for you how you choose to blog. I DON'T choose it. My way works for me. XYZ's way works for them. Get over it. I'm not looking for your approval and I doubt anyone else is, either.

To OP, I apologize for hijacking.

plnelson said:

But the relevant point to this discussion is that I don't endorse or accept something because it's popular, either! So trying to convince me that blogs should be conversations just because "that's what all the other kids do", is illogical.

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying you had to do this, but was saying that the definition of 'what blogging is' has been defined by what the majority of people interpret their blogs as being about. And I was using this as a basis on how to argue how to receive more comments.

The alternative was to not invade Iraq. The Democrats voted to allow the invasion because 65% of the US public supported it and they sensed political opportunity.

Click to expand...

But there was no leadership to put this sentiment into action. The Dems don't care what the public think as do the Republicans otherwise the world we live in would be a very different place.

Who cares whether it "comes under" Web 2.0? A blog is a piece of software, and when it's your blog you can do whatever you want with it. Saying that it's in the "Web 2.0" box so we have to do "Web 2.0" stuff with it is like saying that cellos are in the "classical music" box so we can't make jazz or folk or rock music with them. It's a totally specious argument.

Click to expand...

See my first point in this post. I'm kind of questioning why you posted in the first place when you're not interested in encouraging comments.

Good lord people.

Chill.

For a really smart piece on comments and community building read these two links; the first by Kathy Sierra:


http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2006/12/how_to_build_a_.html

The second by the absolutely magnificent Teresa Nielsen Hayden

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006036.html

plnelson said:

I'm not sure how we got back onto the topic of privacy but your comment "as a way of not seeming quite that cold" illustrates exactly WHY I don't want my blog to become a conversation. If I'm going to exercise my artistic freedom as a writer I can't do it worrying about how I might "seem". Sylvia Plath and Walt Whitman did not show much evidence in their poems of worrying about how they might "seem".

In bsolah's comments, above, blogging was described as "seizing the means of production" so the blogger is no longer beholden to some outside force determing what they write. As Popeye the Sailorman said, "I yam wot I yam!". Worrying about whether I "seem cold", or seem hot, or seem anything else makes "the masses" or "the market" my new editors - "meet the new boss / same as the old boss". Big corporations have focus groups to direct their product design, and apparently some bloggers use commenters to accomplish the same thing. That may be fine if you're running a blog as some sort of commercial or capitalist enterprise, but my blog is a personal blog.

Click to expand...

I respect your thoughts about wanting your blog to be "for yourself," but I have to ask, then... Why publish it? Why not just keep it on your hard drive?

I'm not being facetious... I really wonder. The reason I post on my blog is because I want people to read something I've written--yes, to "seize the means of production."

I have plenty of articles written for editors, advertisers or "the audience" that are either published or just sitting on my hard drive waiting to be accepted someplace. Why put something on the internet if you don't want it to be read by anyone?

CatMuse33 said:

I respect your thoughts about wanting your blog to be "for yourself," but I have to ask, then... Why publish it? Why not just keep it on your hard drive?

Click to expand...

I already answered this question in this thread . . . (quote...)
Why does someone write a poem? (or a short story or a memoir or an essay in the Atlantic Monthly?)

Why did Whitman write "Song of Myself"; why did Sylvia Plath write "Daddy"? Why did Russell Baker have a regular column in the NY Times? Why did Joni Mitchell write "Little Green" or "Playing Real Good for Free"? Why do artists make paintings? Why do photographers take photographs and put them on their websites? Why did Annie Dillard write Pilgrim at Tinker Creek? Why did Farley Mowatt write Never Cry Wolf?

These are not hard questions for most people

The above questions are not rhetorical. What do you think the answers are? Why do authors publish anything? Is it always because they want to have a public conversation? Seriously, I'd like to hear your answer to this.

Are Stephen King or Billy Collins obligated to have an appendix at the end of their books where readers post comments on what they wrote?

I have plenty of articles written for editors, advertisers or "the audience" that are either published or just sitting on my hard drive waiting to be accepted someplace. Why put something on the internet if you don't want it to be read by anyone?

Click to expand...

Point us to where I said I don't want it to be read.

You know, you and some others here are masters at reading-between-the-lines - and getting it wrong. I'm a pretty good writer so when I write something it's usually what I mean to write. If I meant to say I don't want my comments to be read I would have said so.

Whether or not an author wants to have a conversation is up to the author. James Fallows called me "Nelson the Bad" in the pages of the Atlantic Monthly because I took issue, in the Atlantic, with something he had written. So it's not like "old media" has no precedent for conversation when that's what the author wants.