James Bach responded to my recent post, Are You Following the Instructions on the Paint Can?, with Studying Jeff Atwood's Paint Can. I didn't realize how many assumptions I made in that post until I read Mr. Bach's pointed response. The most amusing assumption I made-- and I had no idea I was doing this-- was that I ran a painting business in college! The paint can instructions make sense to me because of that prior experience. Pity the would-be handyman who has never painted anything before and has only a few paragraphs of text on the back of a can to refer to.
âHis latest post, in response to this one, cites that he doesnât like spam, yet proceeds to give out his, his wifeâs, and his Mobile number, among other information. Very odd indeedâŚâ
He probably feels that email anti-spam tech is significantly more advanced than blog measures (although theyâre only a generation behind these days), especally if his email travels through a corporate anti-spam engine, like a barracuda. Or maybe he just wants a more personal level of interaction, or a higher bar of entry. Who knows, itâs his blog and his decision.
On the other hand, his wife might hurt him if she starts getting all his personal mail.
I find that comments are as much a way for your readers to interact with each other as with you, and not everyone wants to babysit a mini-forum.
âI concur with Jeff. A blog w/o commenting is a mere website.â
A topical column or newsletter would be more precise.
âAlso, commenting if not enough. Blogs should allow anonymous comments.â
So make up a pseudonym, or a common name, and if youâre really paranoid, change it everytime. After all, I presume youâre already using proxies and a random user-agent if you care about anonymity.
Jeff, I agree with you. Although I donât know (or care) if a blog without comments is still a blog, it strikes me as awfully elitist. And Iâd like to add something more: imagine the frustration if you want to reply something to one of those bloggers, make a great post on your blog replying to them, correcting the error of their ways and so on⌠and all you get is ignored, because the man doesnât read your blog, doesnât know of your existence.
Is a harsh life for us KEWL KIDS (but not famous) out there⌠=)
I blog and I have a love hate relationship with the comment feature. Commenting can lead to unintended flame wars, and is guaranteed to require investing time in anti-comment spam, which has been getting better only slowly. Many of the early anti-comment spam techniques were quickly hacked. Not everyone has enough time to keep their blog entries updated, let alone delete a hundred poker spam entries every day or install the blog patch of the month. Admitedly this is a developer website, but not all developers want to spend their time specificly in web development.
Only when the blog technology is effortless can we assert a lack of blog commenting means the blogger is unwilling to take what he is dishing out.
sending an email to the author of the blog - isnât this more or less equivalent to a letter of the editor, where it may or may not be selected for publication?
In theory. But aping the old conventions of print media isnât what makes blogs interesting, either.
I think itâs unreasonable for you to expect a publisher like this to do anything in particular. If you donât like their words/product/whatever, stay away.
Of course-- and I probably shouldnât even have to say this-- people are free to run their own websites/blogs as they see fit. But I get the highest value from blogs where either A) the authorâs writing is so outstanding that the lack of comments isnât material (eg, Paul Graham, Joel Spolsky, etc) -or- B) a combination of good writing and good comments.
Preachers are almost always available in the narthex (lobby) right after the sermon. People with an opinion or question will often chat with him (or her) within minutes of their âinitial postâ.
Yes, but thatâs not a public dialog which can engender discussion amongst all the participants; itâs analogous to emailing the author.
youâre arguing the definition of the word âblogâ
Possibly. I have strong feelings about what makes blogs worthwhile, and what makes blogs unique. And comments play a very important role in that.
Blogs should allow anonymous comments
Itâs a question of how high you want the barrier to entry to be. Although I agree with you, I donât think registering is setting the barrier TOO high, and itâs certainly preferable to no comments at all!
Iâm really glad he doesnât have comments, as if youâd replied there Iâd have completely missed the discussion.
A blog with comments has a different social dynamic from one without. But I think to say that oneâs a blog and oneâs not is unhelpful. The term âblogâ covers such a broad range these days that your point here comes across as a bizarrely arbitrary rant!
Moreover, blog comments are hugely flawed as interaction mechanisms go. Theyâre inconsistently and poorly integrated into most RSS readers. Comments also tend to suffer from exactly the same âwrite onlyâ problem that you accuse us comment-free bloggers of - a lot of comments will be hit and run precisely because blog comments are such a poorly conceived social software construct.
One of the main reasons I donât have comments on my blog is I think theyâre such a disaster as social software goes. I want to do something better. For me, given the choice between something as bad as blog comments and nothing, nothing is clearly the better option.
And I love the irony of how your post is such an eloquent example of why you really donât need comments to be able to reply to a blogâŚ
(And BTW, I think your religion/newspaper/blog argument is rather obtuse, and well below your usual quality of writing. Itâs easy and free to set up a blog. I know loads of non-techies who have done it. I donât know anyone who has successfully started their own newspaper or religion.)
I also agree with Jeff. I also have to warn Jeff that the online arguments / discussions Iâve witnessed with James over the years are strange at best, and confusing at worst. Hopefully in this case, you two can come to a clear conclusion.
Try this, a blog without comments OR TRACKBACKS enabled is just a website with a datetime stamp at the bottom. Comments I can see, but not allowing trackbacks or showing referrers just means youâre an isolationist.
âa very simple captcha probably isnât the best. for instance one that uses the word âorangeâ all the time :)â
Youâd be surprised at how effective a single word is at being a magic anti-spam word. Itâs like locking your screen door in a bad neighborhood where everyone else leaves their door unlocked. If the barrier to spamming someone elses blog is much lower, theyâll always go for that first.
See, my first thought when reading James response to what will forever-after be known as the âpaint can postâ was in response to this statement he made.
âMy colleague Michael BoltonâŚâ
Is that really his name? âHow can we write software when we canât be friends? How can we de-bug when the fighting never ends?â
Just yesterday I received an email because the person couldnât navigate the TypeKey registration I turned on for comments on my TypePad site. I decided to remove that requirement and deal with comment spam as you described. Fortunately, TypePad has recently added a CAPTCHA option for comments.
How about people that leave annonymous comments or donât have a blog/website to link to? Is that akin to someone sticking their head into a room, stating their position and leaving without a trace?
In general, I agree with you. People can certainly choose to disable comments and I may even subscribe to their feed but a blog DOES imply a different level of interaction.
One of the main reasons I donât have comments on my blog is I think theyâre such a disaster as social software goes. I want to do something better. For me, given the choice between something as bad as blog comments and nothing, nothing is clearly the better option.
Nothing canât be better than something. (Ironically, James Bach himself wrote about this. âA comparison is offered between something and nothing. Who could prefer nothing? Nothing is a void.â)
Half the stuff I find on the 'net is because of insightful comments like yours. Given the choice of nothing and Ian Griffiths, I choose Ian Griffiths.
But youâre absolutely right that this is a weird discussion because itâs so meta-meta on a couple different levels.
Itâs easy and free to set up a blog
Ah yes, but actually writing one? Not so easy! At any rate, I think thereâs a huge difference between a formal blog entry on âyour blogâ, and a paragraph or two written in the very same browser window that the article is in.
the online arguments / discussions Iâve witnessed with James over the years are strange at best, and confusing at worst
Thatâs unfortunate, but this is hardly an argument-- I basically agree with everything James wrote. And my post has more to do with the meta-topic of blogging itself than the actual content, anyway.
"Itâs unreasonable to expect people that disagree with the tenets of your religion to build a church and start their own religion."
unreasonable maybe, but has been done many times
Funnily enough, I was having the same discussion yesterday with a colleague of mine, and my exact words were âa blog without comments isnât a blog, itâs a websiteâ.
For me, blogging is all about the conversation (which means that itâs a lot about the comments, but also the emails and the phone calls and the face to face discussions).
Perhaps thatâs just for me though. I know when Iâm blogging Iâm not trying to speak from the pulpit. Mostly Iâm trying to learn as much as Iâm trying to share with others. Comments are integral to a blog like that.
If youâre positioning yourself as an expert, then I can see how youâd be less likely to open yourself up to be challengedâŚ
Meanwhile, on the spam front, I was also suffering from comment spam to the point that it was almost taking all the fun out of blogging. Iâve recently installed Akismet, and itâs gold. Comment spam doesnât bother me at ALL anymore. If youâre a Wordpress blogger, you should definitely check it out.
Jeff â Iâm curious about why the ability to post or not to post comments on Jamesâ blog arise now? Have you ever read his blog before? Did you not know that he had comments disabled before his post? Did you have Jamesâ email address before your post?
James must have evoked an emotion that was perceived by you to require a public defense - or else the entire discussion would be moot. Did you feel that James was attacking you in some way? I know I would if I came under a pointed analysis by him on something I wrote. I suppose another perspective I would take, after I calmed down, is that James was attempting to help clarify my position and make it stronger.
Iâm curious to know what you gain by posting a response at the source as opposed to your own forum? Is it that defense was not allowed at the source that is really the problem? What would have happened if you could have posted at the source? What exactly would have been your response to James? You seem to be keeping prviate for a face to face meeting? Why not put it on your blog as well?
Posting at the source - Would it evoke an emotion of happiness or revenge when all the âKEWL KIDSâ could point and say âLook what Jeff put on Jamesâ blogâ. Is it that you want Jamesâ to recognize that you are offended by his post? I ask â because that you start out coming across as offended but then you state in your comments later on that âI basically agree with everything James wrote. And my post has more to do with the meta-topic of blogging itself than the actual content, anyway.â So you agree with James â why didnât you say that at the beginning of your post? You must have known that you come across as extremely offended and upset in your first paragraph.
Back on the topic of blog comments - Is it possible that James could ignore your response if you post it on your blog instead? I doubt it â since he read your original post. Is it possible that if comments were enabled on Jamesâ blog that he could delete your comment without reading it? Is James worried about your response or his he working on his own analytical skills? If these were the cases would they be an acceptable use of a blog in your elitist view of what blogging means? Why does James write a blog? Have you ever asked him? Would any of these make James an irresponsible blogger? What would it make him? Why do you care?
I think you took the appropriate approach by responding on your own blog â your point comes across loud and clear. Your point was to attempt to talk about blogging by using Jamesâs post as an example for the âKEWL KIDSâ â wasnât it? Making this point would be understandable if you hadnât just been the subject of a Bach Analysis/Teaching (BAT for short) and responding in a defensive manner under the guise of the meta-topic of blogging.
If you were to actually tell your blog readers your thoughts on the content and theory of Jamesâ post your blogs comments could help furthre your argument that comments make blogs more worthwhile
Cheers,
Adam
âI donât care if they believe me â I just want them to thinkâ â Marshall McLuhan
Adam, youâre going to break your question mark key. I donât know if I can answer all those questions, but Iâll try.
Iâm definitely not mad or upset; if anything, quite the opposite: Iâm flattered that someone like James, who has a long history in the software industry, would care enough to write an entire blog entry based on something I wrote. Thatâs high compliment, not a slam.
What motivated this post? Itâs very simple: after reading Jamesâ post, I wanted to leave a public comment on it. I couldnât. And thatâs frustrating, because IMMEDIATELY after reading something is when the desire and impulse to comment on what Iâve read is strongest. The longer I wait, the more I forget, and now Iâll have to go back and re-read the entire thing again to formulate a response. Itâll be a better, more thoughtful response, of course, but it takes longer.
Thatâs it.
Trackbacks donât appear to be enabled on his site, either. So, if comments were enabled, I could post a comment with the URL to my response as well.
âAnd itâs unreasonable to expect people to start their own blogs to make a public reply to your post.â
I think itâs unreasonable for you to expect a publisher like this to do anything in particular. If you donât like their words/product/whatever, stay away.
Granted, he was attacking something you said and you wanted to respond, but it just so happens that he doesnât invite a response in the form of a comment on his blogâyouâll have to get creative.
Also, youâre arguing the definition of the word âblogâ, which if I recall correctly is only a few years old.
[Insert high and mighty comment about freedom of speech and freedom of the press here.]
I think youâre overlooking the possibility of sending an email to the author of the blog - isnât this more or less equivalent to a letter of the editor, where it may or may not be selected for publication?
