Part 3: Not all conversations are created alike
Last time, I gave some tips for effective commenting. This time, I want to focus on being aware of the purpose of the conversation you’re in. Conversations have purposes, remember (that’s why it’s one of the keywords in this blog’s subtitle), and the purpose of the conversation makes a big difference in how you should comment.
Here are a few of the major categories of conversation, to start with.
The intellectual discussion is best thought of as a mutual search for Truth, at least at its best. Everyone is working together to explore a subject, and come to, if not consensus, at least a decent map of the landscape. (I think of this blog as mainly falling into this category.)
These sorts of discussions are all about calm disagreement and back-and-forth. It’s okay to debate a bit, but it’s very easy to run things off the tracks. It’s the beloved conversational form for many geeks, who fancy themselves as being all about matters intellectual. But it’s very easy to lose sight of the teamwork involved — to decide that you have The One True Answer, and not seriously consider that others may be more correct, or may have information that you don’t. In particular, as soon as Being Right becomes your goal in the conversation, you’ve stopped helping, and have become the problem instead.
Requests for group opinions are often The More, the Merrier. These are posts where the original poster is trying to collect lots of information about what people think, on topics as diverse as trying to decide their next hair color, or to figure out where the party should go out to dinner on Thursday. The difference between these and the search-for-truth category above is that there is usually no “correct” answer here: it’s really *just* about the weight of opinion.
Redundancy can be good in these cases. Many people dislike writing “me, too” comments, and there’s good reason for this — in most cases, they just add bulk without really helping. But these kinds of requests are all about the redundancy: they want to know what everybody thinks, not just the first few to respond. (Although it is sometimes appropriate to respond privately via email, rather than publicly.)
Don’t be afraid to be politely contrarian in these conversations. They’re prone to a bit of groupthink: if the first few people agree with each other, it often makes everyone else a little abashed about disagreeing. Puncturing the false consensus early on can avoid mistakes that everyone will regret later.
Personal diary entries are often looking for a bit of sympathy and comfort, especially when someone’s been having a hard time of it. (Or congratulations if they’re going well.) Again, redundancy can be good here, and don’t feel you need to say anything terribly deep.
Note the nature of the conversation here. In these cases of great joy and sadness, the conversation is often mainly emotional in nature. Sometimes it’s appropriate to offer constructive insights, but often it isn’t. One of the common online mistakes is to offer helpful advice to someone who really is not in the mood for it. Listen carefully to what the original speaker is saying, and what they need right now. Sometimes just two words that let them know that they are heard and cared for is best.
A related matter: in a recent discussion, Monica raised the question of whether it is the original poster’s responsibility to say “Thank you” to the people who offer this emotional support. I would say that the jury is still out on this — we don’t really have consensus on this, and the true Emily Post of the Web hasn’t come along yet. But I’ve been gradually leaning towards doing so — if it’s the right thing to do for a physical sympathy card, it’s probably the right thing to do online.
That’s a start, anyway. What other kinds of conversations are there, and how do their comment threads work?
Next time: I’ll finish off this series with a few thoughts on the future of commenting, and what I see as the likely death of online anonymity.
Comments: The Lifeblood of Community (part 4)
August 12, 2008or, The Future of Commenting and the Death of Anonymity
[My apologies for going silent for a couple of weeks — since so many of my current readers are in the SCA (the mysteriously tech-heavy medieval club that I’m in), I decided to take a break while Pennsic (the SCA’s biggest annual event) floated on by. Now that everyone’s back, it’s time to finish off this series on Commenting, with a guess about where things are going.]
Several weeks ago, I was struck by the article “Post Apocalypse” in Time Magazine. The article is about the way that comment threads on blogs tend to degenerate, and the disconnect between social standards online and off. It’s largely correct in its observations, but stops before making any predictions about how this will all shake out. Okay, I’ll put my head in the noose and venture a guess.
My prediction: purely anonymous commenting will largely go away over the next ten years, because it doesn’t scale up to Internet levels.
The problem is community standards. You put comment capabilities online largely because you want to build communities. (In general, commercial sites want communities because they build stickiness, loyalty, and all that good stuff talked about earlier.) But communities require community standards, and anonymity is poisonous to those.
Anonymity breeds trolls, and it takes only a modest number of trolls to poison a community. I’ll talk about this at more length later, but suffice it to say, you can’t allow trolls to run amok if you want a healthy online community. Yes, everyone likes to believe that their little community is all nice and happy and good, and no one would dream of hurting it. But time and again, I’ve watched those communities self-destruct because they didn’t have the wherewithal to enforce at least basic standards of politeness.
Note that community standards do not necessarily mean Emily Post grade politeness. In some communities, a refined and clever snarkiness is the standard. The classic example of this was the newsgroup talk.bizarre, the better part of 20 years ago now. In its glory days, t.b was a place where novices feared to tread for fear of getting roasted into embers by the brilliant flames that would result from saying something dumb — but it was damned fun it you knew what you were getting into.
And yet, even t.b eventually self-destructed due to witless trolls. In this particular case, it wasn’t that they were exceptionally nasty (nasty was part of the t.b social contract), but simply because they didn’t understand that cleverness was crucial to making it the place it was. The community had no mechanism to enforce its rather refined standards, so it gradually degenerated into fairly uninteresting rants.
So I predict that anonymity is a dying idea online. Pseudonymity — the ability to define a consistent online persona that is difficult or impossible to relate to your real-world one — will stick around, and probably become far more important. (And more on that topic later, because it’s a major subject unto itself.) But being able to post anything, any time, with no traceability or consequences is simply too harmful to the social fabric. Some major systems (such as Facebook) are already pushing hard against the idea, and I expect this trend to continue and grow.
Opinions? What are some cases where online anonymity is actually useful? Are there any where well-implemented pseudonymity isn’t as good or better? I have a strong personal stake in this matter: CommYou doesn’t really support anonymity, and for the moment I’m disinclined for it to ever do so, so I’d be very interested to hear arguments in favor of it…
Tags:commenting
Posted in Social Interaction | 10 Comments »