How do you want research results to be shared?

I’m struggling with something and need your thoughts. Aldo and me has written a paper on weblog conversational practices (this is a follow-up for the earlier paper; includes in-depth analysis of actionable sense conversation). It’s under review, but (of course!) I want to share it.

I think that the most interesting part of the paper is the analysis of actionable sense conversation: it provides an image of the conversation and illustrates some patterns that would feed well into several discussions around (at least into: complexity of weblog conversations, comments or not, tracking weblog conversations).

There are several options of posting the paper (or parts of it) online:

• full paper in .pdf (.doc; .html)

• pro

• readers can get an overview of the whole thing

• it’s not a final version yet, so it’s likely to be changed
• there are only a few people who would read the whole thing
• linking to/commenting on the whole paper is difficult

• pro

• one place overview of things interesting for the blogosphere
• easier to link

• still too large: less readers
• commenting is difficult

• pro

• small pieces: easy to link, to comment and to integrate in other discussions

• overview is lost

At this moment I’m trying to choose between last two options (I’ll post full paper later anyway), so if you have any preferences, please, let me know.

Archived version of this entry is available at http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2004/07/12.html#a1277; comments are here.

• The power of loose ends (3) or the weakness of weblogs when it comes to joint actions
• Weblog networking: two way awareness and different degrees of strength
• Transitivity of blogging

Tagged as: actionable sense, blog conversations, blogs in research