CenterNetworks Feed Add CenterNetworks
Demo Techcrunch50 Coverage

CATEGORIES

Web Tech Directory

CONTRIBUTORS

Web 2.0 Majors - Why so little discussion?

Written by Allen Stern - October 27, 2006

So here is what I don't get. When someone posts on a forum with a topic post or a help request, they will come back and check for replies and then add their own comments based on those replies. So how come on the big Web 2.0 blogs this does not happen? I decided to take a look at three of the largest Web 2.0 blogs and see if they are "post and run" news writers or if they are willing to create a discussion. Let's look at:

  • TechCrunch - Michael Arrington and others
  • GigaOm - Om Malik and others
  • Mashable - Pete Cashmore

For the purposes of this test, I will look at 5 of the newest entries from at least 24 hours ago which have a minimum of 5 comments.

TechCrunch:

GigaOM

Mashable

Net Result

Overall, I believe Mashable does the best job out of the three in terms of community discussion where they don't just report news but are willing to discuss the topics they write on as well. GigaOM and TechCrunch have some discussion but it is very limited. I guess they are news reporting services who work on more of a newspaper model where you get the paper out to press and move on to the next issue.

While I certainly understand their need and want to be first to a story and so it limits their ability to focus on community, I certainly think both Om and Michael are two of the top minds in this category and it would be great to get them embedded into discussion over some of the topics they write about. I am especially disappointed on the TC ethics post. Michael specifically asked to discuss the topic, provides a place to do so and the best he can come up with is to reply asking a woman to come to the event. There were lots of other messages he could have replied to as well.

We look to these people as leaders and as such, I wish they would embrace discussion over their topics not just provide "post and run" news. I guess maybe the better money is in the "post and run" than the comments.

AddThis
Forward
E-mail
RSS Feed
Subscribe
COMMENTS - Add New Comment
Submitted by Anonymous on October 27, 2006 - 12:17pm.

This is an interesting observation. However as interesting as it is to some people to engage in a discussion there are equally if not more people who are reading these very blogs to hear about the latest and greatest news. Take TC for example. Many cult followers that feast on new news. It seems there are 2-3 people contributing to TC's mainline stories. For them to engage in expanded discussion may be worthwhile for those following certain topics it takes away from them being able to cover other new topics. It's a matter of making a trade off and creating the new content that continually drives more viewers to their sites which they need to keep that advertising fuel going. You absolutely don't want the content becoming stale or topics dragging on.

Submitted by centernetworks on October 27, 2006 - 10:06pm.

I agree - so is their job to report on the news and then we all comment on it but the writer with whose opinions the post comes from should not participate? I would trade one post a day to have more discussion on the other posts of the day.So if I get what you are saying, they post new content vs. commenting because it generates more money?

Submitted by Anonymous on October 28, 2006 - 9:11pm.

I guess I would have to say yes, it generates more viewers and hence potentially more money. Look at GigaOm and TechCrunch. I believe both of these sites are run by guys who used to have other day jobs but have traded those in to run these blogs full time. They have realized that there is enough of a revenue stream from indirect and direct advertising as well as invitations to events because they are recognized "experts" in coverage of various companies. Think of these guys are journalists of the web 2.0 world, writing about whatever is happening. I dont see regular newspaper journalists writing back to people if at all (we are even lucky enough to have blogging and commenting capability here). if these guys spent more time commenting back then they are not generating new content which the majority of their viewers are expecting. its the whos who, whats next in web 2.0 that people expect from these guys. however, to your point i do like it that some bloggers take the time to respond and engage in a discussion.

Submitted by Alberto on October 27, 2006 - 12:45pm.

Very nice and intersting analysis. You some very very valid points, I totally agree. Compliments for CN: it's a great site and resource.

Submitted by centernetworks on October 27, 2006 - 10:07pm.

Thank you...I appreciate the nice comments - please keep all comments good and criticism coming - I want to make sure this is a site that serves your needs!

Submitted by Darren Stuart on October 28, 2006 - 4:42am.

I have to agree and disagree with this.

I comment on these blogs to get my view across not to be engaged by the blogger.

however if my view does engage the blogger to comment on what I have said then all the better.

If someone ever comments on my blog then I will engage but I have a small viewer base.

There is another side to this that you have not discussed and that is if you put yourself out there and discuss every comment people will view you as someone that they can discuss anything with. I expect that these guys get a lot of emails already but could you imagine the amount they would get if people thought they could ask them anything etc.

Submitted by centernetworks on October 28, 2006 - 5:46pm.

Darren, thanks for the comment - even if we just say that when the person writing the comment specifically asks a question or calls out the blogger on something in the post, I think it is absolutely necessary for the blogger to respond. Even if we leave everything else on the side, this part must be addressed.

Submitted by Darren Stuart on October 29, 2006 - 1:48pm.

Yes I agree its also polite to reply.

Are comments just for people to give a view on the story or are they there to engage the blogger.

If these bigger sites had forums then that would be a better place to have discussions.

Submitted by Tim McAlpin on October 29, 2006 - 1:26pm.

i believe the general nature of a blog is not meant to be discussion. its meant to be news, thoghts, ideas. in some cases its a notepad. in other cases it's a diary or journal. in other cases it's like a newspaper or a magazine. So the only discussion that newspapers and magazines have, are the "letters to the editors" which get very little attention overall.

if you consider blogs the online newspaper or online journal, then comments are nothing else as a "letter to the editor".

Become a sponsor

SPONSORS

SocialText
Clicky Web Analytics
Web 2.0 Expo New York 2008

PARTNERS

read centernetworks anywhere!
Advertise here

OTHER STUFF