What's The Point?
TPM management, I ask you. What was the thought process behind giving posters the "ability" to disable comments? It would seem to be contradictory to the very premise of TPMCafe. There are currently two posters (perhaps more?) who by utilizing the option are incurring the wrath of most others on this site. New posts being written to respond to a post with comments disabled, then another post by the original poster to ... you get the idea.
It appears to be a hornet's nest being occasionally hit with a stick. What's the point?
Advertisement
I agree wholeheartedly. I don't understand why management would WANT to have this feature. If I wanted to read something without having the ability to engage in a discussion about it, I would read a newspaper.
The idea that you can just spout something without being held to account for the content defies logic. And why would you WANT to?
I'm not reading ANYTHING that doesn't enable comments.
November 15, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree as to your policy of not reading posts with comments disabled.
I suggest folks not begin another thread to address the sermons of David Seaton (whose repetitive whines I long ago quit reading) and truthseeker when they disable comments. Why converse when they clearly aren't seeking a conversation.
November 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping to hear from Al or Andrew. I genuinely want to know what those involved in the decision were expecting to achieve.
November 15, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Mis,
You know, I really think their motivation was to give us the same exact tools that they have to create the content they do on the front page, muckraker, etc. If you notice, Josh's entries on the front page are not comment enabled either. In defense of Josh though, you can easily sent him an email with your thoughts if they are really that important.
So honestly, I don't think it was a deliberate feature that TPM included especially for us reader bloggers.
I kind of feel bad for the TPM staff. I can just hear them now:
"WTF, the readers wanted all the features we have. We give it to them and they are still bitching."
This is not aimed directly at you, as there are many bloggers who have complained about this blogger refusing comments on his blog. We know who it is, so save yourself the frustration - don't read his blog.
November 15, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey,
I see your point, but don't think we have all the tools they have. It doesn't bother me one way or the other. Josh? It's his site. He (and others) can also decide to ban a poster - don't think that should be an option for the average TPMCafe member.
So, there was a process to the decision to give us the option to disable comments. Not simply to give us what "they" have, as such.
I'm not frustrated by the bloggers who choose to use the function supplied. I'm curious as to the reasons behind the option and the fact that it seems to lead to more circular posts taking up space.
Kind of like me, some nights. ;)
November 15, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it was to provide a shelter of sorts from verbal abuse. Some poster for whatever reasons deserved or not, become unpopular, even despised, and they could post the Sermon on the Mount and still come in for heckling.
Maybe disabling the "comments" section also lowers the bar deterring new posters from giving us their thoughts for fear of negative reactions.
Overall though I don't favor it. This is supposed to be a forum for discussion, not a convenient spot to post vanity broadsides.
November 15, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Lux, you make some good points. Especially regarding new posters. But sooner or later, isn't the point of blogging on a site like this to be heard? And isn't the flip side of being heard the art of listening?
November 15, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, the dominance of one particular user on the recommended list indicates that the policy isn't having the effect you describe.
Maybe that was the HOPE ... but when reality shows to be different than what was hoped for, it's usually a good idea to make adjustments. Or we could use the Bush model ... and pretend that even failure is a success.
A policy that reduces the level of conversation and allows single individuals to dominate is a crappy policy. The fact that they could fix it in 30 seconds and refuse says a lot about the management of TPM.
November 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I don't think I care if people disable comments or not. Some people want to express themselves but not participate in the conversation and I guess that's fine.
However, as far as I know, only two posters have used the disable comment function. It could be more but the reason I know it's at least two is because those two went to great lengths to explain why they were disabling comments. Clearly, the comments on their posts were not getting them something they craved, so they made a ridiculous show of disabling the comments to make themselves the center of the brouhaha. Drama, drama, drama.
November 15, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the community gives them the drama. That brings me back to my original point - not whether it's a good or bad idea. Just what was expected when the decision was made. TPM powers-that-be know their posters well. It was not an arbitrary choice ... was it?
November 15, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we do give them the drama. We, as a group, tend to really love the meta-posts. I don't get it. Why talk about how we talk about something? Why not just get down to the talking about it.
This isn't a criticism of your post. Ultimately, anyone can talk about anything they want, and I think you have a legitimate question as to whether there's a rationale behind the new tool or whether it's just available because it is.
But as an observation of what goes on a lot around here, the meta posts are the ones that get 90 recs and 100 plus comments. Everybody loves to fight over the right way to do something, I guess. :)
November 15, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which, of course, explains why this blog is highly popular. ;-)
November 16, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I am more interested in is who is recommending this crap? How do you have a crummy blog entry and get 7-10 or so recommends when really good posts may get only 2 or 3?
This schmuck is taking up space on the top slots which is very frustrating.
Something is smelling really bad in Denmark :)
November 15, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes people recommend when they want to keep reading the comments that are left. Especially while the archives aren't working properly, if a thread doesn't get recommended, it is soon gone for good.
November 15, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why are the comment-disabled posts being so highly recommended?
Meta post - ugh. Never intended that, just really want to know what management was thinking. Still do.
November 15, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
barefooted, I never intended it either. I figured my little foray into showing rather than telling would get a couple of chuckles and then slide slowly down the Recent Reader Posts list, never to be seen again. But the law of unintended consequences is a clown with one of those squirting flowers on its lapel.
Personally, I think the "Comments Disabled" feature is absurd, and I don't think it should be an option, but I've had my say and I don't plan on making the point again. On the other hand, if I read something in the New York Times or in the Washington Post and it inspires me to post something in the Cafe', I will. Ditto for Cafe' posts with comments disabled. I figure that's about the fairest compromise I can come up with.
November 16, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we should make fun of the Disabled. While it may seem hopeless, even many of the chronically Disabled can be rehabilitated, and I think it would behoove us to more promote Barrier-Free Entry. Typically I think we should be nice to the Disabled and they'll be nicer to us.
November 16, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the comment disabled feature should be disabled. There is no reason to have it in this type of forum. Main page TPM is different, I expect it to be different and disabled comments there are fine. That is Josh's page. I still don't get anything on my dashboard and I think that is just plain crappy. I also think it says a lot when the most offensive posters on this site disable comments. I don't understand where they get their recommends and who does that. Who can tell us the answer?
November 16, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a suggestion on the possible management reason, because I do not know their reason. They may want to see more published writers using their own real name and with their own blog elsewhere, to post blogs here, like David Seaton.
Most complaining about the option say it's ok for Josh Marshall to do it because he takes email responses. Well, anyone with their own blog with comments can also be responded to that way, like David Seaton. It's the anonymous users like truthseeker that you can't respond to if they shut off comments. Maybe they want more David Seaton types and want to allow them to shut off comments if they want to, like Josh Marshall does, for that reason.
Keep in mind that it's one thing to take a lot of spam insults from anonymice under your post that you spend a lot of time and effort to write up under a pseudonym, it's quite another using your own name when your reputation depends on what you do about those comments. Do you refrain from answering or participating on comments threads, like it is the tradition of most bloggers with their own blogs with comments? I.E., Steve Clemons, Atrios, Yglesias...most big liberal bloggers, indeed, lots of the main contributors on this site, choose not to respond at all to comments because they don't want to get tempted to be dragged into silly stuff that will hurt their reputation. They'd rather just read the feedback, keep their thoughts about it to themselves, and spend their time creating a new blog post rather than responding to the peanut gallery. Those who don't take comments usually use email response so they can totally ignore the ugly stuff, they don't care that that makes them look "cowardly" to some.
I myself prefer forums that are interactive, I never have been interested in this type of site for ego or career purposes, I am interested in exchanging information and thoughts. But this site management has shown, over time (in their choices of software and their posts on meta issues,) a marked preference for the more ego-driven idea of blogging, they seem very much to be into wanting to promote blogging and good individual writers. It's a valid thing to be interested in, just not my thing.
Related: I seen lots of people react as if a smaller blogger posting on a forum like this one, in an attempt to grow a blog audience, is like being a thief. I don't think that is quite accurate. I believe both parties get a benefit from cross-links and cross-traffic as to internet rankings. That is why bloggers consider it proper netiquette to link to each other rather than post comments on the other blogger's thread; the cross linkage itself is actually valuable, and even a little blog's link input into a big one has some value as to rankings.
November 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would like to add that I personally hate that the latter practice of cross-blogging is standard. I would prefer that TPM Book Club, for an example, be where the invited participants talk to each on a single thread, have a real discussion on individual topics in the book. Instead, they each start a new post to bloviate about what the last blog entry said or what spin they want to put on the author's book. It's a very slow way of communication, it's like old time formal debate. It's not using the technology to actually interact to the fullest extent it allows. I also don't get why Greg Sargent or Josh Marshall, when they want to get reader help and input on a document dump or something like that, ask for email tips. If they made all the information public on a internet discussion thread, you would have a multitude of minds working on sorting the information, rather than a small staff. Again, not using the technology to its fullest extent, thinking in old ways.
November 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely agree about the book club - I think it's why the posts generally don't generate as much comments as I think they could/should. In addition to the posters not really conversing with each other, sometimes they come so quickly, there's no real time to get into one idea deeply before everyone jumps to the next.
November 16, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cross posting from TPM to a personal blog is really an admission of trying to grow your audience on the backs of someone else who has already grown their's, especially if you are posting under the same anonymous name on both sites (rather than your real name). Most new sites that gain real traction do it via some sort of viral awareness (e.g. 3rd parties forwarding links) -- if your content gets enough different viral distributions started, you will begin to bootstrap traffic that is truly yours.
Going to Internet sites is a habit. If you have several decent posts in a short enough time frame -- and continue to do so -- you can create the habit in the reader.
TPM gives most people a far larger audience than they would get (and will get) otherwise which is why it's an interesting forum.
November 16, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis' new post just reminded me that
TPM members articleman, Genghis, DF, all popular bloggers here, started their own group blog,
http://dagblog.com/
and advertise it here in their posts here, which are often cross-posted.
Member Orlando has now joined their blog.
This does not seem to bother management here. it seems like they want to do the early Kos thing, with pride in giving users the chance to produce successful "spin offs". If you see it as stealing the audience, I don't see any evidence that think that way. To the contrary: there is a the thing where you draw audience with the chance to win something, like on American Idol, going on here. Why do you think they have the most popular lists here? And a competition to get your posts on a premium menu?
Note that on dagblog they don't use their real names on their posts and on their blog. Seaton does. So do many of the invited contributors who decide to refrain from debate with commenters. I think using one's real name negatively affects one's willingness to get involved in certain types of "discussion." And I can understand why.
I myself would prefer the solution of more moderation and rules on commenting, so that posters did not have to deal with verbal abuse, and those posting with their real names with a related reputation to protect would not have to fear getting involved in comments or looking like they endorse that kind of commenting to an editor or possible employer checking them out on google.
(As mainily a reader, who has little interest in developing an audience, but does have an interest in discussing what I am reading, I don't see any value in reading verbal abuse, none. Actually, it's a negative value, I feel I have wasted my time and my intelligence has been insulted, and I have been made a fool to end up reading it instead of so many better things there are to read. And verbal abuse is not a game I enjoy participating in.)
But I don't see that happening here (moderated discussion, that is.) I think they want to promote blogging here, that is a priority over a moderated forum environment for civil discussion. And their choice seems related to that, to let the blogger shut off comments if having verbal abuse type discussion on their posts might embarass them as to their "real name world" reputation.
November 17, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your management statement just posted on Tom Wright's thread:
I take that to mean that they already have compromised for both tastes and are happy with the situation.
November 17, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink