wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Comments
Pat Swovelin 2007-Jan-04 04:20:00
Roger Howard wrote:
> On Wed, January 3, 2007 11:52 am, Pat Swovelin wrote:
>> And isn't adding a comments are a form of competition (because you're
>> suddenly doing your work to get better comments vs. fulfilling your
>> vision of the event's theme)? If people want to comment on a pano they
>> can send mail directly to the photographer through the e-mail link on
>> that particular contribution. It's really easy, will cut down on the
>> negative comments (because the sender will know who it came from vs.
>> "anonymous") and there won't be the mindless threads like "me too" and
>> "I think Bob's right."
>
> No, I wouldn't call it competition, though if someone is motivated in that
> way (to get better comments) I'd really ask - what's the problem with
> that?
It changes the mentality of the event itself. If people want to get
comments all they'd have to do is to put "Please drop me an e-mail (at
the link below) if you like my work" in their descriptive text.
I understand the concept of feedback but do we all have to read it? I
think not. People are going to be more willing to give their honest
opinion if it's done privately vs. publically. I know that's how I am
here. Sometimes I'll send my comments directly to the original poster
because what I have to say may be sensitive and may make the person I'm
sending it to feel like I'm denigrating their work or making them look
foolish in public, when in fact it's just the opposite and if it's done
privately they won't think "Man, everyone is looking at me now" like
they might if I made my comments publically. It's something like when
you see your friend at a party has something on one of his front teeth.
You wouldn't say "Hey, Bob, you've got some broccoli on your tooth" in
front of the whole group, you'd take him aside and tell him privately to
save him the embarrassment. In the same way if he was working on a
controversial project you probably wouldn't comment on it in front of
the group (to keep from getting grief from anyone in the group who
disagrees with you) you'd do it privately too.
> Though realistically, given the 3 month latency between projects, I
> hardly think it's realistic to expect people to even be able to pander to
> the audience. But ultimately that's how the creative process works. We
> shoot, we publish, we get feedback, we improve. Repeat. I've found the
> vast majority of feedback in other creative communities to be
> productive/constructive, and a critical part of the creator's growth. And
> I simply don't see having public comments as such a detriment.
But others may, in the same way that the vast majority of the people on
this list are lurkers and I'm willing to bet that they don't post
anything original or comment on someone else's original post to keep
from looking foolish (in reality or in their mind's eye, it's both the
same thing to them).
> We can already receive feedback via email, but that's a very different
> type of communication. I post images and other works on other forums and
> sites and the vast majority of the interesting feedback comes from public
> comments in the light of day, not via private emails.
Is that because people want to make their comments publically or because
they're lazy and find it easier to send a comment vs. a piece of mail?
> I really see the benefits as far outweighing the drawbacks (and think
> those drawbacks are being overexagerated), but that's just my opinion of
> course. I'm willing to consider it an experimental idea, one that can be
> retracted if it proves problematic, but I don't think, given all the
> precedent out there, that the idea of in-situ two way communications is
> uncommon or unuseful. It's a huge part of the Web 2.0 (hate the name,
You and me both.
> but
> the concept is sound) movement, away from static one-way web presence,
> it's all about engaging with the audience.
But does every audience need to be engaged with?
> I don't see that as competition
> at all - I see it as providing a mechanism for meta-conversation related
> to, or instigated by, the content we publish - which is right now trapped
> in a one-way push.
But it's not a one-way push, all the site visitor has to do is drop the
WWP contributor a line and tell him what he thinks. Do we all need to
read what he has to say? And more to the point with comments is he
saying it to the WWP contributor or to everyone else who reads the
comments thereby taking them away from spending their time looking at
the panoramas (the real reason they came to the site in the first place)?
Pat Swovelin
Cool Guy @ Large