Re: Try writing posts, not comments; or, In defence of comments
I've added a link to Scott's post - I forgot to add it, and that was unintentional. Anyways, here it is: https://scojjac.com/posts-not-comments/
I've been noticed online, which is surprising. Scott Jack is the person in question to notice me, indeed he wrote a reply to my blogpost on what I learnt about Bearblog. He raises some good points about one specific section of the post - that being, the part where I mention that I wish there were comment sections.
Maybe I'm too used to seeing comment sections, what with me growing up in a generation that uses Instagram and TikTok like they're vitamin supplements, and comments come naturally with them. The same goes with blogs, before Bearblog almost every post I saw came with one embedded. That's not to say blogs with comment sections are better, more that they're what I'm used to.
Either way, Scott mentions that "all over the web, you'll see that comment sections are rife with problems", which is true. Bots and spam are a problem, especially when you look at social media, and it's probably the case with blogs too. How much of a problem they would be on websites that don't get too many views like mine, I'm not sure - I'd think they'd target the big companies. Scott also notes that moderation is an issue with comments, which I agree with too - except that whenever I've had comment sections on -b (not the guestbook, rather those links to komments), I have to approve each comment individually. So that sorts out the spam bit as I can merely decline them.
These systems aren't perfect, and botted comments can slip through. However I don't think they're that big of an issue, at least for me. If my blog were to become larger, I'm sure that would be different.
I'm not entirely convinced by Scott's second argument, however - that of writing blogposts in response. Some comments can simply be "I loved this post", and thus don't need an entire post. And I don't think this is the best way to make people aware that you have an opinion on the post.
The blogpost Scott was referring to has 63 upvotes. That's six times more than my second most popular post. There's a greater chance that people will see my post, and thus be able to reply to it, so thus comments are perhaps redundant in comparison to Re: posts. It also happens to be about a rather broad topic that appeals to many.
Yet what about my blogpost on the three Saxons? That one's never been upvoted, so other people are far less likely to see it, and thus the odds of seeing a Re: to it are far lower. It's also incredibly niche, so what could one even write in a Re: post?
And that's not forgetting that commenting can be a two-way street. I wrote a separate post on comments a few days later, where I wanted other people to comment on my blog. The main reason for this is that I can see what other people think about the post, so if they have advice or feedback, I can more easily take it on board. Scott's approach turns the comment from effectively a one-on-one conversation into a completely new blogpost; the focus is on the person's opinion, not on the blogpost, which is what a comment should be about. Imagine if I read people's posts on, say, their favourite IDM bands or their favourite French villages. I may not have an opinion on them, but I liked the post and want to tell them. I can always refer them in a post, I suppose, but will they see it? Maybe I don't want my stance on the post to go even more public than it would already be.
Scott does say you can make sure they see the post by "sending the link via email", though that does seem like a bit more effort - and what if it ends up in spam and the blogger never notices it?
And I guess at the end of the day, comments don't have to end up being posts seen by more people than otherwise. I won't comment on a blog expecting a response or a series of upvotes and a chance to end up on a trending page. When your blog is relatively isolated from the outside world, a comment is a nice way to know that someone is reading the post and enjoying it, without having to search blog websites to find it. Ironically, I only realised this post existed when my friend shared it with me. Until then, the Re: post was a comment, though not particularly effective (for me at least).
The whole point of comments is that they're simple - I'm not trying to write essays or novels. I also think comments and Re: posts are different mediums:
- Comments are most effective if you have something small to add. Perhaps a line was inaccurate or there was a spelling mistake, or you merely want to say the post was great. Unless you're anonymous, it's also an effective way to possibly find other people's blogs (if they add a URL and that).
- Re: posts are most effective if you have something big to add, perhaps something that's very personal to you. Say you read a blog post about something and want to discuss your angle. Then a Re: post is better because the main focus is on your experiences, rather than the blogpost.
Obviously, people have their own preferences, and that's understandable. My preference is to be an inkblot on a page, not expecting much other than potentially causing the blogger to smile.
Or maybe I misinterpreted the points, in which case sorry.