다음을 통해 공유

As the sun rises on Web2.0, what to do about companies that 'don't play along?'

  • 아티클

Content comes from many places, including news sites, media companies, and individual contributors.  In fact, as the Web 2.0 era becomes 'mainstream,' it is becoming common to see sites like MSNBC.com where a news story has room for responses, or CNN.Com where responses are visible on some articles (but not others).  Even the Ladies Home Journal (LHJ.com) makes discussion boards available.

But what about the media companies, from New York Times to Reader's Digest to my local newspapers (the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) where community and collaborative features are simply not present?

  • Do we make a stink by complaining to the company directly? 
  • Do we "vote with our clicks" by using more Web2.0-oriented sites like MSNBC? 
    • Do we abandon the magazines and newspapers that go along with them?
  • Do we offer up add-on technologies and encourage them to adopt?
  • Or do we ignore it, and continue to use the content sites that do not have Web 2.0 features? 

Maybe I'm spoiled, but I like being able to read a story and comment on it, or read the comments of other readers. 

I read an article in a magazine on an airplane yesterday and wanted to go online to comment on it, and found that I could not.  I found the article heavily biased.  My response: never to read that magazine again. 

What is your opinion?  How important are community features to the business of content publishing (newspapers, magazines, television, radio, etc)?

Comments

  • Anonymous
    July 09, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 09, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    July 09, 2008
    Let me guess, your going to stop using Google and other search engines just because they they don't allow you to comment? I would prefer to see quality information first most. Most of the time I could care less about other users comments. All it takes is one punk to derail the site with an obnoxious post or spam.

  • Anonymous
    July 09, 2008
    You always have the option of commenting - on your blog.  If you don't think the comment is appropriate for blogs.msdn..., you could start a separate, personal blog for that kind of writing. This does move your comments "out of band" from the original article or publication.  Technologies exist, though, for authors or other interested parties to search for references to specific (web) articles.  Your blog also provides the benefit of a 'tuned-in' audience which has opted-in to what you say.

  • Anonymous
    July 09, 2008
    Hi Bill, Search engines are not content sites.  Perhaps you missed the fact that I was only talking about sites that publish news and information. I don't mind if my note is reviewed and only published if the content is appropriate, or even edited for length.   Hi Kevin, On the editorial page of every major newspaper, there are a couple of columns, or the entire page, dedicated to 'letters to the editor.'  I've written a few over the years myself.  The reason that people  write 'letters to the editor' of a newspaper is so that an opinion, other than that of the editor, would be visible in the same medium as the original article. I'm asking for the same.  I'm asking for the web 2.0 equivalent of 'letters to the editor.' It's just a rant, but hey... it's my blog and I'll rant if I want to.  ;-0 --- N

  • Anonymous
    July 09, 2008
    Hey Read one of Seth Godon's <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/07/let-me-see.html">recent posts</a> puts forward the idea of a comment filter that hides comments you agree with. There's a tool for you. BTW - did you write a letter or not?

  • Anonymous
    July 10, 2008
    You obviously have got a lot of time :)