11–20 of 50 posts
Why does there have to be a strict dichotomy between these two things? It's not uncommon to see conversations happen (very slowly) through traditional publications and everything posted online is, in a sense, published.
The idea that if you disagree or have a lot to say you should create your own blog post is also a bit ridiculous. Is it OK in that case to leave a comment saying "I have responded to this on my blog here at xxxxxxx"? I mean, how is the context between the original post and the followup to be maintained or even seen by the original readers?
This just seems to be more of a throwback to old school print where the interconnectedness of ideas was severely limited. Unless you were aware of and read all publications on a subject you were likely to see the entire "conversation" on a subject.
I guess if you want to see a blog article as a publication that's your prerogative, but there is a reason print media is dieing out. We should be trying to increase the interconnectedness of ideas, not stifle it.
Meh, 24 hours is too long to wait. By that time, I likely no longer care to read any comments on the subject, so they all go unread. I mean who is going to return to a blog post a day later just so they can read comments? Might as well just leave the comments off. Let's face it, the author is still working through his trauma from a time when he apparently left comments unmoderated and unrestricted and got burned, and…
Or just turn off comments altogether and let people comment on HN (et al). This happens inevitably, right? Many times the comment thread for an article is actually longer and more rich here than on the source website itself.
To me this is a very old school, closed off way of looking at things. Who are the comments for? Just the author? If so, why make them public at all? If they are for the readers, how many readers are going to come back 24 hours later to check out the comments? The idea that if you disagree or have a lot to say you should create your own blog post is also a bit ridiculous. Is it OK in that case to leave a comment sayin…
Indeed. If you want interesting conversations about your blog posts, have commenting (threaded is better; saves a lot of time). If you don't, just don't have them.
Meh, 24 hours is too long to wait. By that time, I likely no longer care to read any comments on the subject, so they all go unread. I mean who is going to return to a blog post a day later just so they can read comments? Might as well just leave the comments off. Let's face it, the author is still working through his trauma from a time when he apparently left comments unmoderated and unrestricted and got burned, and…
Perhaps it is because people feel less inhibited when they are posting their thoughts in another neutral space. If the author of the article doesn't want to be trolled or flamed on his own site then why not just link to the HN discussion, as I have seen other bloggers do?
If your post is controversial or interesting people will discuss it, and you can do nothing to stop it, because closing comments on the main site will just cause people to discuss it on another site, as this HN post is proving.