Our anonymous commenters are almost always bubbleheads. They come in with fake names and fake email addresses so that they can behave like idiots. They’re good at it.

> Do you notice if someone asks a question and that
> question doesn’t get answered ever, if it is not
> your article?

No. I watch the comments for the bad behavior of anonymous idiots, not so much otherwise.

> I recently asked someone to “write” and they want
> to “write” but they don’t want to answer any
> comments. Is that a realistic position for a group
> blog contributor to take, in your opinion?

If the writing were of a high enough caliber, I would have no problem with this. I have no problem with it now, with our contributors. Commenters are not paying for responses. Bread cast upon the waters is not an entitlement program.

> Can someone post an article, and only post
> articles as if comments are “turned off” on their
> article, if not literally then figuratively?

Ask Seth.

Some comments are great. Some are vile. Some are clueless. I’m busy. Everything I do, I do in the service of my own interests. If there is not something for me in responding to a comment — something to add, something to learn, or at least something fun — I don’t respond. Vita brevis.

I ran into something like that yesterday on my blog. I “lifted” something instead of linking (and noted that) because it was the very first thing posted by that blogger.

It was a list of closed mortgages that gave detail as to score and rate and terms of loan and not “an article” per se and I thought it would be a dis-service to the blogger to highlight his blog when it was in infancy and not built up yet.

Seems the courtesies we extend are the same in blogging, as in real life! As Jillayne so eloquently reminds us. She’s “a keeper”!

Also sites like RSS Pieces advise newer sites to turn the comments off until they have a loyal following of fresh readers because if someone see that the site isn’t getting many comments, they would think the blog is dead. In my case, I am back in school, so in a way my blog is dead but I am there still and I have no intentions of giving it up, just take a little time off to get my school work done and it’s back to blogging for me so I have them turned off for that purpose as well.

Do you notice if someone asks a question and that question doesn’t get answered ever, if it is not your article?

I recently asked someone to “write” and they want to “write” but they don’t want to answer any comments. Is that a realistic position for a group blog contributor to take, in your opinion?

Can someone post an article, and only post articles as if comments are “turned off” on their article, if not literally then figuratively?

I noted in Allen’s comment #4 the double “Dustin Gatekeeper” reference. I do think some are confused by the fact that I at times step in as “alternate Gatekeeper”, given your new and increased and demanding job activities. I got the feeling that Allen resented that, and it does make me feel more overbearing in perception of viewer, than I was when simply one of the many frequent contributors. Lord knows I’m overbearing enough LOL I think that creates a confusion for Allen, but maybe only Allen.

The structure that Robbie and I are “manning the ship as needed” with not full admin…but edit and conrol issues, is not obvious to the reader.

For instance, I have spent many hours doing hand deletes of random spam deep link comments that you could have, had you the time, maybe deleted en masse. i say to myself, “I have to get rid of those as Dustin is likely at work and in the middle of what he gets paid for ” But as I’m deleting them one by one (usually in the morning with one eye open as they seem to hit overnight), I can’t help but think there must be an easier way!

My logic stems from my own experience leaving comments on other people’s blog. If I leave a comment, I know that I’m quite likely to check back on that post a few times over the next few hours. If I get a response, then a conversation is started. If I don’t get a response, then the host might have just lost a reader!

My feeling is the opposite. Anonymous being much more important than “not anonymous”. To me, “not anonymous”, is someone within the industry who has a link. “Anonymous” is a consumer reader. That’s my understanding. “blue” equals industry insider; “black” equals consumer, for the most part. Except for agents who want to say something they don’t want traced back to them, which I think is pretty cowardly.

The main host sets the “tone” of expectation, somewhat. Back when I first joined, Dustin was a genial host. Always thanking people for stopping by, etc. That set an expectation in my mind that “guests” should be “greeted” in some fashion and not “ignored”.

For instance, I just received a question comment on something I wrote back in Feburary of 2006. I think it is my “obligation” again, for lack of a better term, to answer that person since I wrote the original article. Questions are more obvious, of course, than “flat” comments.

Apparently, I break all the rules. I watched the Inman Connect symposium on weblogging. (Two words: Toast. Masters.) I don’t write short. I don’t write EZ-reading. I don’t summarize or bullet-point to promote skimming. I will only use an image when I think it actually helps tell the story. I actively avoid pictures when I think they will intrude on the conceptual content.

With respect to comments, I only respond if I think I have something new to add. I won’t talk at all to commenters who conceal their identities. I don’t respond if I think someone is just trying to go one up on me. In any case, I don’t think having written a post imposes a positive obligation on me.

On the other hand, BloodhoundBlog’s other contributors are often game to take on things I don’t, and vice versa. If I feel like I have something interesting to add, I jump in. I don’t have the impression that anyone is terribly territorial about their posts (and if they do feel stepped on, they should say so).

I agree, which brings up the subject of answering comments. Just as a host would greet their own guests, the writer of each article should answer their own comments. Unless the “host” appears to be busy, in which case someone has to “answer the door” that isn’t the host.

I don’t think Bloodhound is the same in that regard, as the comments don’t show in the sidebar, just the topic of the comment. It would surprise me if other writers noticed if comments were not being responded to at “your place”. Of course not all need a response.

Perhaps Greg would answer a question after giving the host a suitable timeframe to respond to a question on someone else’s article.

Dustin is the King of acknowledging comments. I try to cover for him in that regard since he’s gotten busier this year. But no one can welcome someone like Dustin…clearly not me