Media that publishes without a comment box, publishes broken
That is to say I am somewhat amazed that there are still publishers, (even those who profess an open approach), who publish content without allowing the reader to publish back at them - to comment on their story.
It's an extraordinary attitude that says:
- There, I'm done.
- That's all you need to know.
- All your questions have been answered - because I say so.
- This is as good as it gets.
- Me producer, you consumer.
- Me expert, you little man/woman.
- Nothing to be challenged here. Move along
- Your opinion counts for zip
And the originators would like a little of that value, right?
(image courtesy frangipani)
The heading is wrong for me, it should be, 'why start a debate if you can't answer it'. But I agree totally that a lot of commentators don't offer a way in which to reply or join the conversation!
ReplyDeletetotally agreed - see my frustration with this at http://platform.idiomag.com/2009/10/is-wikipedia-the-future-of-news-delivery/
ReplyDeleteIts a classic example where commenting would have helped the publisher!
Its not a problem any more. I just put a sidewiki entry on any page that warrants it. Either to praise or correct. Then I tweet the sidewiki link. Power to the people... so easy, simple, effective. Although sidewiki is open to abuse too, much better to have comments with no moderation. Better to delete comments then leave them off for days until a lazy webmaster gets round to moderation. Times sure are a changing...
ReplyDeletechris
You gonna mention it to Seth Godin> (Famously doesn't have comments on his blog/use Twitter etc but does have a closed community at Triiibes)
ReplyDeleteI did think of Seth when I wrote that.
ReplyDeleteTwo things about that. First just as Clay shouldn't be taken literally re the mouse (it's about interaction vs broadcast) please don't take the comment box in my phrase 'literally'.
The other thing is Seth is an exception. He's like Apple - fans do his interaction for him. Seth is the social object.