Tuesday, May 06, 2008


I've not used Twitter and it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd bother with (though I said that about weblogs a few years ago...).

But this is good (via Katherine - but on Facebook this time).

I'd be interested to see a more mundane one of these that shows how the dynamic of discussions in blogs change as the reader-numbers change - and the degree to which commenters are likely to have their own blogs changes.

So, a high-volume site like CiF or Harry's Place where most of the commenters don't have their own blogs will tend towards trollery, while lower-volume sites where most of the interlocutors have their own site (or where the site has a comments policy that discourages non-bloggers).

1 comment:

matgb said...

Don't know. I go to a fair few high-traffic "blogs" that requires you to have your own-Livejournal is incredibly insular in that, OpenID isn't fully adopted yet even though they invented it.

Some of the worst trolling I've seen has been on some of the higher traffic comms (essentially group blogs), and from logged in users with their own blogs.

OTOH, on sites where the authors and site owners engage in discussion and are prepared to delete/moderate imbecilic behaviour, you get a much better conversation.

CiF as a specific example—posts by Justin, Sunny, Alix or JamesG get better discussion than posts by unheard-ofs that then don't go in and discuss-to me, part of blogging is the discussion in the comments afterwards (it's one of the reasons I went back to LJ as my main platform, get many more comments there), but if the author doesnt engage and allows stupidity to go unchallenged then it devolves.

Can't speak for Harry's Place though, went a few times, saw all the trolls, never went back, if a site can't keep the discussion civilised then I can't be arsed with it. Liberal Conspiracy, for example, has a much better record despite, I understand, now having similar traffic levels.

Less comments, but more substantive.