How to treat comments

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on February 6, 2008 at 11:21am

Perhaps I should back up and explain the story better because it's clear that what the story is about didn't come through. The story wasn't opposed to subsidies. In fact, the story was illustrating that the way the subsidies are doled out makes it difficult for child-care centers that primarily serve lower-income families to stay open.

What happens is poor families are eligible for subsidies based on their income. Most have to still pay a co-pay out of their own pocket that can be as high as $70 per week. Often, the families -- who are at or near 200 percent of the federal poverty level -- can't make their co-pay. So they get behind on paying the child-care center, and the centers close because not enough money is coming in.

You are right that it would help if some families in the program weren't low-income. That would be a salvation to have more what they call "self-pay" families -- they pay their entire tuition with no subsidy. But most families who have a choice don't choose to send their children to child-care centers in really low-income neighborhoods, so the centers I was writing about have 90 percent to 95 percent of their families lower-income. We're talking neighborhoods that are really poor here.

As for the mom, you're right there, too. It would make emotional and probably economic sense for her to stay home with her kids. But as a single mom who makes well less than the federal poverty level she doesn't have that choice. She can't just go on Welfare indefinitely because of Welfare reform. She must get a job, and to have a job she must have child care. The point I was trying to make with the story is that if her children have quality child care it will help them prepare for kindergarten, which will increase the chance they'll do well in school and eventually graduate and get a job and get out of the cycle of poverty.

With all that said, I think our exchange illustrates why it's not always a good idea to respond to a comment. We are obviously coming at this issue from two very different viewpoints, and nothing I say will probably change your mind or nothing you say will change mine.

So I guess I ask again -- Is there still value in responding to a comment in that case?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wendy Withers on February 8, 2008 at 6:34am

It's always good to respond to comments, though responding is probably not something I do enough. When I comment on the blogs of others, I usually go back a few times to see if anyone commented back. Usually, no one has. For bloggers that do comment back, their blog automatically becomes a must read, because suddenly we're having a conversation. Just writing a blog post isn't a conversation, it's an article masquerading as something more fluid and innovative.

If you feel attacked from the comments you've received, you need to build a thicker skin. Ignore the posts that are really bad (I had a friend who was commented by an anti-Semite who attacked her for being Jewish on a blog she wrote about art) and clarify whenever possible. Clarification may help readers understand your point of view, even if it seems pointless. For example, I wrote a blog post a while back explaining a writing and networking experiment I was conducting. One reader asked why I was writing about it and what I would do with the data and ideas generated through the research. When I responded with a clarification, the reader responded that I was a retard (in her words) and that she didn't actually care about what I had to say. (Yet, she read the original post, cared enough to comment, then cared enough to comment a second time.) Since I no longer had anything constructive to say, I dropped it, but I knew what I expected to gain and what I would do with my research information was now public knowledge, in case anyone did care.

The thing is, with a blog, it's not your job to be the all-seeing, all-knowing reporter who always gets things right or educates the ignorant masses to your way of thinking. It's your job to start a conversation, and if the conversation turns in a way you don't like, then good. It's obviously serving a need for the readers, and the readers are the only people in this equation who really count. When we put articles with comment forms on our sites, it's doing the same thing. It's opening up the conversation to the readers, so if they don't get what we have to say, that's fine. But, if they're confused about what we have to say or have good points on the topic, we should recognize them.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on February 8, 2008 at 6:51am

I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I probably do need a thicker skin, and I think you raise a great point that we have to kind of give up our reporter role in a sense in a blog. Starting a conversation really does make sense, and I do see how that's different from what a reporter normally does.

As you put it: "For bloggers that do comment back, their blog automatically becomes a must read, because suddenly we're having a conversation. Just writing a blog post isn't a conversation, it's an article masquerading as something more fluid and innovative."

That really does make a lot of sense, and I would like to become more comfortable with this role. But I guess I'm still not convinced that it provides much value to respond to comments from people who obviously see the situation so differently from you that they aren't confused, they just believe differently. I worry it would start the kind of exchange I ended up having with Maria, which I'm not sure there's value in. But maybe there is value in it if our goal is just to get people talking.

Certainly am interested in what others think.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Wendy Withers on February 8, 2008 at 7:22am

There was a lot of worthwhile information in what both of you had to say. In a way, it's like being a cordial host at a party. You want to get people talking, but at the same time, you don't want a catfight starting next to the punch bowl. The great thing about blogging is you can experiment and find out what works for you. There are plenty of people who would love to have a lively debate start on their blog. It just requires a different mindset than writing a static article.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gina Chen on February 8, 2008 at 7:25am

Good food for thought. I like your party example. That really nails it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phil Gomes on February 8, 2008 at 8:51am

Some thoughts:

- I always make sure that there's some rules-of-comportment delivered persistently on every page. If someone's comment gets axed, they know why.

- There are some people you'll never make happy. This is just something you learn to identify earlier over time. As a colleague once told me "Never try to wrestle a pig. The pig likes it and all you get is dirty."

- Joel Stein had an interesting perspective.

- I encourage disagreements. It's when it's likely to descend into quarreling that I tend to walk away.

- I tend to find that, most of the time, the exchange is rewarding, even when (often especially when) there's a disagreement. Then again, I'm rarely talking about terribly controversial topics.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2