AMY GAHRAN: The Right Conversation

Snark at Your Own Risk: Setting Boundaries for Online Discussion

A lousy photo of me and news industry consultant Vin Crosbie -- whom I like and respect in part because we disagree strongly but well.

We all know it's true -- some people feel entitled to be rude online. That can ruin anyone's online experience. Sadly, this problem is so common that many of us (including, until now, me) generally accept it and act as though there's no way to change it.

The common wisdom is that the "anonymity" of the web encourages rudeness. I'm skeptical of that, since usually I receive rude comments by e-mail -- with a real name and e-mail address attached.

I'm not talking about disagreement or criticism. I'm not even talking about outrage. In fact, I value all of those aspects of discourse, online and elsewhere. I'm talking about personal insults and put-downs -- you know, good old-fashioned ad hominem attacks. The kind where someone is explicitly or implicitly demeaning you personally, not just taking issue with something you said or did.

I think it's important for every net users to know that, while online rudeness is common, you don't have to accept it gracefully if it really bothers you. Setting clear limits on the kinds of communication you will accept is not only "allowed," but actually a very good idea. This can include calling people on their rudeness.

Here are some thoughts on how to enforce your communication boundaries without getting embroiled in a flame war...

Threats, Fear, and the Dark Side of Conversational Media

I'll start by admitting that I don't know the details of the death threats and other abuse apparently received by blogger Kathy Sierra. I've read about the incident, but I haven't verified anything or even looked into it closely. Therefore, the journalist in me prefers to refrain from commenting on that now widely publicized incident.

(BACKGROUND: Sierra's account, and more from Lisa Stone.)

That said, I'll be the first person to admit that there is a scary side to conversational media: mob mentality, threats to personal safety, and more. These problems are real, and they are scary for good reasons.

I don't know definitively whether women experience online threats and abuse more than men. I do know that women tend to take personal, sexual, violent threats more seriously -- and react to them differently -- than men generally do.

To put this in context, according to the US Bureau of Justice most victims of violent crime in the US are male -- that is, "for all types of violent crime except rape/sexual assault." When it comes to sexual violence, women are disproportionately victimized. Therefore, threats of sexual violence, such as those leveled at Sierra, bear a special significance to women. Perhaps for this reason, criticism of women often quickly descends toward sexual slurs and threats. People know it's a proven way to silence and marginalize women.

In my experience, people who threaten others -- whether online or elsewhere -- usually don't follow through with violent acts. Often, the threat is its own reward for them. They threaten mainly to instill fear (which is in itself significant damage and power), and also to show off to their peers. Lame, but true.

Here's what I recommend: Deprive people who deliver threats of their rewards. Here's how...

2000 Bloggers Is Gone, Probably for the Best

On Feb. 2, I wrote about my concerns regarding Tino Buntic's now-popular 2000 Bloggers meme. Basically, it seemed to have become a link farm. Buntic left a comment refuting those concerns, but I remained skeptical.

Then yesterday, the Technorati blog published a post explaining why they'd just implemented an algorithm to filter out the effects of 2000 bloggers and similar efforts on bloggers' Technorati ranking. After reading that, I left a comment on Tino's blog, basically saying thanks but no thanks -- I wanted off the 2000 Bloggers list.

Just a few minutes ago, Buntic took down the 2000 bloggers collage of linked photos. I think this was probably wise, and I hope that everyone who posted that collage to their own site follows suit. Right now, Technorati merely nullified the effect of this inadvertent link farm -- later, other aggregators and search engines might opt to actually penalize participants, regardless of intentions.

Is that fair? The hard answer to that, I think, is: Yes...

Second Life Frustration: Video Tutorials, Please?

My current Second Life Avatar, with neither a name nor appearance she likes, is thoroughly confused by this environment.

Since Second Life, the virtual online world populated with avatars and live events, has become so popular, I decided I should check it out. It seems a natural fit with my work in conversational media, because conversation and interaction are reported to be the lifeblood of that "world."

I'm just getting started, but so far I'm pretty frustrated.

Here's the issue: I'm not a gamer. That is, I'm not into video games, multi-player or otherwise. I never have been. I never cared for role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons either. It's just not my thing.

Therefore, I don't tend to naturally enjoy the process of learning how to navigate a virtual environment. That's not fun for me, it's drudgery....

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE at my other blog, Contentious. You can also leave a comment there, if you like. (I've moved one comment posted to this blog over to that blog, to consolidate the conversation despite cross-posting.)

Clueless PR: Attached Files = DELETE!

The subject line was intriguing, but I immediately trashed this announcement because of the attached file and lack of real content. (Click to enlarge)

If you're a PR pro and you want to get some media or blog coverage of your news, it helps to communicate in a way that works for the people you're trying to engage or influence. Annoying people or generally appearing clueless is unlikely to work.

Thus, I had to laugh when I received an e-mail with the potentially intriguing headline: "NorthWest News Group Redefines Online for Weeklies." Since I edit the Poynter Institute's weblog E-Media Tidbits, which covers online-media developments of interest to mainstream news pros, I'm interested in trends about how weeklies and other papers are grappling with online media.

But a second later, I decided that the format in which this message was transmitted to me completely undermined its credibility...

Social Media Spam: Ick!

(NOTE: I originally wrote this for Poynter's E-Media Tidbits blog. Since it's also relevant here, I'm cross-posting it.)

What does "Digg bait" look like? These screen grabs from a site that sells dental insurance via an affiliate program show how out-of-place the article "Geek's Guide to Getting in Shape" is. (Click to enlarge)

Well, I knew it would happen. Spammers have figured out how to game social media news aggregation sites like Digg, Reddit, and Newsvine.

On Nov. 21, blogger Niall Kennedy examined one example of this kind of spamming in detail, explaining how it happened and why it's a problem.

Here's his explanation of how this particular instance of social media spam worked:

"Last weekend I noticed a Digg submission about weight loss tips had climbed the site's front page, earning a covetous position in the top 5 technology stories of the moment. The 13 sure-fire tips were authored by 'Dental Geek' and posted to the 'Discount Dental Plan' category on his WordPress blog. Scanning the sidebar links and adjacent content it was obvious this content was out of place on a page optimized for dental insurance. The Webmaster of i-dentalresources.com had inserted some Digg bait, seeded a few social bookmarking services, and waited for links and page views to roll in, creating a new node in a spam farm fueled by high-paying affiliate programs and identity collection for resale."

Ick! Now, I'm all for posting valuable content as a way to engage communities and attract audiences. But this really crosses a line, I think...

Transparency vs. Payola: Weighing Risks

PayPerPost: Worth the risk?

Over at the Center for Citizen Media blog, I've joined an interesting conversation concerning the thorny issue of payola in online media. See: PayPerPost: A Cancer on the Blogosphere, or Merely Semi-Sleazy? by Dan Gillmor.

Background: The controversial online advertising service PayPerPost attracted considerable blog and media attention after it recently got $3 million in venture funding. In a nutshell, PayPerPost is an automated system where companies can advertise their sites, products, services, or brands through a network of approved bloggers who get paid $2 per qualifying post. That is, bloggers who sign on to PayPerPost agree to write about those advertisers.

PayPerPost reviews and approves those posts, which can be required to be positive. Although PayPerPost urges its bloggers to be "honest," it discourages them from disclosing their relationship with PayPerPost. So, ethically, everyone involved appears to be on thin ice -- but when did ethics ever have much to do with the advertising business?

...Anyway, Dan Gillmor's post on the PayPerPost flap nudged me to consider the issue of payola more closely. Here are a couple of comments I contributed to that discussion...

Blogging Gets Bumpy, and that's OK

Recently, PR blogger Kami Huyse published an interesting article: 5 Tips to Avoid Comment Hell: Dealing with Trolls. There, she posed a crucial question for new bloggers who are nervous about allowing comments on their blogs:

"I have had many clients ask me about the risks of blogging. How do you keep competitors and arch enemies from taking over the conversation and dissolving the 'conversation' into a shouting match?"

Her answers:

1. Moderate comments.
2. Have a written comment policy to manage expectations.
3. Be in it for the long haul.
4. Ban grossly abusive comments, but let most negative comments ride.
5. Turn comments off if necessary, preferably temporarily.

A few quibbles notwithstanding, I mostly agree with Kami's advice.

That said, I also believe it's important for everyone who chooses to participate in conversational media to learn how to handle the inevitable unpleasant bumps of conflict and even flames.That's not something you can learn theoretically. Personally I think you need to live through it. Only then can you put Kami's advice into balanced practice. Otherwise, you might be tempted to protect yourself into total vulnerability.

Of course, surviving public conversational conflicts is not fun -- but it's crucial. If there's one thing you learn fast in conversational media, it's that you can never really control the conversation. Most of it happens in venues that are beyond your control, anyway The best you can do is influence it.

I raised that issue in this comment to Kami's post...

Apologizing: Good for Your Reputation

UPDATE OCT. 2: Since the discussion in the comments to this post quickly devolved into a flame war, I'm closing comments on this post. I don't think flame wars or personal attacks are constructive.

Often I'm amazed at how the universe conspires to hit me over the head with a theme, yelling "You MUST blog this!" That's just happened this morning on the theme of apologies. Particularly, how crucial apologies are to public discourse -- and to re-establishing broken trust with your core community and the general public.

Everyone messes up sometime. However, acknowledging your role in a problem, apologizing for it, and making amends is not a sign of weakness. In fact, it's often the bravest, strongest, smartest, and most constructive thing an individual, publisher, or organization can do. Especially because conversational media has a way of amplifying any failure to apologize, thus making the consequences of your original screw-up much worse in the long run.

Here are all the hints on this theme that fate has handed me in the last 24 hours...

Shutting Down Sploggers via Google Adsense

As I mentioned earlier, as far as I'm concerned, hunting down and shutting down individual splogs is a waste of energy -- because a splogger can set up another (or dozens) of new sites quickly and easily for each one that gets shut down.

Many bloggers have been discussing this issue, with a deluge of often-heated comments in the wake of these posts. Somewhere in that multilayered discussion, I saw someone mention what seems like a way to take constructive action against sploggers that's more meaningful than shutting down a single splog. My apologies, I can't recall who offered this suggestion.

Anyway, Google Adsense is the most common financial incentive program used by sploggers. I can't remember seeing a single splog that didn't carry Google ads. One Adsense account can support a multitude of splogs.

Google ostensibly doesn't approve of splogs, and apparently will cancel Adsense accounts for sploggers who abuse the program. Therefore, when you find a splog, you can report it to Google and ask them to close the associated Adsense account.

Back on July 10, Quick Online Tips explained how to do that...

(READ MORE over at my other blog, Contentious...)

Why hunting sploggers is a waste of energy

The 8th circle of hell: Future home of every splogger on earth.

Several popular bloggers, including Shel Israel, Allan Jenkins, and Jeremiah Owyang, lately have been voicing consternation over the last few days over what appears to be a large-scale, wholesale theft of their content by a splogger site: Bitacle.org. (No, I'm not linking to Bitacle, you can find them if you want to.)

This is a pretty ambitious, but otherwise typical, splog (spam blog): a site that uses automated tools to scrape and republish (without authorization) content from other sites as a lure for high-paying contextual ads from Google and other services.

(UPDATE SEPT. 23: Today I learned that David Martín, who claims to work with Bitacle, posted a comment to this Lutrov.com posting back on July 28, 2006. He offered what I consider specious and fallacious explanations why his site is neither a splog nor a content thief.)

It doesn't look like Bitacle has scraped my content yet, but this happens often to me -- almost daily, in fact. I hate sploggers and what they do, and I agree with Allan Jenkins that there's a very special place in hell for these miscreants. But personally I don't invest much effort into tracking down and shutting down sploggers who steal my content. If I did that, I'd do nothing else.

Personally, I think going after the sploggers is the wrong way to address this problem... READ MORE over at my other blog Contentious...

Writing to Congress? First Pass a Quiz

If you think about it, conversation is crucial to a representative democracy. After all, how can elected officials represent us if we can't converse with them directly?

At the same time, quality is very important in conversation. One of the most basic aspects of quality in conversation is trust -- that is, can the intended recipient of your message easily determine that your message is authentic and relevant?

In the age of spam, this can be harder than you think.

This is why, according to the Capitol Hill newsletter Roll Call (subscription required), about 60 members of Congress have implemented "logic puzzles" on their "contact me" web forms. This kind of "captcha" is a simple arithmetic question such as "What is 6 + 5?" The purpose is to confound "bots" which can be used to automatically flood a web-based form with responses.

I can't say I blame Congress, because bots are a major pain. I can't imagine what it must be like for Congressional staffers who have to wade through thousands of e-mails daily, many of which are virtually identical, and try to figure out which might be genuine, and which might be spam intended to sway a political decision.

Considering that, a little simple arithmetic is a small price to pay for ensuring quality in a fundamental function of democracy.

But this is the mashup age, so there's more to it...

Corante's Comment Spam Problem

I often read the weblogs offered by Corante, because they mostly choose excellent, thoughtful writers representing a broad range of expertise. They're rather nicely designed blogs too, with decent usability and readabilty. Obviously some people over at Corante know a few things about doing blogs well.

Why, then, is comment spam such a pervasive problem on Corante blogs? That's like making a nice dinner and then just dumping it directly on the table in front of your guests, without a plate -- an unnecessary and disturbing mess.

Here's what I mean...

Transparency: Cleaning your "filter"

I just read an interesting post by Steve Rubel at Micropersuasion: "We're All Gatekeepers." He wrote:

"Everyone has information they're holding on to. In the media's case, it's a scoop. In PR's case, it's a media embargo or exclusive. And in the blogger's case, it's information that they are among the few or even the one who's privy to it. So the debate shouldn't be over who is the gatekeeper or whether 'gatekeeping' is dead. We all are gatekeepers depending on where the news thread starts. As long as there's news, there will be gatekeepers. Gatekeeping is just much more flat now. Anyone can join in if they have high-value information."

It's true, we have more ways to access information than ever before. Each point of access applies its own filter.

This means it's more important than ever to be conscious of filters, especially as applied to any type of "news." It's no longer safe or smart  to make wholesale assumptions about any class or genre of news filtering -- from professional news organizations, to citizen journalism, to PR, to peer-reviewed journals, to personal blogs. We all have holes in our nets.

Here's what I commented back to Steve...

(Read the full article at I, Reporter...)

"Everyone has information they're holding on to. In the media's case, it's a scoop. In PR's case, it's a media embargo or exclusive. And in the blogger's case, it's information that they are among the few or even the one who's privy to it. So the debate shouldn't be over who is the gatekeeper or whether 'gatekeeping' is dead. We all are gatekeepers depending on where the news thread starts. As long as there's news, there will be gatekeepers. Gatekeeping is just much more flat now. Anyone can join in if they have high-value information."

It's true, we have more ways to access information than ever before. Each point of access applies its own filter.

This means it's more important than ever to be conscious of filters, especially as applied to any type of "news." It's no longer safe or smart  to make wholesale assumptions about any class or genre of news filtering -- from professional news organizations, to citizen journalism, to PR, to peer-reviewed journals, to personal blogs. We all have holes in our nets.

Here's what I commented back to Steve...

(Read the full article at I, Reporter...)

Conversation Overload: How do you cope?

Recently, Tom Foremski at Silicon Valley Watcher made an astute observation about conversational media. In "Welcome to the Conversation Age! All conversations may be monitored," he wrote:

"Conversations about conversations leads me to think of this Internet 2.0 age as the Conversation Age. ...The Information Age led to one of the early maladies of the digital age: Information Overload. ...In the Conversation Age we will suffer from Conversation Overload.

"I think that Conversation Overload is a worse malady than Information Overload. Because I can walk away from reading Business Week this week, more easily than I can walk away from a conversation through blogging, email, etc. Those conversations are all important to me, yet I can't keep up with them.

"Conversation Overload is tough because we don't want it to seem as if we are ignoring someone but there is not enough time in the world to keep up with all the conversations."

Oh, yeah -- Tom nailed that one! Given the nature of my work as a conversational media consultant, I wrestle with conversation overload daily. Here's what I commented on Tom's article...

BWB (Blogging While Busy)

There's no getting around it: Following and participating in conversational media, especially blogging, takes time. For many folks, that's a huge hurdle. Occasionally my own time crunch lands me in a blogging bind.

I've been fortunate lately to score several meaty consulting projects. However, they're all due in approximately the same time frame, so I'm scrambling to get them done. Hence, I haven't been blogging much lately on any of my blogs.

However, I have been reading and commenting on a few other blogs. For me, that tends to take much less time then crafting a typical post for one of my own blogs. (I really don't like dashing off half-formed thoughts, that doesn't suit me.)

It strikes me that I can leverage my comments on other blogs constructively to both create postings when I'm really busy, and to expand the excellent conversations I've already joined. Here's what I have in mind...

Washington Post, News Evolution, and Coping with Ugly

Conversational media is messy and not always pretty. There's the good (constructive, engaging exchanges), the bad (comment and trackback spam) and the ugly (rancorous conflict, flame wars, and misbehavior by online vermin).

The good and the bad are easy to handle. In contrast, "ugly" is a thorny, exhausting, discouraging, recurring, and utterly inevitable challenge.

However, the ugly parts of conversational media offer the most rewarding lessons. Here lies a tremendous opportunity: If you recognize and learn these tough lessons, and if you freely admit what you've learned and what you still need to learn, then you can gain lasting credibility and respect. You'll also relax more and worry less on this bumpy ride.

On Jan. 19, Washington Post Online decided to shut down comments on one of its most popular blogs, post.blog, following a firestorm over Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's explanation of her analysis into the paper's coverage of the Jack Abramoff flap.

I love the Washington Post because I think most of the time they do great work and handle tough editorial decisions well. Right now, this news organization has a golden opportunity to gain immense credibility in -- and for -- conversational media. That is, IF it chooses to learn constructive lessons from this difficult experience, rather than retreat into a tempting illusion of control over the public conversation...

More on Making Podcasts More Conversational

Normally I highlight interesting posts on other blogs in my daily links post. However, this one deserves a special mention, since I suspect we might get some particularly intriguing cross-blog conversation happening here.

Over at the new Podcast Rountable blog, Rountable member Martin McKeay just posting a thought-provoking followup on my earlier post about making podcasts more conversational. See his post: "Podcasting a Conversation."

Generally, he liked my idea, and he thought it through a bit further. Here's a bit of what he said, and what I commented in response...

Making Podcasts More Conversational

(UPDATE JAN 23: Don't miss the followup to this post...)

Recently I learned that one of my favorite podcast series, Doug Kaye's IT Conversations, has evolved into a new organization called The Conversations Network.

Actually, at this point, these podcasts are not directly conversational. IT Conversations currently is the only show in this network, and it focuses on recording and podcasting live events (such as conference sessions), as well as interviews -- which is very cool, and in my opinion no podcast does that better. They do have a forum where listeners can discuss particular shows, and that's cool too (if somewhat underutilized right now).

This makes me wonder: How might podcasts become more directly conversational?...

Recruiting the Big Brains for Following Online Conversations

It seems to me that if we want the tools of conversational media to develop in intuitive, useful ways, we might have to recruit more smart, insightful folks from some particularly arcane and demanding fields of study: artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and linguistics.

I tend to think if we could make significant advances in areas such as conversation analysis and discourse analysis, then apply that knowledge effectively not just to interpersonal speech but also to mass communication, we might have some idea how to configure artificial intelligence systems or tools to understand and follow conversations like people do -- only faster and more effectively.

I know this sounds dreadfully geeky, and that's part of the problem...

10 Reasons Why Blogs Are an Awkward Conversation Tool

One of the reasons why I'm a bit frustrated with what I see as "blog myopia" rather than a broader recognition of conversational media (of which blogging is but a part) is that blogs have a lot of drawbacks.

Yes, blogs can facilitate certain aspects of the public conversation -- very well in many cases.

Also: Blogs are a clunky, imperfect, limited, primitive form of conversational media. In fact, sometimes they can inhibit conversation, or even be used (consciously or unconsciously) to dodge conversation.

So in a way, it kind of bugs me that blogs are currently such a high-profile aspect of conversational media, because I don't think they're necessarily a great exposure to the experience. But then again, all conversational-media tools, even e-mail lists, have their own set of drawbacks.

So just to put these on the table, here are 10 reasons why I think blogs aren't always great for conversation...

Missing the Conversation for the Blogs

Lately I've been getting a tad discouraged with the rampant myopia about blogs.

Don't get me wrong: Obviously, I like blogs. I read them daily. I'm thrilled by all the ways they expand the public conversation and push the media envelope. Still, it's getting a bit tiresome to hear various major media thinkers ramble on about blogs, blogs, blogs as if blogs were a huge deal in and of themselves.

Personally, I think they're all missing the point. I'm considering printing up t-shirts or buttons to make it clear: "Don't miss the conversation for the blogs."

Here's why...

How Do You Start Telling an Engaging Tale?

This morning I spent some time working on the layout of this site. Hopefully it's an improvement. If you look at the top of the right-hand sidebar, you'll see I've added a short definition of "conversational media," since most people aren't familiar with the term.

This definition is the current result of discussions surrounding my earlier post, "The Elevator Speech for Conversational Media." Thanks to everyone who contributed to that discussion -- especially Heidi Miller, who has done some excellent coverage of the art of the elevator speech (which she calls the "two-second statement") in her podcast "Diary of a Shameless Self-Promoter." (Full disclosure: Heidi's a former coaching client of mine.)

I read through the links that Heidi offered in the show notes for her Sept. 22, 2005 podcast. That chain of ideas got me pondering how an "elevator speech/two-second statement" differs from a "definition" -- and how both types of content can help shape any conversation.

I started thinking: I'm missing the point. What I really need is a short definition for conversational media and a two-second statement for myself. Furthermore, each of these key bits of "microcontent" needs to be the beginning of an interactive story, not merely a flat statement...

Conversational Agoraphobia: What's Holding Business Blogs Back?

In a recent private conversation, a well-known blogger and I were discussing the problems that can arise when the people in charge of a business blog are too focused on maintaining a sense of total control.

My colleague expressed a Zen-like principle. To paraphrase, his point was: "Credibility comes by releasing control over the conversation, because you gain credibility when you listen, and when you speak authentically."

This, of course, runs completely opposite to prevailing corporate culture which often mistakes "credibility" for authority or power.

The problem is, if you significantly control or constrain a public conversation (beyond filtering out spammers, of course), you're demonstrating power and you may even gain a certain amount of authority. However, you'll only lose credibility in the process...

Blogs as a Barrier to Conversation

There's no doubt that, for the people who like them, blogs are a great conversational media tool. But blogs definitely are NOT for everyone.

Not everyone has the technical abilities, equipment, and access to use the internet much (or well). Not to mention that using the internet at all requires literacy and available time.

Also, some regular internet users simply dislike the blog format. As one friend recently told me, "Blogs are just too busy. It takes too much effort to figure out what's available in a blog and how it works. I prefer sites with a clean, simple design. All that interactivity mostly seems like a waste of time."

Although weblogs get a lot of attention currently, I think it's important to recognize -- and respect -- the spectrum of options and tastes. I really do believe that, when it comes to conversational media, there can (or at least, there should be) something for everyone...

I Wish Blog Comments Were Easier to Follow

Weblogs are currently one of the most lively and provocative types of conversational media, all because of one simple feature: Comments. Blogs that allow comments are transformed from mere publishing to a facet of the public conversation.

The problem is, though, that's right now it's just not as easy as it should be to follow that part of the conversation. Here's what I mean...