Should Comments be Portable?

You know that I cannot resist joining an interesting conversation. Louis Gray at Silicon Valley blog asks an interesting question - should fractured feed reader comments raise blog owner's ire? [hat tip to Chris Baskind] There are some great insights in the comments to that post you might want to read. Todd Defren also wrote about the issue calling it the broken conversation, to which he got 15 comments. To that, Brian Solis says ladies and gentlemen, the conversation has left the building, and maybe it has.

I raised the question on multiple occasions on Twitter. When individuals engage with each other there, even with half formed ideas and short bursts of words, they think they have already talked. No need to comment on the person's blog, then. What's interesting about this conversation is that it seems to be the same kind of dynamic we observe off line (when we pay attention).

Someone discovers something fun, cool, or any which way you'd like to describe it. They tell their friends and family in different ways. One is a conversation by the person's driveway getting back from work. The other is a phone call on the way to the grocery store. Yet another one, is an email sent during lunch break. You see where I'm going.

Over the years I have often heard someone quote my own words back to me as theirs. That is a high compliment (I admit it, unless they are trying to steal your brand, then it's not cool). It means that the idea and concept, the inspiration, made enough of an impact to be noticed and adopted. The perfect world has the idea attributed back to you - that is if they knew it was yours in the first place. What if they heard it from someone who heard it from someone?

The good news is that online you can track most everything. Someone runs a search for something and it and the searcher's IP address show up on someone else's screen somewhere else. And yes, if that person who is being quoted or searched is known, the word will get back to them quickly.

I consider the comments to these posts very much part of what makes the content work. You are part of the conversation. So if comments are portable, if they happen somewhere else, do they still count towards the whole? Does the conversation lose something because the comments and discussion may be taking place on Twitter, or Facebook (which I left), or somewhere else?

Does resisting this trend represent a valid concern for one's own work -- or the sort of resistance to the future that allowed bloggers to carve out a piece of traditional media's pie? I'm listening.

Comments

[Chris Wexler]

I find it interesting that this conversation is happening -- it reminds me of the concern from major publications about deep linking stories off of their sites to extend the conversation on blogs. Now the commenting, which had no where else to go until now, is moving to a more convenient, technologically speaking, environment.

Nobody owns conversations -- mainstream media thought they had a monopoly, and until the Internet, they largely did. Bloggers thought they did, until the latest technological change.

Conversation is not something anybody owns. By having comments happen "off site" the technological part of the equation has simply changed the game. Just like the mainstream media has had to (or should have to) adapt, so must bloggers.

I guess Mel Brooks said it best: "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die."

[Valeria Maltoni]

Judging by the number of page views and links, the conversation must be happening somewhere else ;-)

I agree with you that technology continues to change the game (and that is good). Humans need interaction with others for a variety of reasons - validation, company, desire to share, learning, and most important of all connecting. Where and when happen as much on purpose as they do by chance.

[xodusprime]

I think the intrinsic value of an idea or an experience is in one's ability to share it with others. Yes, you can look at your pageviews/hittrackers/whatever else, but that doesn't give the author the knowledge that someone actually read what s/he wrote and formed an opinion on it. Comments are the reward for blogging. Agree or disagree, someone has taken the time to assure you that what you write has been read... unless you're paid I suppose, and then it is the ad-clicks you get.

[Carolyn Ann]

If they're not talking to you - they're probably talking about you? :-)

A conversation that is spread over blogs is stretching the point - such an occurance can be counted as two, similar, conversations. A conversation that spread over multiple websites - that's not the same conversation, at all! It is multiple "conversations" (to stretch another definition) - all about a similar subject.

I read the Louis Gray piece, and frankly - I'm still wondering what the point was. Comments on the RSS feed is, frankly, laziness. You create the content - I want to read it. I want to comment, and should at least have the courtesy of visiting your website to do so. Although I have no illusions that my attitude will prevail, at least I can be courteous. (If I shout across a crowded bar, are we having a conversation, or am I just being obnoxious?)

On the other hand, someone using your own words is not about your "brand" - it's about your intellectual property. It's plagiarism. I have no brand, but the last time someone appropriated my words without my permission - I told them, in private and in public, that they were nothing but a thief. A poor one, at that!

I do have to disagree with xodusprime - the intrinsic value of an idea is the idea; the intrinsic value of an experience is not in the sharing of it - that's a different experience - it's in having the experience. In one month, when I ride my motorcycle across America (and back), I will not be sharing the experience (I will not be taking a computer, for one thing!), but I will be enjoying it. :-)

I will share much of it with my wonderful spouse, but the rest of the world will get to see only a portion - the bits I select. That's a totally different concept, and a different (albeit "derived" experience) to the notion put forward by xodusprime. It really depends on what that experience is, though - if you want to persuade someone that they will gain certain experiences, then marketing has to put that concept to the consumer and hope they "get it". So while that's sharing (I begrudgingly concede), it is not the same as riding Deal's Gap's "Tail of the Dragon" (318 curves in 11 miles) alone, without photos or video. (There are some neat videos on YouTube showing that road)

Traditionally,
Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Xodusprime - No advertising for me, so the conversation is all I've got ;-) You're quite right in that traffic alone does not say much about the stickiness of your ideas. Feedback is valuable in every line of work, even for bands who play in clubs - if you cannot listen to what others are playing, how do you know if your sound carries?

@Carolyn Ann - we've gotten used to sharing so much of what happens to us that sometimes we confuse having the experience with the experience of sharing it. You make an excellent point, one that I've put more care into getting myself. Thank you for being courteous and commenting here. I've also enjoyed the conversation across blogs, as you mention. At yours on occasion, at Rick Becker's and many others. Marketing needs to mature, I'm not sure I have any of the answers, I have an inkling of the questions, and they all come from listening, observing and learning. What a great ride you have planned! Enjoy and (I'm sure) treasure.

[Chris Baskind]

> Nobody owns conversations -- mainstream media thought they had a monopoly, and until the Internet, they largely did. Bloggers thought they did, until the latest technological change.

We may not own the conversation, but we sure as hell own our work. Sites scraping my full text feed and republishing in any form without permission get take-down notices, period. No conversation necessary beyond the standard DMCA form letter.

On the other hand, I have no problem with headline aggregators, or the capture of short excerpts. This is Fair Use. If people want to comment on these beyond my site, that's fine.

But I feel no obligation to chase the "conversation" across a dozen aggregators, Friendfeeds, Facebooks -- or even the all-powerful Google Reader, should they add commenting to their voodoo. This concept to me seems unsustainable: less a question of accessibility and openness than outright dissolution.

It's rude to engage someone in conversation without facing them. With an alphabet soup of Web 2.5 social streams out there, I'm feeling as if I'm being asked to talk to people who aren't even in the same room. And I hate to shout.

[gregory]

everybody needs the ability to be everywhere, hear everything they want.. this is what tech is for

if it helps me do that, i want it. if it doesn't, i don't

[Louis Gray]

@Carolyn Ann, the issues we were trying to address in our post were:

1) The conversation is getting split, and going to multiple destinations
2) We should be aware of it and engaging
3) Not everybody agrees this is a good idea

I personally believe that those of us who make ourselves aware of new sites where the conversation is taking place will benefit from the process, and can lap those who are sticking to the "old ways" of doing things, of silo'ed conversations and community.

Also, Shyftr, in specific, as the whipping boy of this weekend's discussions, doesn't plagiarize. They give full attribution including the name of the author and site, as well as linking back to the original blog. Also, every single item has a "Shyft" button, encouraging you to add the site's RSS feed, which is one of the biggest benefits any blog author can get.

Is this the last we've heard of this discussion? Probably not. Until we have transparent comment engines between all services, there will be gaps and there will be frustrations, but this is the way the social media train is headed, and we should get on board.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Chris - there are so many bogus blogs and sites out there that get Google juice with scraped posts! Now that makes sense about trying to engage someone without facing you somewhere else. I'll need to ponder that as it may change the way I think about corporate blogs.

@Gregory - it sounds like you'd want to be ubiquitous. I am content with being thoughtful about what I do in one place at the time. Technology may help answer many needs, but remember that it is people ho use it, and we are limited naturally.

@Louis - the issue of portability is a big one to tackle. Thank you for coming in and addressing Carolyn Ann's open questions. I am with Chris on content, regardless of what happens to the comments.

[Todd Defren]

Hi Valeria - thanks for the link!

Since I wrote about this (and since Louis's post hit Techmeme over the weekend), I've had a couple of sw devs contact me to say, "I could fix that (where Twitter is the culprit, anyway."

In my perfect world, the blog - the source of the original content - could aggregate the fractured chatter.

Based on what these devs told me, it's not an impossible mission (and OpenSocial would help). Fingers crossed!

[Valeria Maltoni]

Todd -

That is good news indeed. I resist mashing up content from different tools because they are different stages of the conversation. Sometimes those on Twitter are prequels, sometimes they are sequels. How does someone starved for time tell the difference? We already do jump to conclusions a little ;-)

I would think that nothing is impossible for technology.

[Carolyn Ann]

Thanks, Loius. I sort of get your points, but you do seem to contradict them, in your post. You applaud the technology, but at the same time decry it, because it's influence and result isn't quite what you expected? I am unsure if you had any expectation, in the first place, however?

The essential point is that the "conversation" is changing - it's become this amorphous "thing", that exists in neither time nor space. Which is fine, even if it is a bit nebulous. [Sorry... Couldn't resist.] I don't regard it as "good", although I am quite certain I will be in the minority. I often find myself in that group, needless to say!

Is it good that this never-ending, rarely-focused, conversation occur in the aether our computer screens are connected to? I used to think that the "conversation" remained the conversation; it didn't change, even if its venue did. Now, I'm not so sure - the venue has become the least of any conversational concern; the actual format of the conversation is assuming a shape and form that, I fear, promotes - not hinders - conformity and punishes those who don't subscribe to the vogue view.

Crowds may contain wisdom - but I'm quite sure they an also stifle the individual. I can't help but think that we should all beware of what we wish for - because we just might get it.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my obvious skepticism, Louis. And thank you, Valeria, for the forum, or venue if I may, for exploring these ideas.

Carolyn Ann

[Carolyn Ann]

On the other hand, whenever we state something in public - we relinquish control over the fate of those words. Various politicians have, belatedly it seems, come to realize that.

If you allow RSS feeds, and someone comments on that feed- it's not for the blogger to object. A ne'erdowell might as well express frustration at a newspapers' depiction of him!

I was wrong.

Once it's out there, anyone can comment on "your" words. If they're courteous, they'll do you the favor of visiting your blog - and if they're really polite, comment there. But, otherwise - they'll comment where their friends and online pals can read their reactions.

It really is a nebulous world, and sometimes it's not always obvious (at this time of night!) to see the connection between the "old" and the "new". But what really strikes me: the "old" way of doing things hasn't changed, but the venue and reach has.

I'm quite happy to have discovered I was wrong. :-)
Carolyn Ann

[Valeria Maltoni]

No matter where anyone comments, the words are theirs. Even in anonymity, in kindness and in wrath, so to speak. Individuals may choose not to hold themselves accountable - or to think they aren't - at the end of the day, they are anyway ;-)

Technology changes, humans don't (this is borrowed from Deb Schultz). Thank you for joining the conversation.