15
The Two Things You're Supposed to Read Today on Internet Culture
Two things you're supposed to read today:
• On Facebook buying Instagram: "Companies once made sleds or dreamcatchers or software, but that’s all outsourced; an Internet product is very often a thing that lets other people make things—a kind of metaproduct—and you can get 30 million people working for you, for free, if you do a good job of it."
• Are comments actually bad for web business? "In conversations I’ve had with peers in the internet publishing world lately, as well as a resurgence of chatter about comments both online and in schmoozy-cocktail-space, I’m starting to come to a conclusion: comments are more trouble than they are literally, financially worth."
I dunno, "tell us in the comments"!
Comments are only important in that they are a place for public feedback. Andrew Sullivan's "blog" sucks mostly because he is literally unaccountable for what he writes, as he doesn't have a place for the people who read him to actually call him out on anything (not counting Facebook, which: ew) (and it sucks because he posts about stuff that everyone else I read posted about eighteen hours previous and have since moved on).
That is all to say that a comments section may not generate more traffic slash good conversation, but until nobody provides a comments section, its lack of existence is a decided downer — to me, at least, though I suspect I'm not alone.
Here's the magic trick: is there a way to create the kind of feedback/engagement/conversation a comment section is meant to inspire without using a comment section?
I look forward to hearing your responses and thoughts wherever you post them. Except here.
Precisely.
Ya'll are about to get told.
Joel may very well be right! But I'm not sure why he wants to build up his pigeon coop by first poisoning all his pigeons. Anyway, what reaction do you expect to anarchic Russian breasts besides cooing?
Anyway, I've moved on. Now I'm having opinions about the New Aesthetic. Life's a glitch sometimes.
Or the smart, engaged people with the time aren’t the ones who have the information that would add real value to a thread.
Or they are already busy commenting on The Awl. Boom.
*insert snarky comment about snarky commentary*
@roboloki *insert wordy defensive comment arguing against snarky comment above oblivious to sarcasm*
The Awl keeps comment moderating costs down by consistently and repeatedly requiring you to sign in.
Drive-by hate.
There. Did my part.
NEITHER FIRST NOR LAST!
@SidAndFinancy what do you mean you're last in my browser!
@MyName Doh!
If content sites are earning money through subscription fees, then eliminating comments might not make much of a difference.
But assuming that a revenue model for a content site is selling ad impressions, eliminating comments means eliminating page impressions and hence ad impressions. A site that doesn't care about page impressions better have invented a new business model outside the traditional revenue from ads system or concede a portion of revenue to sites outside their own where discussions continue.
Sites where user generated comments are a burden are probably over thinking their entire system. Instead, let the internet community police messages boards, introduce better filtering options, and apply game theory to an automated comment moderation system that requires little more than computer processing power rather than a live human being.
It's good to know that I'm in the 1% of something.
thanks to all of you who have read all the comments so far
Was it something I said?