"Those who can't do, teach" comes to mind. It is unfortunate that those who reach notoriety should feel threatened by the very conversation that they invite. Blog commenting has always been a touchy subject, but I think that unless the comments are inappropriate (profane, threatening....) they are part of the conversation. We might as well just go back to the old way of posting static HTML pages to our websites if we all have to go back to our own blogs and link back if we want to be a part of the conversation. It's great that we have the ability to post to the topic thread from our own blogs, but I don't want to have to keep trying to find the threads all over the internet. It defeats the purpose of blogs. The conversations that come from productive disagreement is a learning opportunity. Too bad people tend to forget that.
Jennifer Van Grove
· 1 year ago
Jake, I read the back forth between you and BL in the comments on the blog post you mention. Although I think the question of hypocrisy is valid and applies to all industries, I'm not in total agreement that BL dismissed you or that her responses make her subject to the question of this post. I'm sure the intention was a healthy discussion, but the tone of your comments came across rather negative and accusatory. I think the very fact that she didn't moderate your initial comments goes to show that she does practice what she preaches.
Jake McKee
· 1 year ago
Jennifer, thanks for the feedback, and I wondered if my tone somehow read as "negative" and thus got her defense raised. Perhaps that's the case. (Damn text communication!)
So as a follow-up to your comment, to ensure I understand your position: Are you saying that her comments *weren't* dismissive and/or meant to end my input, or that my tone made that "dismissiveness" acceptable?
One point of clarification - BL accepted all but my last comment, and moderated within a very short time. Kudos on that.
Jennifer Van Grove
· 1 year ago
Dismissive seems to be the wrong word. I think she defended her arguments and allowed you to voice your disagreement.
Gibson Stevens
· 1 year ago
Jake -
Interesting note. As brands, political campaigns, etc., wake up to this whole phenomena, they are realizing a paradigm shift in the manner in which communication is done. Social media is all about a many-to-many conversation, rather than the one-to-many method that has long been the stalwart of the traditional marketer. And in order to have a successful conversation, one must be ready to at least listen to all sides. At the least, dissent must be heard - killing dissent kills a conversation...
Maybe it would be good discipline for everyone - especially expert bloggers blogging about blogging - to actually post their comment moderation policies and make that transparent.
Jake McKee
· 1 year ago
Virginia: I think that's a good idea and I'll do that.
To be clear, and to her credit, BL was clear that her policy was short and sweet: "If I wouldn't allow it in my living room I won't allow it on my blog."
Thing is, who's to know what is allowed in her living room besides her? In a million years, I never would have expected to see the blocked comment blocked; it wasn't mean or profane. Clearly we have two different types of discourse in our living rooms!
Mack Collier
· 1 year ago
Ok I went back and read the thread you linked to, and the post on her blog about the Blog Council.
From reading BL's posts on her blog, and writing alongside her at Daily Fix, I have noticed that BL's posts are often a bit 'forceful' in tone. Her style is often 'my way or the highway'.
Again, that's her style. I've also noticed that many that agree with her stance in that post will comment that she is 'refreshing' and that they enjoy her 'telling it like it is'.
But if you disagree with the stance she is taking, she can come off as fairly abrasive. I think this is what happened with the posts you replied to. You challenged her and she came across as 'I'm right, you're wrong, goodnight'.
This is BL's style. I also think that since she took such a forceful stance, it prompted you to be a bit more forceful in your disagreement, at least that's what it looked like to me.
Personally I think if you are going to have a 'my way or the highway' tone, you are going to have to accept that you are going to get some 'oh hell no!' responses.
Dave Taylor
· 1 year ago
Um, I'm not sure what my cardinal sin was here, but is it simply that I didn't come to your blog and leave a comment responding to your thoughts, Jake? And for that you are painting me as some sort of evil "celebrity" and the purveyor of hypocrisy? Gadzooks, I can't imagine something farther from the truth...
Dave Taylor
· 1 year ago
... and, of course, there's great irony in the fact that on my blog your comment showed up immediately, but on your blog, my comment is greeted with the message "Your comment is awaiting moderation."
Jake McKee
· 1 year ago
Dave, thanks for the comments. I fear my post may have combined my two beefs in a way that was a bit confusing.
My point about commenting on your blog was something I've noticed with a lot of big time, old school bloggers - they don't often engage in the comments of their blog. The thread I'd pointed to on your site was disappointing because I'd hoped you'd have participated in the discussion in the comments. Even when I specifically asked you for you to weigh in you didn't. I wanted to hear from you beyond just the initial post, but unfortunately it seemed to be another example of "Fire and Forget".
This has nothing to do with you visiting my blog, it has to do with you (and others) participating on your own blog.
Not any evil celebrity issues, but "Evil Dave Taylor" is a pretty cool moniker... you might want to think about that one! :)
Jake McKee
· 1 year ago
Regarding the posting time - it's a one time moderation queue hold. As much as I hate the lack of immediacy (and having to manage a moderation queue), spammers hit my site hard a while back and I was faced with 500+ spam comments a day. Had to implement some changes to get around that.
Fortunately, you're verified now, so you can post instantly from here on out.
captain flummox
· 1 year ago
Admittedly, I haven't dug into the specifics of this one, but I have to say Jeremy's term is a keeper! Secondly, just based on human nature, I would tend to agree with your protectionist premise from a psychological point of view. There's such a drive to become a "thought leader" that maybe some don't recognize if they're becoming thought dictators.
Valeria Maltoni
· 1 year ago
I've been thinking about the whole issue of expertise as respects companies as that is where I spend my professional time. Bottom line, the companies that have the least to lose (start ups, new entrants) from my observation tend to be more aggressive and casual in their approach to marketing and PR. The companies that are established and have a lot more to lose, including carefully groomed image, practice a higher degree of risk management.
All Comments
So as a follow-up to your comment, to ensure I understand your position: Are you saying that her comments *weren't* dismissive and/or meant to end my input, or that my tone made that "dismissiveness" acceptable?
One point of clarification - BL accepted all but my last comment, and moderated within a very short time. Kudos on that.
Interesting note. As brands, political campaigns, etc., wake up to this whole phenomena, they are realizing a paradigm shift in the manner in which communication is done. Social media is all about a many-to-many conversation, rather than the one-to-many method that has long been the stalwart of the traditional marketer. And in order to have a successful conversation, one must be ready to at least listen to all sides. At the least, dissent must be heard - killing dissent kills a conversation...
More of my musings...
To be clear, and to her credit, BL was clear that her policy was short and sweet: "If I wouldn't allow it in my living room I won't allow it on my blog."
Thing is, who's to know what is allowed in her living room besides her? In a million years, I never would have expected to see the blocked comment blocked; it wasn't mean or profane. Clearly we have two different types of discourse in our living rooms!
From reading BL's posts on her blog, and writing alongside her at Daily Fix, I have noticed that BL's posts are often a bit 'forceful' in tone. Her style is often 'my way or the highway'.
Again, that's her style. I've also noticed that many that agree with her stance in that post will comment that she is 'refreshing' and that they enjoy her 'telling it like it is'.
But if you disagree with the stance she is taking, she can come off as fairly abrasive. I think this is what happened with the posts you replied to. You challenged her and she came across as 'I'm right, you're wrong, goodnight'.
This is BL's style. I also think that since she took such a forceful stance, it prompted you to be a bit more forceful in your disagreement, at least that's what it looked like to me.
Personally I think if you are going to have a 'my way or the highway' tone, you are going to have to accept that you are going to get some 'oh hell no!' responses.
My point about commenting on your blog was something I've noticed with a lot of big time, old school bloggers - they don't often engage in the comments of their blog. The thread I'd pointed to on your site was disappointing because I'd hoped you'd have participated in the discussion in the comments. Even when I specifically asked you for you to weigh in you didn't. I wanted to hear from you beyond just the initial post, but unfortunately it seemed to be another example of "Fire and Forget".
This has nothing to do with you visiting my blog, it has to do with you (and others) participating on your own blog.
Not any evil celebrity issues, but "Evil Dave Taylor" is a pretty cool moniker... you might want to think about that one! :)
Fortunately, you're verified now, so you can post instantly from here on out.
Is it just companies? I think it's human nature.