Comments on: Gawker Adds Comments to Three Blogs

By: make money online

make money online — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:49:14 +0000

Hi, just wanted to say that in order to make money online, you must put effort into it. Don’t do pyramid scams or any “profit overnight” programs. They just don’t work. Period.

Instead, read a few good websites on the subject, go to forums and ask the people – they will gladly help you. Just type make money online forum in Google search and subscribe for free.

Second, decide how you want to make money:
1. With selling your own product
2. With selling other people’s product (affiliate marketing)
3. A subscription web site/forum – my favorite, but you have to have some good free content first in order to pull this off. Or get some affiliates of your own – but you will have to share your profits.
4. A content rich website with Google Adsense or something similar. – also my favorite.

About blogs and comments – I also think everyone should have a say. I agree with HART. That’s what blogs are about. Sure here and again people will abuse it but that doesn’t mean that every other person should not be allowed to post comments. Blogging is great, I just love it.

By: Darnell

Darnell — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 04:43:59 +0000

I agree with Gawker. I would restate the reasons why, but they have basically been mentioned above so I won’t waste your time (and Pro Bloggers) time on the issue as well.

On a further note, some people have already abused the comment system, so it only confirms the need for such a feature.

By: Richard McKinnon

Richard McKinnon — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:58:32 +0000

Better to let everyone comment.The important things about blogs and the networks that have grown up is that they given everyone a voice.They have also let us out here sort out which are valuable. Going back to the old “letter to the editor” routine doesn’t seem like a good idea. It’s a reversion to a different model of involvement. which stifles the very ideas from left field, you might want.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:25:30 +0000

There are plenty of places and ways that anyone who wants to be heard can avail themselves of. It is not as if they are gagging people. They are simply trying to ensure good quality commenting on their own site. Given that the site has been successful with NO commenting, They’ve got more to lose by allowing garbage to be posted than ruffling a few feathers of people who are not invited to comment. And besides, if you get your hackles up because a bunch of tech-heads won’t let you play in their sandbox, you’re probably exactly the person they don’t want posting there anyway.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:06:16 +0000

One thing I’ve learned is that there are many good leaders/managers/bloggers/techheads/whatever out there who are unrecognized and this will limit their voice to be heard. In all honesty, a lot of the tech elite say the same thing. I want to hear new voices.

By: Political Junkie

Political Junkie — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:39:51 +0000

How do they implement their comment system?

How would you recommend doing it with MovableType or Wordpress?

By: Gone Away

Gone Away — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:41:04 +0000

Hey, guess what – I don’t read their stupid blog anyway. :D What the heck of any importance could anyone have to say about such petty nonsense?

Or does that put me in the disgruntled and excluded category…?

By: Click Fraud Report

Click Fraud Report — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:12:36 +0000

How Click Fraud Impacts Honest Publishers

Click Fraud is a growing problem for Adsense and other Pay Per Click (PPC) advertising programs. The challenge that Google has with Adsense and click fraud is that they’re at risk of it happening from a number of angles….

By: fivecentnickel.com

fivecentnickel.com — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:43:55 +0000

Andy said: “It stifles free speech and threatens viewpoints that oppose the author.”

Yes, but no more so (actually, probably less) that not allowing comments at all.

By: Adam Thody

Adam Thody — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:33:46 +0000

Why do people think they have the “right” to say what they want on other people’s websites?

As someone who runs several decent-sized communities I’m dealing with this non-sense all the time – people who feel I’m violating their free speech rights by moderating their input on my sites.

My sites, are just that: mine. They’re businesses, which rely on quality content. To be successful, one must weed out the content, which does not improve the quality of the site.

I think what they’re doing is totally acceptable. They could let everyone post, then edit out the crap, or they can do invitations and only have people putting quality content on their site. Easy choice for me.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 03:35:53 +0000

Totally agree. Some might call it “elitism”, but I’d say it could be more like “intelligent selection”. Unless they are themselves stupid. In which case… well… let’s just hope that’s not the case. LOL

By: Eoghann Irving

Eoghann Irving — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:34:55 +0000

You know sometimes a bit of elitism is a good thing. I’ve never quite understood the belief that I should let morons attach their inane rantings to my blogs just because they want to.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. Its an issue of providing your reades with an experience that is free of spammers, trolls and the generally stupid.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:31:45 +0000

Sure, they COULD do that, but I don’t think that’s their goal. I think their goal is to not just keep spammers and casual posters from posting, but to actually allow only “good” posters, whatever that means. I think it’s going to be interesting to see if their comments are more salient or insightful than say… these here at problogger (which I can’t imagine), or other sites (which I can). If they are, then I’d say their experiment is a success. It could turn out to be a great idea.

By: Teli

Teli — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:32:41 +0000

First – it’s their blog, they can be elitist if they want to. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, I personally don’t like the “invite only” commenting system.

I’ve seen Gizmodo compared to Gmail, however, there is one major different – Gizmodo is not a service. I can see using invites for beta testing a service as Google did, but beta testing comments?

If they really want to limit the comments while still including everyone who has an interest in their blog to participate, then they should require commenters to register/login before they comment.

They can also take it a step further and do what WIN does and require the commenter to click on a confirmation link sent to them via email before the comment goes live.

By: Jim Turner

Jim Turner — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:56:30 +0000

Leave comments wide open but moderate with a good moderation policy.

By: The Lonewacko Blog

The Lonewacko Blog — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:49:12 +0000

I’d imagine their audience can be divided into three categories: those who don’t care, those who are trying to get invited, and those who are disgruntled about not being invited. The middle will tend towards the latter, and there’s the possibility that many people will take this move as a message that they aren’t wanted there. Perhaps another site with a more open policy could take some of their visitors.

Modesty and my desire to maintain a G-rating at all times prevents me from telling what would happen if they opened Wonkette to comments.

By: Comic Strip Blogger

Comic Strip Blogger — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:21:33 +0000

I think that star system for commenters that WeblogsInc uses is better than “comments by invite” – web traffic (according to Alexa) proves it at least.

Anyway: “comments by invite” prevent occasional commenters from providing deep insights. Generally: firstly Gizmodo was 3-4 years behind competition with comments and now they are 2 years behind competition with commenting system. Result: Engadget has 3-4 times more webtraffic than Gizmodo.

And I said all this despite the fact that I don’t like WeblogsInc! D’oh!

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:18:32 +0000

It will be an interesting experiment to watch. Perhaps, by inviting people whose opinions they respect, they hope that those people, in turn, will invite peope whose opinions they also respect. I don’t think it’s so much elitist as it is an attempt to find a way to involve people who are going to provide valuable and interesting commentary. It might take a little longer to build up a community of commentators, but since this is already an established blog, time is on their side and they are giving themselves an opportunity to improve the quality of the comments on their blog. Besides, if it starts to turn ugly for them or starts to affect their normal readership… they can always just open up the floodgates and let everyone in.

I applaud them for trying something outside the box.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:49:21 +0000

I see where Gawker is coming from and, overall, I can agree with their point. I think saying they’ve invited a few of their “favorite” people to comment is where they cross the line to elitist though. If they like what these people have to say so much, give ‘em contribution space on the actual blog and give the comment section over to the masses.

Blogcritics.org gets a zillion comments a day and yet they manage to keep things under control.

By: HART

HART — Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:11:38 +0000

I’m with Andy on this one. Anyone can have a good website using blogging software, but don’t call yourself a “blog” if you don’t allow comments – be them “spammy” or “good ones” .. pretty soon you will have sites like … http://www.juicyfruit.com/ popping around the ‘net with their own “Blogs” (if you can call it that) saying .. Look at me! I’m a blog! Let me inflict my opinions on you but, not give you a chance to agree or disagree.

Price for fame and fortune. Comments can be monitored, moderated, etc and there are several spam blocker plug-ins available. This is one of the 3 reasons that I don’t add the RSS feeds of Gawker to my Bloglines or read them, unless someone else I’m reading points them out for a reason.