Together with Aldo de Moor we are working on analysis of weblog conversations. These are my “thoughts in progress”.
In my paper on weblogs and knowledge work I distinguish between two types of weblog conversations: those in comments to a post and the ones “distributed” between weblogs. I guess in most of the cases both types are integrated into a whole, but this distinction is useful to look at mechanics of weblog conversations.
Starting point: technology. At a lowest level there are two ways to react to an earlier argument: using post comments (if initial argument is a weblog post) or commenting in another weblog.
1. Argument (weblog post) -> response using comments
- connection is symmetrical in most of the cases: it’s relatively easy to find responses to an argument and vice versa
- visibility
- visible while reading in browser
- not necessary visible while reading using RSS reader
- this part of weblog conversations is not much different from a forum discussion or comments that follow an article
2. Argument -> response in a weblog (response post)
- connection is asymmetrical
- backwards connection usually exists – response post links to initial argument in most cases (but this is up to the good will and permalink location skills of a response author)
- direct connection exists sometimes: argument is linked to reaction post via trackbacks
- this works only if argument is a weblog post and both weblogs are trackback enabled
- doesn’t work is argument is a general web-page or comment in another weblog
- visibility
- backwards connection is visible
- if exists direct connection
- visible while reading in browser (but reader has to know meaning of a trackback)
- not necessary visible while reading using RSS reader
To simplify things talking about visibility I refer only to things that you can see in a weblog itself and not using other tools (e.g. Technorati, Blogdex, referrer logs, search on a post title/keywords).
Characteristics of weblog conversations. As a result of technology used for weblog conversations, they are likely to be:
- fragmented and distributed between several weblogs
- difficult to trace
- need to use multiple tools to do so
- never sure that everything was found
- easier to trace backwards (starting from the last post), but then there is a risk of missing branches
Effects
Participants of a conversation are likely to have very different views on it (as it’s not likely that everyone will trace all previous contributions).
As weblog conversations are not “locked” in one space they are likely to include contributions from different groups of people (as the opposite from a forum conversation, which is usually “within a group”).
Because weblog conversations are difficult to trace, the participants tend to write self-standing pieces and often try to summarise (or at least link) previous arguments making it easier for a reader.
Weblog conversations are often compared with academic discussions in papers (of course, they are slower and tend to stay within borders of a discipline). I’m thinking of a better metaphor…
I think of water flows in a river delta: different streams join and separate again, mix, go faster or slower… Some of them are mainstream, large enough to follow by boat, while others are tiny and hidden, so only natives can find and follow them.
Weblog conversations are like that: a complex system of streams that feed the sea of ideas.
This post also appears on channel weblog research
Later: the paper I was writing about – An argumentation analysis of weblog conversations
Tags: blog conversations, blog researchArchived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/03/04.html#a1110; comments are here.
Related posts