Reblogging as a Replacement For Comments

<rant>
This nonsense has gone on for long enough.

It’s fine to say that blogging a response to someone else’s post is a good way to comment on it, but to say that it should actually replace comments — as many people, including Marco, do — is simply a failure to think logically.

It. Doesn’t. Work.

Let’s posit an intelligent, helpful reader of egg-basket who wants to add something to one of my posts. (Marco would argue that this is very unlikely, but that’s another discussion; a rebuttal of the idea of commenting entirely.) I’ve posted a link to some vaguely ironic piece of legal flim-flammery, and he wishes to point out that the thing is actually an internet hoax. Instead of adding a comment, though, he posts it on his own fine site. 

So the egg-basket readers don’t get that information; the readers of his blog do, but since they probably haven’t read the article yet, they don’t care. Sure, there may be a few readers who regularly read both. They’ll appreciate his post. But they won’t be in the majority.

And I won’t see the comment, either. (Okay, if I have notifications turned on, and if he’s using a Tumblr account, and if he’s pressed the reblog button instead of linking to whatever I was linking to, and if I egotistically check whenever someone reblogs me, then I will see it. But my readers don’t get that advantage.)

Let’s put this another way: if your purpose in making a comment is to see words you have written appear on the internet, then reblogging as a replacement for comments works fine.  If, on the other hand, you were actually hoping that the people that read the original post would be able to see your comment, it sucks.

And ironically, since the people who blog about what a fine idea this is don’t have comments, I’m forced to reblog here, where they won’t read it.
</rant>

~ by shadowfirebird on July 29, 2008.