How to treat comments

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on January 28, 2008 at 8:52am

I've been blogging since May, so I'm a newbie. But here's my two cents worth: I respond with a comment if a poster states something erroneous or asks a question. For example, one poster complained about a story my intern did about how to carry your baby because the poster felt it didn't include enough about baby slings. I responded to this, not to defend the story, but to provide a link to a previous wire story we had run about baby slings.

If a poster just rails against me or complains about a typo in my blog (oops), I ignore it and vent to my husband the old-fashioned way -- through speech. I don't want to deter people from posting comments even if their opinion is heated.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Vera Alves on January 28, 2008 at 9:04am

I used to respond all the time, even if just to say 'thank you for commenting' but for some reason I don't do that anymore. I still respond - most of the time not with a comment on that post but with an email to the person - but it's only when they ask a question or if their comment made me think of something else I want to add. I don't think that not saying anything always means that you're ignoring the person. Sometimes there really is nothing else to say. :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Burk on January 30, 2008 at 3:08pm

I usually comment back if I feel I have something to add to the discussion or to clarify an earlier statement. For the most part, I try not to comment back on negative comments directed at me or a fellow blogger unless a question is asked.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on January 31, 2008 at 5:50am

Prompted by this discussion, I'm experimently with commenting more than I did before. Before, I really didn't comment unless someone asked a direct question. I've been joining the conversation. We'll see how it goes. It's fun. It feels a little "unjournalistic." And, as others said, I don't want to get being defensive if attacked on the blog.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by maria p. gonzalez on January 31, 2008 at 8:55am

I have a blog through my news site, but I have yet to receive comments, even though I typically end my blog with a question to debate. *sigh*. But should someone comment and ask me a question, or write something that isn't exactly true or needs clarification, I would feel comfortable going on there and clarifying, or providing more information. Beyond that, I think I would stay out of it. Giving thanks, or telling someone how they make me feel about their comments would feel inappropriate, at least to me. Hope I get to apply these guidelines soon!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on January 31, 2008 at 8:58am

It takes a while to get comments, I think. I started my blog in May, and at first I never got comments. Then I had some more controversial issues that drew traffic to my site, and now I routinely get comments, but not as many as I'd like.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Yoni Greenbaum on January 31, 2008 at 9:06am

One suggestion to start generating comments is to find blogs that cover similar issues or similar geographic areas and comment on their posts. You'll find that many bloggers will reciprocate the treatment. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with emailing people you think would be interested and/or have a voice and let them know that you have a post up that they would be interested in and that you would appreciate their thoughts and/or comments. I've found that comments will often beget more comments.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda Hughes-Kirchubel on February 6, 2008 at 7:21am

I think if people take the time to post something, they're interested in some feedback themselves. And no one likes to be bagged on. If the post is nasty, I'd probably ignore it. If it's a comment or question, I'd definitely respond.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on February 6, 2008 at 8:08am

I guess I wonder whether to respond to something that's not a question -- but is kind of bashing me or my story.

I'll give you an example. I recently wrote a story about a rash of closures of child-care centers in Syracuse that predominantly serve lower-income families. The closures are happening because the way lower-income families get child-care subsidies to pay for child care doesn't work as well as it should. The story outlined all of this, and I invited comments on my blog.

I expected to get some naysayers, and I did. Two people commented, bashing me for using a woman in my lead who is a single mother of five children. Their point was that she has created her own problems by having so many children. My point is that when you're writing about an at-risk population, they are, at-risk, meaning they don't always make the right choices but that doesn't mean their kids shouldn't get quality early education.

I really grappled with responding to their comments because I wanted to explain why I used that particular mom: She wasn't on Welfare or drugs; she seemed to really love her kids and be an involved mom; she had used the day care center that closed for a long time, so she really had strong feelings about it.

My husband and some colleagues urged me not to respond, saying I'd never convince someone who is small-minded.

In the end, I didn't respond to their comments. I felt kind of attacked by the comments, which I realize is something I need to get over. I can't invite comments, and then get offended when I get them. But commenting on a blog is so easy that it seems to encourage the naysayers, more than any methods. For example, I also got several positive responses to the story by e-mail or phone calls who didn't bother to comment on the blog. (wish they had!)

So what do you think? Would you have responded or not?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by maria p. gonzalez on February 6, 2008 at 8:29am

I think if you have thought out the exact reasons why you chose that woman, you should feel comfortable responding back - without being defensive. The readers comments are practically an invitation for some clarification. They want to know why you chose her in particular. The thought must have crossed your mind as you profiled her that people would say, "why does she keep having kids?"
I think your readers raise a valid point, and are not necessarily small-minded. I also don't think they're attacking you. But it's totally your call whether you should respond. It's a complicated issue - I know b/c I have a kid in day care.
Maybe it can even just be an update. What did she end up doing? Is she staying at home, or did she finally find another center? And does she receive subsidies? It would seem she'd qualify.
Good topic!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on February 6, 2008 at 8:58am

Hmm. I get what you mean, and in retrospect I wish I had responded.

I guess I disagree that they weren't attacking my story. I think they were. One commenter said I did a disservice to the important issue of low-income child-care by using the woman I used. The second commenter agreed with that. That really bothered me because my aim with the story was to help illuminate the problems with child care that serve the poor, not do a disservice to that goal. Of course, the whole purpose of comments is to express an opinion, so they have a right to believe whatever they believe.

It did cross my mind when I decided to use the woman I used that some people would object to it. But to me whether the mom is single or married or has one kid or 5 is a bit beside the point. She makes less than $25,000 a year. She'd be poor even if she had no kids. To me it's a crime a person can have a full-time job and still earn so little he or she can barely survive.

But the story wasn't about the moms' choices. The story was highlighting what's wrong with a child-care subsidy system that makes it difficult for child-care centers that serve the poor to stay open. To me, it's in society's best interest that all children get the best start they can -- regardless of whether their moms made poor choices. If we as a society only serve the poor who fit our middle class, privileged definition of parenthood, we'll be short-changing most of the neediest families -- including innocent children who have no choice over what family they were born into.

Sorry, I'm a bit on a soapbox. But it's an issue I feel very strongly about. (Obviously.)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by maria p. gonzalez on February 6, 2008 at 9:09am

Okay, maybe it's better you didn't respond :0)
You can also see it another way. Here, a lot of great social service programs, like free lunches for area kids during the summer, depend on a certain percentage of low-income or poverty children in our city. But you don't have to be low-income to drop by and get a free lunch. You just have to be between 1 and 18 years old. It's a great program, and it wouldn't exist without that threshold of at least 50 percent of the kids in the area qualifying as low income.
Maybe it's the same with day care. The subsidies allow many centers to remain open. And that means more opportunities for all families, not just low income ones.
I guess I was just trying to make the point that your readers raised a valid question. Five does seem like a lot of kids ... doesn't it just make more sense at some point to stay home? Or is she a single mom? I guess it's a little stickier to reply than simply writing a sentence or two to clarify.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2