Hit-and-run commenting
If social media (yeah, I still use that term) is all about conversation, how come so many people jump in, offer their two cents, then vanish? I don’t know if anybody has called it “hit-and-run commenting” before, but that’s what it feels like.
In my long-winded post about the social media press release, there were two good examples of this. First, somebody named ZF called me on a word cock-up (can you tell Neville’s British-isms are having an influence on me?). I wrote that I had deep unabiding respect for Stowe Boyd and Robert Scoble. What I meant, of course, was abiding respect. Where’d I come up with the non-word? I was probably thinking “deep and abiding,” changed my mind, and out came “unabiding.” The point is, though, that I thanked ZF for pointing out the error, then asked him a follow-up question. No response.
Then there was Dominic Jones, who is a master of all things investor relations. He pointed out that I was wrong in my interpretation of Reg FD. So I noted that I would defer to his depth of knowledge and asked him to point out my inaccuracy. Again, no response.
Just because it’s a blog and you’re commenting doesn’t make it a conversation; the social aspect requires the intent to act in a social manner. Imagine you’re part of a conversation among a group of people at a party. You notice somebody standing nearby, listening. At some point, he bursts into the circle, shouts out a comment, then heads off to the chips and dip, never to return. Was that participation in the conversation?
C’mon guys. If you’re going to comment, check back to see if somebody has lobbed the ball back to your side of the court.
Hear, hear. The flipside to your post, though, is that bloggers need to respond to people who do post comments. It’s no fun to comment and take the trouble to check back, only to find that the blogger didn’t bother to respond.
Posted by Karen on 01/24 at 11:47 AMShel:
Excellent point, but I don’t think it’s always an issue of “hit and run.”
I think one of the difficulties of (yeah, I said it!) social media is that there is SO much. For example, I have probably slightly more than 75 feed in my Google Reader. You probably have far more.
If I comment on a blog…other than yours (obviously) I may forget about the comment. Sure, things like coComment help, but I don’t know that everyone is aware of them. I think this is the biggest short fall that there’s just too damn much to keep track of.
It leads to the other problem I have of actually USING the info I find in blogs. Sure, I clip and copy things into Google Notebook, but then it tends to just sit there because today’s a new day and there’s new info.
Just my two cents…now you’ll probably never hear from me again!
Posted by Kevin Behringer on 01/24 at 12:15 PMTrue, Karen…assuming the comment is one in which a response is appropriate. That’s also true for checking back for replies to your comments, Kevin. Yours on this post, for example, articulates a thought that can be viewed as closed. The two I referenced above were definitely NOT closed. One asked a question—you’d presume he was interested in the answer. The other made an incomplete point, and I asked for some further illumination.
My point, ultimately, was that a blog is a social media tool only if it’s used that way. If not, it’s just a content management system.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 01/24 at 12:34 PMI think it comes down to the blog and the commenter. Karen makes a good point. I’ve often left a comment, and when checking back, found that the blogger never responds to anyone’s comments. Some don’t and that’s okay. That’s how they choose to run their thing. Others always respond to at least some of the commenters.
I personally only try to comment if I can offer something to the conversation. With that in mind, I like to follow the conversation to see where it leads.
Using tools like co.mments to keep track of your comments is a great way to follow the conversation. Honestly, I’d feel like a tool if I came back a few days later and saw that the blogger took the time to engage my comment and I never followed up. But, that’s just me…
Posted by Tony D. Clark on 01/24 at 12:36 PMShel, I love the term “hit-and-run” in this context. I know that sometimes I comment and forget about it—but only on blogs that don’t allow me to subscribe to comments. On your blog, readers can of course receive the following comments easily, so there’s no excuse for disappearing!
Posted by donna papacosta on 01/24 at 12:37 PMI have subscribed not only to IABC Cafe, but to the IABC Cafe Comments. So I get to see when a new posting has been made to the cafe, and again (several times, alas) when a comment is posted. That does help to pull me back to check on the conversation.
But I do agree, Shel. A conversation, especially a good one, takes active and ongoing participation by everyone, not just the host. Does this sound like work to some? Maybe the blogosphere is not the place for them. But they’re missing valuable info and networking and will miss increasingly more.
Posted by Michael Clendenin on 01/24 at 01:17 PMHi Shel:
Interesting conversation going on here.
A ongoing experience leads me to believe that hitting and running in social media is a two-way street. I was invited (both on the blog) and via email by the lead of a team blog at Microsoft. The only declared purpose of the blog is “Let’s talk about xxx. About your experience, about the value, about the content, about the good, bad and the ugly. XXX exist to provide you with the content and answers you need to do your job. Let’s talk,” where xxx is text I redacted to protect the guilty.I have posted a new comment each day for the past eight days on what I think is good, bad, and ugly about xxx. To date there have been no other comments and no responses from any member of the team.
Since the blog was only getting nine visitors a day before I showed up, it doesn’t surprise me that no other non-team member beyond me has posted. On the other hand, to not hear back on even a single comment such as pointing out that they had some broken links and providing them with the correct links is a little startling to me. Even after pointing out that Scoble moved his blog to Wordpress in 2005, the site still links to his old blog at http://scoble.weblogs.com/)
I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that the lights are on but nobody is home at that blog.
I plan to keep posting my comments there in case someone on the team is actually reading them and may respond and/or take corrective actions. I am also going to continue because it helps me formalize my thoughts on the issues. The issues also apply to other Microsoft blogs, sites, etc, that I deal with on a daily basis and I have begun “sharing” some of my thinking on those other blogs, etc.
I figure that at some point someone will make one of more of my suggested changes to improve the situation and that is good enough - for now – for me.
In the meantime, I guess we’ll all have to watch out for hit and run types in the blogosphere and try to avoid joining them.
Posted by Robert Banghart on 01/24 at 02:37 PMShel,
Actually, in my first comment, which never appeared, I did take the time to provide additional context and resources, including links to source information.
That never appeared. My second comment was to simply draw your and any new readers’ attention to the inaccuracy in your post. I thought it important since their are serious legal consequences should anyone do the wrong thing. I also explained that I’d tried to comment earlier and that the first more detailed comment never appeared.
So to call me a hit-and-run commenter is not fair. And really, the onus is not on me, but on you to correct your own work. It’s your blog, you held yourself out as an expert on the topic, so shouldn’t you make an effort to get things right?
Posted by Dominic Jones on 01/24 at 04:03 PMDominic, I hold myself out as an expert in PR, not investor relations. that’s you. I was hopeful you’d share your expertise. I invited you to elaborate on your comment. But, it took this post to get you back, and you spent your time attacking me instead of answering the question.
Did you see my response to your comment? I specifically deferred to your expertise. I apologized that your first comment didn’t appear, although I have no explanation for it. In any case, it happens to me on other blogs from time to time, and I always recreate my original comment rather than leave an incomplete message.
Fine, I’ll go do the research.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 01/24 at 04:32 PMFollowing comments on your blog is not easy. I couldn’t find a comment RSS feed. There is a box to “Notify me of follow-up comments” below the comment form, but I use a free online email account for blog comments and only check that once per day.
I had no idea you’d asked for more input. And from what I can tell, you made zero effort to contact me via email to tell me you wanted for more input.
You also made no effort to tell me you were going to single me out in this blog post. Why didn’t you do that before posting this?
I found this post in the referrals log on my blog stats. Is there something you’d like to get off you chest, Shel? Or is that what this post is all about?
Posted by Dominic Jones on 01/24 at 04:34 PMTotally agree with your post, Shel - mostly because I am guilty of it myself (fwiw, I often also at least feel guilty about it!)
I bugged my own tech guy about enabling a comments feed at my blog. It’s critical, I know.
Posted by Todd Defren on 01/24 at 04:48 PMWhat in the world would I have to get off my chest? What an odd comment! And why is it my fault that you check your emails only once per day? (By the way, I left my comment to you on the 22nd, the day before yesterday, shortly after noon.)
I have no agenda with you, Dominic; fact is, I admire the hell out of you and read your blog regularly. That’s why I was hoping I (and others) could benefit from your knowledge.
I was just citing you as one (of two) example of a comment that isn’t part of the conversation.
Now, back to research—I was looking up the SEC rule when you responded…
Posted by Shel on 01/24 at 04:49 PMClearly you have a problem with me. You called me a hit-and-run commenter. Is that a good thing?
Bottom line is you made no effort to contact me before posting this to find out what my story was.
Why didn’t you at least try? As you said, it was the day before yesterday. Chances were I, like most people, had moved on to other topics and probably wasn’t paying attention to your old post.
So, a simple courtesy would have been to send me a quick note. You had my email address.
Or was that just too much trouble?
Posted by Dominic Jones on 01/24 at 04:58 PMThink what you like, Dominic. I have no problem with you. (I don’t even know who the other guy I mentioned is, which means I couldn’t possibly have a problem with him. Why would you think you’re any different?)
As for contacting you first, why didn’t you contact me privately before you left a comment that my post was wrong? Was THAT too much trouble? Or are we just participating in a conversational forum?
I’m genuinely sorry you’re offended. And I’m still researching. I do hope, when I post, you’ll let me know if I’m mistaken in anything I’ve reported.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 01/24 at 05:02 PMThe other commenter, “somebody named ZF,” was anonymous. So we don’t know who that was.
I’m the only identifiable person mentioned in your post.
The reason I posted a commment rather than email you was because the information in your post was wrong and it was important that anyone reading it know that. That was my contribution to the conversation (second time around) and I’m sorry you think it’s worthless.
In my view, people should check with the SEC or their legal counsel and not me, you or Wikipedia when it comes to Reg. FD.
Shel, your post here was low and mean. It was meant to demean me as someone who doesn’t play nice in the blogosphere. A hit-and-run commenter.
Of course, I’m offended. And, frankly, I don’t see why I or anyone else for that matter should comment here again if this is how you treat people.
Posted by Dominic Jones on 01/24 at 05:21 PMAgain, Dominic, I’m sorry you’re offended. The post most definitely was not intended to demean you. You commented, I asked for follow-up, you did not, I used that as an example of a broader issue. I have to wonder if you would have felt as strongly about my post if I had used somebody else’s comment as an example.
Regular readers here know that I treat people with the utmost respect, as I will continue to treat you.
Posted by Shel Holtz on 01/24 at 05:28 PMI don’t know Shel personally, and professionally only through IABC, Ragan and this blog of late. And there are times that I take Shel’s enthusiasm for social media with a healthy grain of…okay, a salt lick, really, because my own very conservative company is light years away from considering using much of what Shel touts. But then I don’t think Shel would be surprised or upset by that. Part of Shel credibility is his own sense of humility and understanding that social media is not the end-all be-all.
And I don’t know Dominic at all except by the excellent and complimentary reference by Shel. I take it that Dominic is the excellent resource and expert that Shel states he is.
But I have to say, Dominic, that you are way out of line here. Look, Shel isn’t attacking you by noting that you and another participant ZF seemed to be what he was calling “hit-and-run” commenters. If you’d only posted under DJ, the comment would have been about ZF and DJ and you still would not have been under this attack you seem so sensitive to (paranoid about?). If there was a misunderstanding because an initial post had gotten lost in the blogging equivalent of the Twilight Zone, then it would have been easy and resasonable enough to say, “Hey, sorry Shel, but I tried and there’s a problem with the commenting feature of your blog. You might want to check into it.”
Shel has a problem, as many do, with “hit and run commenters”, which do exist (thanks to TD for fessing up) one of which you appeared to be, not just to Shel but to all of us. If you don’t check your e-mail more than once a day, then an appropriate response might have been “Hey sorry to be so lax in responding, and don’t mean to hit and run, but this is an e-mail address I use only for tasks like blog participation so I don’t check in for notifications of responses (in which case had Shel e-mailed you, he still wouldn’t have gotten a timely response and still might have assumed being ignored by you).
In the immortal words of our “big toe”, Sgt. Hulka, “Lighten up, Francis.”
Posted by Michael Clendenin on 01/24 at 06:25 PMHit and Run Commenting. Nice.
I can think of a myriad of reasons why people don’t reply.
Some have already been touched on.But try these additional ones for size:
You see it as you’re immediately engaged with *this* person who has stepped into *your* home to speak with *you*.
They view it as you’re but one of dozens of people in a very crowded and LARGE room who they had a quick reply to in response to something you said. They felt they made their point to you and have moved on.Or:
They may agree with what you wrote and don’t feel they have anything further to add.Or:
Maybe they feel corrected? Or shamed by your response and choose not to return to reply. What you intended in what you wrote and how they took it can be very different things.Or:
Maybe they’re simply busy and don’t have time to return. And by the time they do, the moment has passed.
I personally will only ever return once or twice to a site where I’ve commented, unless it’s more or less a regular hangout. To a certain extent, regardless of their timezone and busy-ness, if the correspondent hasn’t replied by then, I won’t check back.But please don’t be unhappy about it. You’re essentially accusing people of failing to give up their time and their needs to satisfy yours. If you genuinely engage people in conversation, they’ll respond in kind all on their own.
If you expect people to respond, expect to be disappointed.
Steve
Posted by Steve on 01/25 at 12:39 AMWow:
Pretty interesting how this small comment has gotten such a negative reaction.
Shel, I didn’t read your post as attacking at all. You simply mentioned Dominic to highlight your point. You complimented him as an expert and were hoping for his feedback.
As far as Steve’s comment of “accusing people of failing to give up their time and their needs to satisfy yours,” I struggle with this. Think it through. You are in a social situation where someone makes a comment about a topic with which you are familiar. You say to that person, “you’re wrong,” walk away and leave the party. I think if we want to read blogs, fine. If we want to engage by leaving comments, it’s our responsibility to stay engaged.
Dominic seemed to be upset that his comment wasn’t posted…why? If we have no responsibility to respond and follow our comments, Shel has no responsibility to post them.
This doesn’t take away from my original comment that the challenges in tracking them on many blogs (unlike on yours Shel!) are part of the reason…but not an excuse. Keep up the great work!
Posted by Kevin Behringer on 01/25 at 06:14 AMKevin:
Why is it our responsibility to stay engaged? I’d suggest you’re trying to drag social norms into a medium where they simply don’t apply.
If I say “you’re wrong” and walk away at a party, there is a real social cost to me for doing so.
In an online world the cost is so trivial, there is effectively no social payback to being “rude”.Whilst arguing analogies is a futile exercise, the analogy you use is not relevant to this situation.
I’ve been Internet connected since 1990. The socially accepted norms online would rapidly cause people to have bloodied noses in flesh-space. So called “Flame Wars” being a case in point.
You have a social expectation that I will stay engaged. I’d rather spend time with my wife and son. Who do you think is going to win? The barrier the generic “you” have to overcome is far far higher than simply stopping someone walking away at a party.
My personal take is that it all gets down and back to the skills of conversation. If you’re good at it, people will stay engaged. If you’re not, they won’t. Easy.
Steve
Posted by Steve on 01/25 at 12:09 PMSteve, in my opinion you have no responsibility to stay engaged UNLESS you started something that seeks closure. The fellow I referenced in the post said, “What kind of a word is unabiding?” A question suggests he wanted an answer. When I answered, there was no acknowledgement. If all he said, on the other hand, was “I think you meant ‘abiding,’” then there would have been no need for him to remain engaged.
It’s one of those famous “it depends” situations.
And by all means, spend time with your wife and kids!
Posted by Shel Holtz on 01/25 at 12:59 PMShel:
I agree with you that it’s important for you to stay engaged if you start something that seeks closure. For example, leaving a snarky comment insulting someone and leaving…hmm, don’t know where that happened.
Steve:
I would never dream of telling you to not spend time with your family. I agree that the ease of being “rude” and there is no social payback. But does that mean that it should be acceptable? Just because I CAN do something doesn’t mean I should. Sure, the medium is different, but if behavior is socially acceptable in a face to face conversation, why shouldn’t that extend to a virtual conversation?
That is the whole point of the new media, to connect with actual people. We’ll never see the full potential of these tools if we choose to say that there’s no social ramifications for my actions so anything goes.
That said…I don’t think there should be an expectation of immediacy like you have in a social situation. The people who criticize that someone didn’t respond FAST enough also need to get a tighter grip on their horses. People do have lives, families that should and do come first. So, while I agree that if you start something you have an obligation to see it through, I don’t think it needs to be done immediately.
Posted by Kevin Behringer on 01/25 at 01:17 PMHeh. Now we’re cooking.
But I suspect I’m still not explaining my view here very well.How’s this?
This is a new medium. It is dead easy to have a form of behaviour that we would regard as completely unacceptable elsewhere. Does that excuse it? No.Don’t misunderstand me - I agree that leaving a conversation hanging is rude and I really don’t like it when people do it to me. Which is why I’m still commenting here.
Sadly this drive by commenting does happen often enough that it has become a new social norm. Irregardless of our feelings on the matter.
So how do we change this? I don’t believe it is possible. It’s too entrenched, and like I said earlier there are no social forces that “encourage” people to behave differently.
Which leads me back to the point: we cannot expect folk to stay engaged. We have to use our skills of persuasion (like we three have here amongst ourselves) to tempt folk to stay engaged.
As for the events leading to the charged discussion above? I would read the question presented by the other party as somewhat snarky (lack of sufficient coffee perhaps?
), but rhetorical. I read your original missive with the new word and understood it as the intended word. Didn’t even register as being a “made up word”.
IMHO, blog postings and comments therein have a significantly reduced standard of correctness then I would expect from, say, a Press Release.
Thoughts?
StevePosted by Steve on 01/25 at 03:06 PM
Next entry: Life for the traditional press release
Previous entry: My BlogTalk Radio appearance: 6 p.m. PST