Putting commenters in context



Comments have had a lot of play recently, what with Marc Andreessen turning them off, and US newspapers banning anonymous ones.

So is comment worth it? I like the ones I get on this blog, because the responses are invariably interesting and engaged (flattery etc.). But is context important for comment? I did a little experiment.

This blog not being over-burdened with comment, and egged on by Charlie Beckett’s account of his experiences, I thought I would try punting a blog post on to My Telegraph, which looks cool and sophisticated, thanks to the efforts of good folk like Shane Richmond.

On my own Blogger site the post attracted only a couple of comments. At My Telegraph it got a couple of dozen, propelling it into the Telegraph’s top ten most commented. So are the comments worth it?

Not for me, I’m sorry to report. For starters, commenters seemed to be a small group. Second, they didn’t so much respond to the post as use it to kick off a “conversation” that could probably have taken place under anything (like a bus shelter). Third, that conversation was dull and uninformed. Read them for yourself, if you have half an hour of your life that you don’t want back, and make your own judgement.

The only interesting moment came when one of the commmenters – Bearsy – revealed that he had two online My Telegraph personas.

This admission has, in turn prompted a post which is now My Telegraph’s most commented on (44 and counting)…

Yes, the blogoshere, like pop, will eat itself.

So same post, two contexts – and for me at least, context is king.


5 responses to “Putting commenters in context”

  1. I hesitate to comment on this one (especially after my now ironic apology earlier), but…

    Interesting that the “strength in numbers” and greater anonymity of myTelegraph led to much more ‘robust’ discussion.

    Also interesting, if depressing, how many people used (apologies for flattery) a piece making a pretty decent, provocative point, to re-churn a tedious debate on the BBC making mistakes. Very little fed from the actual piece.

    Its virtue, really, depends if you take the CiF/mytelegraph view that a blog post’s there to start a debate, or whether you blog to inform/unwind/for its own sake.

    Apologies for rambling!

  2. Peter Jay was once accused by a colleague of writing editorials that were unintelligible to all save a few high ranking Treasury mandarins. “That’s who they are written for” Jay replied.

    The stats from Federated media show that many of the most popular technorati oriented blogs count 90% plus bloggers in their readership.

    Does a comment have value? It depends who makes it.

  3. @James – it’s the old quality vs quantity line. It did feel as though I was merely offering a Pavlovian cue tho!

    @Peter – I did feel a bit Peter Jay-ish. But that’s the pleasure of writing for yourself!

    Both your comments take us a bit beyond – “those B$%^&$s at the Beeb.”

  4. It’s quite possible, of course, that the reason you’re not over-burdened with comments is that, inherently, your readership are the type of people who do much of their blog reading in aggregators.