|Posted by biofield on June 3, 2012 at 9:15 PM|
The In’s and Out’s of Comment-Making by Raoul Bedi
Dated : June 3, 2012
What is fascinating in any shared blog is if one were to make a general analysis of the comments (not commenters ) in an established blog , 4 broad classifications emerge :
1 .VISIONARY – These comments offer solutions and are positive, action-oriented and highly specific in their remedies and suggestions .
2. SUPPORTIVE – These comments do not offer any new ideas in themselves, but they offer support ($,resources, volunteer time , connections ) to build on the Visionary comments and ideas previously presented, or , at the very least, they try to inject “positive emotion” into the conversation.
b) INFORMATIVE - I later added this subcategory because these submissions may be useful educational even though not necessarily or immediately "action-oriented" or directly "supportive" . They help in the later weighing of the "pros" and "cons" when specific new actions are required or discourage new action altogether.
3 . UNRELATED – These comments, while harmless and innocent in themselves, have little to do with the topic at hand. Or if they do they tend to overfocus on unimportant details. These comments may be a bore to read . They may also even be entertaining to read and they may even give you some kind of a mental buzz. . On the down side, these comments may prove to be a waste of everybody’s time and distract from the overall focus and intent of the thread. They tend to muddy the waters too much and cause people to rapidly lose interest in the thread or topic at hand .
4. DESTRUCTIVE – These comments tend to be overanalytical, insulting (or worse threatening ) , hypercritical and patronizing and never offer any constructive alternatives in place of the original ideas attacked. They may also have little to do with the topic at hand and simply be an exercise in purposely injecting “negative emotion ” into the forum. These comments tend to attack or criticize other commenters instead of the ideas presented . The people offering these comments may be unconscious of this tendency as a function of their own mental /emotional dysfunction i.e due to drug,alcohol or other abuse ,senility or other mental illness etc. or they may doing it deliberately as part of some agenda to pollute the constructive agenda of the blog. An example would be a government agent , a dairy lobby representative or a representative of the corporate chemical, GMO or Factory farming industry. If these individuals also have poor writing or motivational skills then they may also need to resort to using profanity to make their point (and scare away rebuttals and alternatives).
I wish to emphasize that criticism , in itself , does not make a comment “destructive” . It is when it tends become excessively personal and fails to offer a constructive alternative in its place that its value diminishes.
This valuation scheme is somewhat subjective. For example , many people may find an article by Michael Schmidt to be visionary(Category 1 ) in its nature and content while others may read it as a lot of “hot air” (category 3 ) .
May you all have fun with these classifications and find them useful ! It actually can prove to be useful as a time-saving device as well as certain individuals who tend to be stuck in Category 3 and 4 are rarely able to make the leap to Category 1 or 2 no matter how many opportunities they are given to do so ! So if you are short of time you can probably safely skip those comments without actually missing anything !