The "Value Added" of TPMCafe.
This is by no means the first time this has happened, of course. And for that reason, it was unfair single Bill out on this. In fact, though, it seems to be standard operating procedure here. The big wigs debate the issues of the day above the heads of the wee folk, and we're stuck scrambling for scraps that fall off the grown-up table.
To his great credit (in my mind), Bill agrees that such a dialogue is desirable, and points out that he's engaged in just such a manner in the past.
But I believe this sort of interaction is more than just desirable. I believe it is essential. To the extent that group blogs like this one (or for that matter, the Huffington Post) are going to offer their readers an experience that exceeds merely being a "one stop shop" for corralling name brand commentary, this kind of interaction with the lead writers is going to be absolutely critical. The voices of the writers on this blog -- and perhaps to a greater extent, those at the Huffington Post -- are for the most part relatively accomplished and important ones. That is, they are voices which don't normally have great difficulty being heard in the published and online world. So the value added of a blog like this should be the opportunity for an informed readership to interact directly with the writers who interest them most.
So I very much appreciate Bill's recognition of the point, and hope others here will as well! Because it's going to be crucial to the TPMCafe's ability to transcend traditional media experience that all of you make an effort not to let Bill's recognition put him at a disadvantage -- if a disadvantage it be -- by limiting the number of times he takes the stage with his own message, while the rest of you go your merry way.
This is a very good question. So let me try to answer it. And I should also say, in defense of the contributors that I've personally encouraged them to respond in new posts, though I also encourage them to post in the comments section. So to the extent that there's a fault, it's mine. Not there's.
My basic thinking is as follows. For the people who actively participate in comments, what you say is definitely preferable. The problem is that the people who actively participate in comments is a small subsection of the total readership of the site. And if contributors do most of their contributing in comments then the vast majority of our readers won't see them. And that leaves the site with far less content for most readers.
I know this approach isn't ideal. But that at least is the reasoning behind it.
July 27, 2005 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
With Scoop, if you put a link on your menu to ALL recent comments in chronological order, most recent first (which is available as a choice on the search engine):
http://www.tpmcafe.com/?op=search&offset=0&old_count=30&a
mp;type=comment§ion=&string=Search+TPMCafe&search
=Search&count=30&orderby=date
I think you might find that that becomes a quite popular way to navigate the site, because people can see where the conversations are going on, who is conversing, and even do things like leave "messages" in their subject line to interact with each other better. They can even go back to an older post, and make a comment on it or a reply and not feel that it will never be seen.
The way you have it now, a member has a link to their own comments and stories to see if someone has responded, but no one else has an easy way to know if an interesting conversation is going on, no one else is privy to finding the interesting conversations going on. A link to all recent comments furnishes this--people can scan the list to see what's up on that front.
A good side effect of this is that people begin to see and understand the threaded system of commenting, i.e., that if they are responding to another commment, and not to the original post, they should hit "Reply to This" instead of "Post a Comment". This makes the original comment responded to a "parent comment." So, if you saw what looked like interesting comment by joshtpm on the list of recent comments, if you clicked on it, you could click on "parent" and go one step up and see who and what he was responding to.
I have found that at most Scoop systems, this results in people actually talking to each other rather than just posting their own opinion, and what you often end up with is some very interesting "sub-threads" where discussion ended up more like brainstorming or Socratic method.
You do have to encourage people for a while, though, to look at a "recent comments" link, until they "get it." Once they do, though, it makes less work for editors, as there is not as much need for someone to scan the site and do a promo piece pointing out the interesting discussions. People can do it for themselves.
July 27, 2005 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, beautiful. To be honest, it was my assumption from the beginning that you were encouraging your writers to generate more top-line posts. It makes a great deal of sense. You want a constant supply of fresh content.
And surely there are those -- perhaps a majority of your readers -- who don't actively participate in comments. I have the benefit of relatively long experience with Scoop, and its ability to generate discussion in the comments that can at times even exceed even the original post in quality, especially when the writer joins the conversation. Many other readers might not know that.
On the other hand, those readers may never come to learn that lesson unless there's an affirmative effort to make the comments section worth reading, as a destination in itself. It's abundantly clear to me from your prior work on TPM itself, not to mention the work you've put into building TPMCafe and recruiting the caliber of writers you have, that the value of having them participate in a roundtable, of sorts, with your most engaged readers would be of tremendous value to you, and most certainly a point of great pride, as well.
I'm sure you'll be giving some thought, then, to how it might be possible to strike the best possible balance between the two approaches. Which would be great for everyone. Your readers, of course, would be getting an experience they can't get anywhere else. And your writers would stay on top of their game.
The side benefit, of course, is that it's something I think almost everyone involved would enjoy. And you can be sure you'll beat The Huffington Post to market with that policy, too.
July 27, 2005 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kagro-
I think Josh did emphasize above the balance between comments and getting more topline content. I've replied in comments quite often, mostly in my own threads, but occasionally in others. (See my comments in Mark Schmidtt's today.)
But I actually think, for example, that Jo-Ann's topline post in response to Mark is useful in not letting the response get lost in an "old" thread.
As someone who hangs out in Kos a moderate amount, but does not burrow into all the hundreds of comments, I actually think it's occasionally a problem that useful stuff gets buried there. It would be better if more was pulled to the front page in useful ways. I know there are folks who do that in the diaries, but it's not ideal always.
But hopefully we find a good balance and figure out the tech tricks to make it as useful for all readers as possible.
July 27, 2005 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yes, I think Josh addressed it nicely. And although I haven't combed TPMCafe the way I do Daily Kos, I have noticed that there are a few writers here who do at least venture into their own threads, and those of others that touch on subjects of interest. I've also noticed that they tend to be those writers who come to TPMCafe having had experience tending their own blogs.
For the most part, the thread sizes are manageable enough here that good comments won't be lost. Particularly given the way TPMCafe's Scoop setup actually elevates top-rated comments to the top of the thread.
Not for nothing, but even the venerable Daily Kos has something of a problem with this issue. Lately, front page posters there have either preferred rehashing a subject already covered in a well-populated diary, or have missed such diaries entirely and posted on the same subject without taking notice. And while that's both a blogger's prerogative and another opportunity to discuss an interesting subject with a different subset of interesting people, it has caused some confusion and even some resentment.
But, as you say, it's all about balance. I thought that planting the bug in peoples' minds seemed like a good idea, and a great way to add interest to the blog, as well as sharpen the writers' skills a bit, by encouraging them to wade into discussions that might perhaps even be outside their area of expertise. Now, perhaps, we'll see if the idea strikes anyone else as interesting. At the very least, we may see more comments from you, Josh and Bill. So we can count that as a good thing.
July 27, 2005 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no disagreement with this. What we have now is certainly not perfect. And I'm looking for ways to improve it. You make very good points. I think the honest answer is that our to-do list is miles long and there are only two of us. But we know there are various ways we can improve the structure of how the comments work and facilitate the sort of exchanges you're talking about. We'll be working on that.
July 27, 2005 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is turning into a hell of a conversation, this conversation about conversing.
I think we're all pretty much on the same page, then. So, anything else I can prod you into doing that you already wanted to get done? Spackling? Backing up your hard drive? Leaky faucets?
Anyway, I don't think anyone can have any doubts about the willingness and interest of the writers in jumping into more conversations once that becomes easier to do. Just look at what happens at the mere mention of the possibility. Three of you (counting Bill) are here without so much as an engraved invitation.
It all bodes well. Congratualtions all around, and let's get together for a backyard barbeque real soon. I say Nathan's place. No, wait. Let's stick somebody who didn't come to the meeting with it. How about Yglesias?
July 27, 2005 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
One "added value" of TPMCafe is that this goes both ways. As a total unknown and someone who doesn't have anything interesting to say often enough to start a real blog, I can nevertheless have my ideas heard through the issue tables on a weekly or monthly basis. To me, they are the potentially huge value-added to the site: a place where people with limited time, experience, and/or intellectual resources can reach a broad audience without having to have something interesting to say several times a day.
The top-line posters have the privilege of starting new topics of conversation at whim, and with that privilege comes the responsibility to do so with discretion.
July 28, 2005 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Top-line posters (did we just invent that term here?) doubtless already exercise considerable discretion in deciding to post, though perhaps, as with everything, some exercise more than others.
I think, though, that most of the posters here would very much enjoy the idea of their posts being commented on by the other posters, as well as rank-and-file readers. The two-way nature of blog communication is, I think, one of its greatest features. Even better, though, is that here that communication can now take place among "columnists" -- directly, not through duelling columns -- and not just between "columnists" and writers of "letters to the editor," so to speak.
There is no shortage of traditional media outlets that will offer us the "point/counterpoint" format. But only blogs can offer real time, extended dialogue. And unless it becomes necessary as an organizational issue -- i.e., an unwieldy thread length -- there's no reason that extended dialogue shouldn't be held in one place, for all to see, as opposed to having to hop back and forth between the "point" thread and the "counterpoint" thread. That conversation, if that's what it is, is rarely as cogent as direct give-and-take.
July 28, 2005 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree with you on the value of "conversation", and the recent discussion of Frank's "Kansas" has been spirited and enlightening.
As an aside, it continues to surprise me how weblogs have taken off when we've had far better technology for threaded online discussion for 20 years: Usenet news. Newsreaders and usenet threading are far more convenient and sophisticated than simple blog interfaces like blogger, and while news lacks some of the bells and whistles of Scoop or Drupal, it's still better at its core functionality. But thanks to accidents of the market, it seems we're stuck with this discussion medium.
July 29, 2005 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
While not fully on topic with Kagro X's useful points, I'd like to also suggest another wish list item for enhancing thread discussion:
The dKos Scoop "hotlist" features.
Making it easier to see new responses on threads you are involved in would go miles toward making the site richer.
July 28, 2005 4:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
By adding too many new "top line" posts, some really important posts that merit staying near the top and being seen and discussed by more people, end up moving off the front page too quickly. In my opinion, there are too many important developments going on right now for the front page to get bogged down with more than one or two posts on the same issue.
Is there any way for posts that are interesting and important enough to provoke larger numbers of comments to stay on the front page for longer?
July 28, 2005 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Is there any way for posts that are interesting and important enough to provoke larger numbers of comments to stay on the front page for longer?"
It's not really what you're looking for, but you can set the number of stories on a page to a higher number for your own account.
As far as keeping tabs with interesting posts, a hotlist feature would take care of that.
July 28, 2005 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Scoop, anyone who is empowered as an editor can make a thread jump back to the top of the page by "updating" it, if they desire.
(They can also chose to put it in several sections rather than just one. The problem I saw in the past with this on other sites is that if you put it in more than one section, when you update it to make it jump to the top, it does it everywhere you put the piece. But I'm not sure about that being mandatory.)
So this function is available, but not by vox populi. It is editor's choice. If they see a thread discussion that's good but that has scrolled off to page two, they can bump it up if they wish, so that infrequent visitors don't miss it and can join in.
July 28, 2005 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not have a way for "top line" posters to "cross-link" their comments to a new post? So the same thing they post as a comment comes up as a new post?
-- The Duke
July 30, 2005 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a flow chart diagram would help to visualize the layout concept. I'm still not sure I see the big picture: is it basically featured posts/comments + readers' private blogs (presumably unread, since who knows they're there)?
On the whole, though, very impressive concept. It's great to hear cogent, informed commentary with it's hair down a bit.
August 3, 2005 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink