| Comments aren't dead. The problem that the author of this article has identified lies more in moderation then the comment system. Comments have evolved. Many high profile sites rely on passive, one way comments that are occasionally peppered with the odd reply, but for the most part act solely as the receptacle of one-way feedback. This isn't necessarily bad and at one time, provided adequate engagement. Today, readers have become accustom to community and participation rather then simple contribution. We expect more, but we don't receive it. The solution is a mix of additional functionality, increased participation and eventually clear identification of authority. Additional Functionality:
We've seen basic moderation systems evolve. From Digg style voting buttons to full on wiki style comment systems where users can add sources and refine messages, there have been technological advances that have been largely overlooked in commenting systems. Increased participation:
This is more then simply encouraging users to comment. Users need to be engaged and that happens by the author in the comments. After an article is composed, authors need to become conductors and individually guide conversations and continue to contribute their ideas and messages. Generally, commenters need to have their thoughts validated while the article is thought of as an introduction to a topic while the comments contain the larger message being presented. Authority:
Comment systems such as Disqus and Facebook Comments gather contributions across blogs. All of the comments a commenter has made are available through a common system that supersedes individual articles. This needs to be expanded and improved. Comment systems need to identify authority and encourage "cross seeding" through related people, their individual expertise and the interests they share. We're getting there. However, we have a long way to go. |
At the risk of blog whoring, it's here: http://jerryasher.posterous.com/two-cents-on-why-journalism-...