1
Jun

Comment fragmentation isn’t the blogger’s fault

Posted by Steven Hodson in Sunday, June 1st 2008      

It's not the blogger's fault A lot of yakking has been going on about this whole thing of comment fragmentation within the blogosphere with most of the noise coming from bloggers as they see less people coming through to make comments on posts. Instead they are being made at places like FriendFeed and Shyftr, or on Twitter by the people who read the posts.

Huh?

Wait a second ….

Did you catch that?

Let’s step through this scenario that has everyone bitching and whining.

First we have when someone reads a post on some blog and posts a link to FriendFeed or Twitter. Or second we have the post link showing up on FriendFeed or Twitter when the blogger hits the publish button. In either case for us to read that actual post we have to click through to the blog and read it.

What happens next is the screwed up part.

We all go back to FriendFeed, Shyftr or even Twitter and we talk about the post there. I know because I have caught myself doing this numerous times but it wasn’t until this morning when I click through on FriendFeed to read Fred Wilson’s post only to return to FriendFeed to make my comment. I could just as easily have made the comment on Fred’s blog and really that is what I should have done but instead I added to some perceived fragmentation of the comments around that post.

The fact is that there is really nothing bloggers can do to change this. Sure we can install 3rd party commenting platforms like Disqus so that comments that are made on the post itself do show up on FriendFeed but this doesn’t change the fact that readers are the ones making the decisions about where they want to talk about your latest post.

As much as we might want the conversation to happen on our own blogs chances are it won’t happen because those commenters want to be a part of a larger conversation that what will occur on our little blogs; unless of course you are someone like Robert Scoble, Engadget and TechCrunch. This is what places like Twitter, FriendFeed and Shyftr give them - that sense of being a part of the larger conversation.

We can talk all we want about being a part of the conversation much like Louis Gray did today when he asked on FriendFeed - through a change to his GTalk status message which got piped through

“Are blog comments a "conversation" with the author, or just answering and responding to the author? Do you expect the author to respond to your comment?”

In the end though we have absolutely no control over where the conversation; if there even is one, will take place. No matter how we try to engage our readers - new and old - they will talk about our posts where ever they want to. So really if there is any comment fragmentation it is our readers who are to blame - not us. The time has come for us to stop beating ourselves up over the whole mess because we really there is nothing we can do change this.

Or is there?

Since in many cases bloggers are thought to be leaders or trend makers maybe it is time for us to set an example and start leaving those comments on the blog post that you have to read in order to go back to that aggregator and make probably the same comment. I know that starting today I’m going to try really hard to do this more and more.

How about you?

Conversation Tags: , ,



under: Blogging    

Related Post

Viewing 11 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    next thing y'know people won't be allowed to talk about a blog post in a pub, because it would be unfair on the blogger </kidding>
    though it is getting silly now
    - imma
    • ^
    • v
    pubs are okay but no on grocery stores and coffeeshops

    :)
    • ^
    • v
    I think it's just going to come down to a matter of personal preference. Some will want to comment on the third-party sites and some will comment on the post. But like I've said about distributed conversations, it would be great to have the blog post aggregate all the discussions no matter where they are so readers to choose which one(s) they want to participate in.

    It will also depend on the situation, sometimes I comment on the blog post because there's already a discussion taking place that I'm interested in joining. Other times it may be because I'm addressing the blogger and I know they aren't on FriendFeed or Shyftr or whatever third party site.

    No matter what the case the blogger must adapt. Barring the failure of all these third-party sites, distributed conversations will be here to stay.
    • ^
    • v
    I usually comment on the blog itself because, well, I'm already there. If what I have to say is not all that serious and there is no discussion going on already, I may not bother.

    I haven't actually caught myself leaving the blog to make a comment on FF unless I originally read the article from FF because of the discussion already going on there.

    I also feel more comfortable commenting on blogs with Disqus enabled. I think because it's easier to follow the conversation.
    • ^
    • v
    Honestly, I think Friendfeed is less a dilution of conversation than a reduction. By that I mean, FF boils away all of the one-line, superficial commentary that often clutters up a blog's comment section, leaving the stronger stuff.

    Look at this entry's comments, for example. Multiple paragraphs everywhere, complete thoughts, coherent threading. While it's far from impossible to have a healthy discussion over yonder, FF's interface actively discourages substantive give-and-take. The cocktail party jabber goes there, the real communication stays here.

    In the end, that's probably as it should be. There's a place in the world for just about everything.
    • ^
    • v
    You nailed it! My video response...
    • ^
    • v
    Steve hits on the issue in the title of this post. But it's less "comment fragmentation" than it is conversation fragmentation. There may be a partial conversation here on Steve's blog, another conversation over on FriendFeed, maybe another conversation somewhere else. There may be some benefit to the conversations in each place, but the most beneficial conversation would happen if the conversations were merged somehow. I agree with Steve that there may not be an easy way to accomplish that, though.
    • ^
    • v
    Damn. This is simple, yet profound enough that it deserves a post in response. Or a post inspired by your post. Whichever.

    Good point about making in-blog posting a part of blogging etiquette, so to speak.
    • ^
    • v
    I disagree -- kind of. I don't think there's anything wrong with setting an example by using in-blog posting, but unless your blogs are largely read and/or commented on by other bloggers, it won't wind up making much difference. And for the greater blogsphere, bloggers don't make up the majority of readers/commenters.

    It's just my opinion -- shared by some and not by others -- but if you focus on writing stuff that people will want to talk about, you've done your job as a blogger.

    That said, if it can be automated in a way that makes sense I think it will be nice if everything works two-ways (comments made on fhe blog posting via FriendFeed come back to the blog, comments made on the blog show up on Friendfeed). I think there are a lot of challenges with figuring this out though.

    Question for you Mr. Hodson, other than "ease" of you seeing it which I understand is important, do you really care where the conversation happens? And if so, why? You don't need to respond here, you can respond on FriendFeed, another blog post, wherever you want or not at all :-)
    • ^
    • v
    Do I care where I see comments to my posts?

    Yes and no. Yes because like most other bloggers of course I would like to see the conversation happening in places I know as this way I can be a further part of the conversation.

    However I am also realistic enough to know that this won't always be the case. Even though I utilize things like Disqus which makes comment portability more of reality - even though it really is only one way at the moment - I want the potential commenter to make those comments where they feel comfortable. So if you feel like making them on the blog or FriendFeed or some other social type media then have at it I'm just glad that the conversation is getting furthered.

    One caveat though - if you are asking a question in the comment then it would be nice if you posted it to the blog as this is where is would be seen first. After that it would be a matter of the trickle down idea where you would post it to the social media where you found out about the post as the chances are it is one I belong to.

    Does that answer your question well enough?
    • ^
    • v
    It does make sense to me to post questions for the blog authors on the blog author's blog.

    I think my bias is more towards creating conversations than caring about where they happen. It's obviously not a bias shared by all. I do understand people's desire to want to participate in all conversations their post starts, but I believe people need to let that go. Can Arrington respond or participate in every conversation one of his posts start? Scoble? Arianna Huffington? Fake Steve Jobs? They can't, but I think they're still happy with the results.

Trackbacks

blog comments powered by Disqus
« Sunday Blog Review: scribkin
From the Pipeline - 6.1.08 »