How annoying!?
On April 8, I received the following from Gene Palumbo, an old friend, now living in El Salvador. He raised a good question, for which I have a response.
Here’s his complaint: “I don’t understand why you terminated your post (“Pew Meditation”). It was chugging along, getting some worthwhile comments; in my opinion, there was every reason to believe that there would have been more such good comments. So, why cut it off? What’s gained-and what is possibly lost-by doing that? It might have sputtered for a while but then…gotten a second wind. Some people check in late; some who were following it all along find themselves wanting to comment on a late-in-the-day comment sent in by someone else, etc. etc. This practice-of terminating posts- has always bothered me. I could be wrong; but I could be onto something.”
I’ll respond, but others may have his/her own view on the matter.
A post and the responses to a post, at a certain point, become two different things. A series of comments on a post might take on a life of its own and head off into landscapes never mentioned by the original post. Sometimes responses just become argument playgrounds for people to bash each other over the head. While a post and response forum is the basis of this site, I believe that at some point you owe it to the servers upon which your forum is housed, to cut it off. My two cents worth.
I agree with Gene. While, as the host, you have every right to stop the posts, I don’t see the point. They tend to die of their own weight eventually anyway. Frequently, it just looks like the original posters either don’t like the turn of the discussion – i.e. this wasn’t what I wanted to discuss – or they don’t like the responses. A lot of pretty good discussions get stymied because of this. Like a TV or radio, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
As far as server space and bandwidth, these text posts are minimal, so I don’t get the overburdened server argument.
Here’s my thinking:
As a poster I feel some responsibility for monitoring what follows in the responses, and for responding to some of the points, positive and negative. That takes time, and sometimes time runs out. I have ended posts for that reason.
As a still-obsessive editor type, I think the comments should more or less stick to the point. I recognize that drift is almost inevitable and I don’t always close down because the drift has gone too far (though I have been known to delete specific comments that are obviously meant to provoke a drift to THE SUBJECT that seems to obsess a few but which has nothing to do with the post). Given time constraints, I think it’s okay to finally close down when the drift is totally in control, and there’s no sign that we’re going back to the original topic.
Unlike the magazine, Commonweal, the blog Commonweal has a latitudinarian editorial attitude: about the rate of posts (in a single day there can be five or six) and an open door for commenting on the thread. Okay, that’s the policy, and though it leads to a certain amount of serendipity, it also brings on a certain amount of chaos that ruins good discussion.
I leave aside the issue of mean, boring, and dumb comments that can finally take over a post. They deserve to die.
I won’t comment on this particular thread, but I do sometimes feel that when a contributor closes comments, it is done in a fit of pique and the commenters are being punished.
When comments veer from the original topic, sometimes the new topics that arise are more interesting than the original. I sometimes wish there were a forum where dotCommonweal discussions could be continued once they have, for whatever reason, stopped here. I have occasionally thought of devoting one of my own unused web sites, ultimatequestions.com (“Coming February 1, 2005,” it now says) to continuing debates that have ended here.
I do realize that online forums can deteriorate rapidly if not managed well, so I am glad the Commonweal contributors keep a close eye on them. I think when a religious order lasts 100 years, that is counted as a miracle for its founder. When an online forum lasts one year, it seems to me that’s a miracle, too.
The Commonweal Contributors are akin to democracy; they are not perfect but they are the best around. With so many substantial issues to ponder one cringes when too much trivia and individual outré biases appear on their part. Cathy gave us a gift by making available her “Prophetic Discourse in the Public Square.” But neither she nor anyone else placed it in the forum for discussion.
As far as the question Gene raises, after 90 or so posts the need for merciful termination cries out to the heavens.
Jean Raber who was overly scrupulous resigned as a contributor because she felt she could not give it the time it deserved. Jean usually made five drafts or so before posting. Can the others do at least two? You are the best. But nobody is perfect.
Personally, I find the irony of setting up a blog to encourage discussion, and then shutting down the discussion when there is too much of it, delicious. It’s like hanging a sign on the storefront saying “Open for business. Please don’t buy much of our stuff.”
If you’ve been on here long enough, you get to know that each of the official bloggers has his or her own editorial style and parameters. I might not like or agree with their editorial styles all the time. But, taken as a whole, it gives the blog texture, makes you feel that you’re talking to real people.
I think it’s helpful when when bloggers see that a thread is drifting in an interesting way and start a new thread for that topic rather than just let the comments keep racking up. Comments could be closed with a final comment from the thread’s author that says, “Continue the discussion over here” with a link to the new post.
I feel personally responsible for shutting down a couple of discussions with dopy or off-putting comments, so if I’ve halted good discussions, I apologize to the group.
I read Cathleen Kaveny’s article on prophetic discourse and had some comments I would like to make, so was disappointed that they weren’t activated.
There is no perfect formula. Those of us who have been around for a while know that, without sufficient moderation, cranks and goofballs can take over. Overall, this forum is extremely well-run, and the consistently high level of charity and civility is exceptional. I vote for the status quo.
I’m not sure why it should be surprising, ironic, or anything else for a poster to attempt to control or direct the conversation that follows from something he or she posts. How could we possibly apply “If you don’t like it, don’t read it” to the people who write and manage this blog?
Peggy’s approach is basically my own. Listen: If I write a post on this blog, I’m responsible for the comments on it. And I don’t have unlimited time to monitor them — especially since, in my case, the time I spend here is time I could be spending on the print magazine. So if a conversation is “healthy” — that is, germane, respectful, not chasing its tail — I can leave it alone. And that’s what happens most of the time. But if it’s requiring a lot of babysitting, I really can’t feel guilty about closing comments. Sometimes it’s the best way to avoid or cut off what I consider to be an unhelpful conversation — and yes, I think that’s my/our call to make. For me it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with the viewpoints being expressed, but with how things are being said and how or whether they relate to the reason I started the post in the first place. And sometimes it’s just because I know I’ll be too busy to check in and put out any fires that might start!
One of the reasons that has been given in the past for shutting down threads is, “We’ve been down this road too many times before.” I find this less than compelling for two reasons. First, I often need to return to what I take to be settled issues in my mind and ask, “Now why do I think this, and do I have good reasons for thinking this way?” Second, I think blogs, when done well, have a real education function, and so while it may be the case that those posting and many of those contributing have been down a certain road before, some who are reading the comments may not have been down the road as much, and may be learning from the discussion.
The strongest argument I can think of for closing down a discussion is the the possibility that at least monitoring the comments coming in is a burden.
“Down this road before….” My impression is that when this becomes the reason for closing comments it is because the thread has been colonized by two or three fanatics, ideologues, or people who don’t know what they’re talking about. I don’t think I have had to close comments on any of my posts because of this, but there have been posts where I think it is warranted.
Not turning on comments: I have done this a few times because I wanted to direct people’s attention to the story cited in the post, more than I wanted to hear what anybody thought about it (not because that wouldn’t be useful but because I fear more people jump in than actually read the cited story).
Who would have guessed so many rules are operating here?!
I feel personally responsible for shutting down a couple of discussions . . .
Jim,
Don’t be so sure. I always assume it is my fault. Probably many others feel the same way.
Wow! Who says the Catholic guilt button isn’t in good working order! But clearly it’s EVERYONE’S Fault. You’ll have to share.
It makes sense to me that threads would be closed down because the comments are becoming too much to handle. This forum is gratuitous, in the sense that it’s an extra task that posters graciously do on their own time.
However, it has sometimes seemed to me that threads are closed down because the poster doesn’t want to provide a platform for the opposing point of view. Perhaps this is not the case, but it has sometimes seemed the case. If it is the case, while it certainly represents a legitimate editorial policy, it doesn’t seem to me to be a “thinking Catholic” solution.
First,and foremost, I agree with Mollie that folks who start and oversee a thread have other pressing duties to see to and need some control -I think Mrs. Steinfels, Mollie ann David have been outstanding in trying to keep contemporay issues that Commonweal readers are interested in up for discussion.
I think Jean’s second paragraph about moving a discussion to a newer thread is germane as well and maybe could be refined more.
I also think that if folks think that threads have been ended to squelch a point of view, they should d give examples – I think many folks get a hearing not only once, but repeatedly.
Which leads me to say, lastly, that repetitive posts, to my mind are the biggest problem I find here.
Now on to mea cuplas with Jim, David et al. who wish to join us. i
I agree with Bob–we should try to keep repetitive posts to a minimum.
Mr. Nunz – add my own “Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa!” Agree with your summation and appreciation for how Ms. Steinfels, Ms. Mollie, and especially Mr. Gibson handle those of us who become frustrated, lose our focus, attention, or continue to hone our axe.
In that regard, I do find it helpful when a blog is ended that a reason(s) are given or a new thread and redirection is given. To just end a blog with a generalized fit of pique is not very helpful (sorry, find Mr. Gallicho’s attitude and approach to be closer to my high school dean of discipline). Let’s all realize that both those who post a topic and those who respond may not have all the facts; that positions and opinions vary; and that no one has a lock on the truth.
The person who posts has a responsibility to moderate the discussion that ensues. This includes deciding when to call it off. It honestly never occurred to me that those who post might be putting an end to discussions for selfish reasons, or out of pique, although some are more sensitive and judicious as moderators than are others. But I did notice, Peggy, that your post on Palm Sunday generated an unusual array of responses and was sorry it got pulled.
The phenomenon of “no comments” is rather different. Given the general expectation of open discussion, I wish that if no comments are being accepted, it would be made clear why.
Mollie, it is a very poor reason that you do not have the time. If you don’t have the time, stay out of the kitchen etc. …To many mind that is arbitrary and dismissive on your part. I refrain from stronger words.
Bill, I suppose it may be a matter of perspective: I think the comments often add value to this blog, but they aren’t the only or even primary reason for its existence. This isn’t set up as a discussion forum, though I’m glad when it can serve something like that function. When I write a post, it’s because I have something to say to, share with, or call to the attention of anyone who may be reading (including the many who never comment). Keeping an eye on a number of live threads 24-7 is just not in my blogger job description.
As for not allowing comments at all — if I take advantage of that function, it’s generally because it seems to me that nothing good could come of enabling feedback on a given post. Again, I think the posts are my primary responsibility; the comments are sometimes a bonus and sometimes a chore, and I do have to reserve the right to consider other demands on my time in deciding how much moderating I can afford to do!
I appear to be alone in the view that when I start a thread, I don’t think it my responsibility to monitor it, and never have; and I never have considered, in deciding whether to post something, how much time I’ll have to devote to monitoring it. So there appear to be some significant differences in how we view what we’re doing in starting a thread.
I wouldn’t post something I wasn’t interested in, and I would like the discussion to stick to the point, but I’ve never censored or removed a contribution and I’ve never called an end to the discussion. It usually died a natural death. So I don’t think I agree with either Peggy or with Mollie. This in fact is a discussion-forum, and I suspect most people read it and/or contribute to it for the sake of the discussion and not just for the bright ideas I, or any of the other posters, think the world should know about.
I agree with Bob–we should try to keep repetitive posts to a minimum.
I totally agree. Anyone else who agrees as well should chime in too.
I totally agree. Anyone else who agrees as well should chime in too.
Stuart,
I agree also. In fact, I feel so strongly about it that I am going to repeat that. I agree also.
Has this ever happened to you? An e-mail goes out to hundreds of people in your company. Somebody decides he or she shouldn’t be on the list, and so that person hits “Reply All,” and says, “Please remove me from this list.” And consequently the hundreds of people who received the first e-mail get that one, as well. And some of those people think it’s a good idea to get taken off the list, and they hit “Reply All,” and ask to be taken off the list. And then when about five or ten people have done that, other people start hitting “Reply All,” and saying, “Please stop hitting ‘Reply All’”! But other people haven’t grasped what is happening, so they continue to hit “Reply All” and ask to be removed from the list. This makes the people who do understand all the more angry, and they hit “Reply All” and say, “PLEASE stop hitting REPLY ALL!!!”
I’m happy that you agree so emphatically, and in fact I agree with your post as well.
As for the email list issue, I’ve seen that several times. Some people get really angry when they get even a single unnecessary email.
Isn’t “reply all” an invasion of privacy?
Fr. K. — I don’t know what motivates most people to read dotCommonweal. I do, however, know that there are people who have stopped reading dotCommonweal because they don’t like the ill-tempered flareups they encounter in the comments. (I know because they tell us so.) Yes, the obvious solution to that problem is to read the posts and not the comments… and I think there are a number of people who do just that. But apparently some people see the whole thing as one package (and don’t distinguish between “posts” and “comments”), and I think it’s in our interest to try to keep it civil, fruitful, and generally hospitable.
DotComm is set up as a blog first and functions as a discussion forum only secondarily — that’s just a fact. And it’s not an opinion when I say I am responsible for the comments on the things I post: it’s house policy. I agreed to it when I agreed to blog. Basically, as long as we’re providing this forum, it would be irresponsible not to keep an eye on it. So some monitoring is inevitable — but happily, not much!
Father Komonchak–
You are not alone. OK, you may be alone among the Commonweal thread-starters, but among the thread readers and commenters, you are not alone. In fact, you’re probably in the majority. I’m always amazed how quickly the most “liberal” among us resort to shutting down a discussion when it doesn’t go their way, but I don’t see it happen too often on this blog, thank God.
Mollie: I don’t recall agreeing to that when I agreed to contribute to this blog, but that could be my failed memory. As for the facts: this certainly is a discussion-forum–that’s just a fact–whatever the house policy is.
Fr. K, yes, of course, people discuss things here. But I’m using “discussion forum” in the technical internet sense, as something distinct from a blog (especially a blog affiliated with a magazine). They’re different animals with different goals. If this were a proper discussion forum, the priorities and procedures would be very different. It might be a wonderful thing, but we’d have to hire someone to run it!
Interesting to read Margaret, Mollie and Fr. K’s take on the purpose of the blog and the obligation (or not) they feel to monitor/edit/guide/control the conversation.
A hundred years or so ago in grad school, while studying hagiography, I got into deeper waters re autobiography, memoir and diary and questions about whom the author is writing for and why. Answers are multi-pronged, complicated. Perhaps equally so when applied to blog contributors and the obligation (if any) they feel to the ensuing exchanges on their posts.
Sorry for the drift into theoretical waters.
David N., I think Stuart and Mark are just playing with us. All part of the fun of an open-forum blog.
“Yes, the obvious solution to that problem is to read the posts and not the comments.”
Mollie, in so many cases the comments are better than the posts. Secondly, the posts are sometimes ill tempered or objectionable and obnoxious and even juvenile. Your attitude can be perceived as supercilious if not arrogant.
No one objects to the need to keep the discussion civil but your distinctions are insulting. I contend that Joe K has it right and you do not. But I am not totally surprised at your express views. If I may say so the power is going to your head.
Ok, since we’re talking about the user experience for friends of the magazine (sort of): could Commonweal PLEASE consider making more of its back-issue content available for free/to non-subscribers? I’m a long-time subscriber (except for those periods when I forget to renew …) and it’s kind of a pain to not be able to get on-line access to articles that I’ve (in a sense) already paid for. Yes, I know I could type in my subscription number or some such, but I rarely have it handy when I need it.
(And Fr. Martin, if you’re reading this, the same goes for America!)
I also hate repetitive posts. I appreciate efforts to moderate comments because if you’ve ever been on a board that isn’t moderated, you know that anybody truly interested with anything of merit to say is the first to stop commenting when things go South.
On the other hand, I used to read a blog that never shuts down discussions, and it’s entertaining to see that some threads have gone on, usually fitfully, for a long time, even years.
A good alternate rule: cut off comments after (1) the later of one week or (1) one day goes by with no additional comments. Then you can stop moderating in good conscience without offending any particular point of view.
Bad legislative drafting:
after the later of (1) one week or (2) one day going by with no additional comments. Then you can stop moderating in good conscience without offending any particular point of view.
Barbara, time limits haven’t been necessary for us, I suppose, because posts seem to die a natural death within a week, or at least once they drop off the main page. But yes, it can be a good tool. We do get comments on very old posts now and then, if someone’s a-Googling, but since it’s unlikely anyone else will ever see them, they don’t take much monitoring!
Bill, If you’re finding what I say insulting, it’s because you’re misreading it. In particular, the sentence you’ve just quoted: what I said was, if the “problem” is that someone really doesn’t like the comments, the solution for that person is to not read the comments. In other words, there’s no need to over-moderate to accomodate people who can’t stomach the discussion (but we should still keep in mind the reading audience is bigger than the comments suggest). You’ve got my point totally upside down. Anyone and everyone is welcome to read all, some, or none of the posts and all, some or none of the comments, and think whatever they like about what they read. And our bloggers are free to determine what discussions they begin and how long they let them go on. It has nothing to do with “power” — and I liked it better when you were refraining from using stronger language.
Mollie and Bill, have you met? You have a lot in common!
Alright Mollie. I will accept your explanation. I admit that I did find your previous explanation frustrating. In my opinion blogs that do not accept comments or limit them are gigantic propaganda machines which are self serving. Sometimes when they have an inside track to exclusive info their importance is overrated.
While I want to accept your explanation of power, may I suggest that power is usually (perhaps always) seductive to the user if not addictive.
Would it be too smart-alecky of me to ask what the over/under is on the number of comments we’ll have on this post before Commonweal decides to shut it down?
On a more serious note, is it my imagination, or does the time stamp on the comments indicate that this blog has not yet sprung forward? Or is this Commonweal’s way of honoring the Tradition. What’s next–posting only in Latin?
Let’s check the time: my computer says 8:35; so does my watch. Let’s post and see.
MP: Right you are; it says 7:35. Commonweal has not sprung forward! Since the servers are probably in Latvia or thereabouts, they may not know.
Yes, I’m pretty sure it’s a WordPress issue and not a dotComm editorial decision. There may be a setting we can tweak somewhere… I will poke around (carefully, so as not to destroy anything).
I don’t think the corruptive nature of power is a real worry here, Bill. Posting on and occasionally moderating comments on this blog doesn’t make me feel particularly powerful, honest!
I also hate repetitive posts.
Most times, I open discussion on posts–my approach, within broad lines, tends to Peggy’s. Sometimes, I post things I think are or could be of interest for people to read. So it could be to someone else’s stuff. This time, it’s to my stuff. My Santa Clara lecture is on the web. I certainly think I have posted and discussed prophetic material more than once on the blog, and will do so again. But stuff, as you might imagine, is a bit crazy now.
So I guess the choice is. . . post the hyperlink without comments, or don’t post at all. It’s on the Santa Clara website. It was posted on Mirror of Justice. So I thought on balance, people might at least like the reference, if they were interested in the topic.. It’s rather like having an article by me or Joe K. or Bob I. on the home page, but no discussion thread. Maybe it’s not perfect, but it’s the best I can do now.
On threads and discussions. . . . I probably start, and moderate, at least as many controversial threads as anyone here. I treat it like a classroom discussion on ethics. There’s a lot of leeway, especially if the discussion is good. (See Colbert thread below) . But if it’s fruitless, and mean, not so much. Each and every comment ends up in my inbox. So fruitless and meanness on a hundred comment thread really can affect a thread-runner’s day.
P.S. I’d also like to ask, is there a Catholic blog that does it better in terms of variety of thread posters (prayer & comedy the same day)!, frequency of posts, and range of commentators? I’m actually quite proud of what we’ve accomplished, together here.
Quite right Cathy, this is the best blog by far and the openness to feedback seals it.
Well!!! If Bill Mazzella says so, that settles it.
I fear to turn off the comments, but I am very tempted….what more could be said?
Just an observation:
It’s striking to me that some posters think of the blog as a lecture hall, one as her ethics classroom, and at the same time one poster and dare I say most of the non-posting commentators think of the same blog as a seminar table.
I think these forms of discourse are enormously different.
Kathy–good point. By ethics classroom, I don’t mean that I am doing all the teaching. I mean that anyone who teaches ethics gets used to dealing with contentious discussions–and knowing when they’re past the point of no return. I don’t think the blog is like a seminar–they require much more of a common basis for conversation (e.g., a book a week), presentations, commitment.
But I do have a question for you Kathy–why do you think spending time on this particular blog is worth it? Do you get anything, positively, out of the blog?
That’s a strangely pointed, personal question, Cathy.
I think that there are opportunities here for conversation on a very deep level. Although we may not be reading the same book–which is one basis for a seminar–I think that there is a common and ongoing search for truth and a common involvement with the Catholic Church–love it, hate it, wish it would change.
There is plenty to talk about. The world is a book and everyone here can read.
You probably couldn’t have guessed it from my posts, but I’m actually a conservative–of the First Things variety. The First Things website unfortunately does not offer this type of interaction. I subscribe to Commonweal and follow this blog to “see how the other half lives” and, who knows, maybe to learn a thing or two. Of course, there’s always the chance that something I post may get someone else thinking too.
That’s a strangely pointed, personal question, Cathy.
Is it? I don’t see how. (Unless you’re saying it’s strange that the question seems pointed and personal to you, in which case I agree.) You don’t have to answer, of course, but I should think you’d welcome the chance to tell us what you value about dotCommonweal. That goes for everybody! It’s useful for us to know.
Mark, it is certainly true that what traditionals, conservatives, whatever the preferred moniker is, get me thinking.
On the plus side, my views about abortion have become “more Catholic.”
On the down side, my view of the most traditional Catholics who appear here (and on other Catholic blogs) is that they’re pretty tough and unforgiving, concerned more with maintaining the purity of Catholic teaching than helping people learn to adapt to it.
While I’m no longer a practicing Catholic, I follow this blog b/c my husband and son are still practicing, and it helps me maintain a connection to Catholicism and to Catholics who are more likely to entertain my questions, provide reasonable and well-informed (and usually fairly mild) answers than the people in my local parish.
Thanks to Peggy for starting this thread. The point I was trying to make in my email to her was simple: I feel we lose so much more than we gain when a thread is ended. The biggest thing we lose is the chance to see great comments that would have appeared if the thread had continued. I’ve often written to people offline to thank them for comments that meant a lot to me. Often those comments appeared on the second or third day of the thread. Had those threads been cut off earlier, we’d never have gotten to see those comments, and we’d be the poorer for it. The thread of Peggy’s that I wrote to her about (“Pew Meditation”) was open for only one day. Had it stayed open, who knows how many other good things would have been said? I notice that Rita Ferrone felt as I did on this one.
Why terminate a thread? Some of you noted the burden of monitoring the ones you start. “That takes time,” said Peggy, “and sometimes time runs out. I have ended posts for that reason.” Joe Komonchak, on the other hand, says he doesn’t monitor his posts. I think I’ve read all of them, and I don’t recall any cases where his non-monitoring led to problems. Taking into account all that we lose when a thread is closed, I’m wondering: could we do an experiment, and say that those who start threads can do it a la Komanchak? If chaos were to ensue, we could go back to the old method.
Threads have been ended for other reasons. I remember one that generated 54 comments in less than 11 hours – a very good showing. I found one of those comments especially good, and thought to myself, “I bet this will elicit some very interesting replies.” And maybe it would have – but we’ll never know, because a few hours later, the post was shut down. Why? The person who started it called it “fruitless” and said, “I’m going to put it out of its misery.” Surely the people who sent in all those comments didn’t see it that way. They included many of our “regulars,” including (to name just a few, and in alphabetical order) William Collier, David Gibson, David Nichol and Jim Pauwels. Clearly, they were interested in continuing their conversation. But they weren’t allowed to. Can that be right? In cases like that, could the person who found the discussion “fruitless” simply tune out, and allow the others to continue?
Here’s a final question about blog management. A recent incident troubled me. It went like this: Gabriel Austin made a comment. Joe Komonchak wrote in to say that he agreed. Mollie wrote to Gabriel, saying “knock it off.” It sounded to me as if she was giving an order. Apparently it sounded that way to Joe, too, because he replied, “Mollie: You’re now in a position to tell others to “knock it off?” Grant answered, “Yes, Mollie is in a position to tell others to knock it off.” My question: how would that “knock it off” be enforced? What would happen if, a few days from now, Gabriel wrote in to make basically the same point, and Joe wrote in again to say that he agreed? Would Mollie delete those comments when she came upon them, given that Gabriel had refused to “knock it off?” If so, would that be the right thing to do?
Please understand the spirit in which I offer these remarks. Call this a lover’s quarrel. This blog means a great deal to me. I check it every day, and I’ve learned a lot from it. Given that I live outside the U.S, it helps me to stay in touch. More than that, it has become a place where, through offline email conversations, I’ve made new friends. I’m very grateful for all of that, and grateful to those of you who’ve put in so much time to make it all possible. With my remarks, I’m simply saying that, good as the blog is, I think it could be even better.
I can understand your frustrations, Gene, and everybody else’s. But if this discussion makes anything clear, it’s that everyone sees the blog slightly differently and values it for different reasons. Those of us who generate the content and moderate the comments are focused on making sure it keeps on serving everyone who comes here, including those who aren’t regular commenters, and those who may be stopping by for the first time right now. Sometimes our decisions may seem arbitrary; most of the time I think that’s because we’re working with more information (and longer memories) than any given exchange makes obvious. We’re doing our best, honest, to keep the big picture in mind.
Of course the decsion to end a thread is arbitrary to some degree, but that’s part of the frustration.
Seems to me we have duifferent kinds of thread :informative as such, informative/controversial, humor and pious/inspirational.
I think maybe it would help if we kept the information/controversial open as long as possible (as long as it’s not repetitive -which everyone seems to agree is annoying.)
I still think the possibility of developing related threads from the one here could use some thought and then process.
I continue to admire the posters I mentined above and I hope their generous work is appreciated.
Thanks, Gene, for alerting us to your post. I had indeed assumed this thread was finished, and would have missed it! I think you’ve said some valuable things here. It seems to me that within this discussion we have been drilling down into some issues deeper than time crunch or who’s in charge, to consider things such as patience, the practice of civility, and how much conflict can the medium reasonably tolerate before it breaks down or becomes dysfunctional. These things are more an art than a science, and how they are established and maintained is perhaps what defines a culture of discussion.
Since some of these comments tend toward general assessment of the blog’s success, I’ll make these observations before signing off here:
1. The attention a particular thread gets often depends on how quickly other contributors post “on top” of a thread. I’ve seen some interesting topics die an untimely death simply because other posts drove it below the “Recent posts” lists. At that point, you have to work to find it, and lots of people just don’t have the time.
2. It may be that the magazine’s editors never intended for the blog to become a discussion forum, as Mollie notes. But, for good or ill, the blog has created a community of readers (and I presume most of us here also support the magazine in various ways), and most of us who check it daily feel we have a stake in it. The fact that people are here offering advice to the contributors proves that. It remains for the mag’s editors to decide what, if anything, to do about that.
3. I haven’t made a careful study of this, but it seems to me that most blog posts fall into three categories, news flashes, personal reflections/meditations and discussion starters (the latter often end with a question, like Margaret’s thread here). Perhaps comments should be handled differently based on the type of thread.
“Sometimes our decisions may seem arbitrary; most of the time I think that’s because we’re working with more information (and longer memories) than any given exchange makes obvious. We’re doing our best, honest, to keep the big picture in mind.”
Mollie, some of us are privy to that “more information” you refer to and disagree. As far as I am concerned the more you write about it the worse it gets as you become more uppity each time. You can have the last word. I am finished with this thread.
As I mentioned so many inches above:
Bill and Mollie have a lot in common: “As far as I am concerned the more you write about it the worse it gets as you become more uppity each time.”
It’s progress that this is now a cross-gender quality, and Commonwealmagazine.org is in the forefront!
Bill, it seems to me the more I try to answer your (and others’) questions the more you misinterpret what I’ve said. I can’t imagine what “information” you think I’m talking about, but I’m positive you aren’t seeing what I’m seeing. At least it’s been a valuable object lesson in why closing threads is sometimes a good idea!
Jean — I should note that I wasn’t around when the blog was started, so I can’t say it wasn’t meant at least in part to provide a forum for discussion. I assume that was part of the idea, and I think it’s great that that’s happened — I’m glad we can have comments, and that so many people are so dedicated to commenting. For me, it adds a lot. But we do want the blog to provide some service for everyone who reads it, even the ones who keep quiet — for me, at least, that means the amount of time I put into the blog has to be at least as focused on generating new stuff as it is on keeping an eye on the old. Along those lines, you’re right, I think, that the approach to and expectations for comments should be (and is, usually) informed by the nature of the post. I don’t expect every post I write to generate a discussion. Sometimes I’m surprised when they do!