Today’s Geeks were born in the world of abundance for them the world of the Long Tail needs no explanation. They are used to choice, thrive on choice and rail against without a world without it. They look for real and trusted descriptions in what they are choosing not just in the long tail of product and services but the parallel long tail of ideas which is rapidly developing. When this choice is seen to wanting or a particular idea stands out our geeks comment and they comment. Commenting is the way that authority is shared in the new world. It links the thought to other communities and ideas it conveys authenticity and engergises the conversation. There are multiple ways of commentating. Here are just some categories: the troll, the enthusiast, the expert, the mad man, the philosopher, the fan, the bombast and the verbose. It’s easy to scoff at many of categories in the cold light of day but it’s the variety and enthusiasm of commentators that makes the new world of digital influence go around.
In the Long Tail this mechanism is brilliantly set out with the example of the sales around an adventure story. In 1988 Joe Simpson wrote Touching the Void a near death story from the Andes 10 years later a similar book Touching Thin Air became a sensation. As Chris Andersen observered thelongtail.com:
“Book sellers began promoting it next to their Into Thin Air displays and sales began to rise… By mid 2004, Touching the Void was outselling into thin air more than two to one. What happened? Online word of mouth. When Into Thin Air, first came out a few readers wrote reviews on Amazon.com that pointed out the similarities … which they praised effusively. Other shoppers read these reviews, checked out the older book and added it to their shopping carts … they started recommending the two as a pair. People, wrote more rhapsodic reviews more sales, more algorithm-fueled recommendations – and a powerful feedback loop kicked in.”
Commentators are very often engaged with a community or conversation it for this reason that such a powerful multiplier kick in. They have skin in the game and take this responsibility seriously sometimes a commentator may also be an idea starter or curator but very often they see themselves as important simply because of their comments and a commitment to engagement. Perhaps idea starters and curators are too busy starting and organizing to simply comment. The huge volume of comment that some online citizen’s generate is actually a sure sign of a true freak geek who is using new technologies to hugely boost their productivity.
Back to Andresen again, “Amplified word of mouth is the manifestation of the third force of the Long tail. It is not until this third which helps people find what they want in this new super abundance of variety, kicks in that the potential of the Long tail market place is truly unleashed.”
For me what motivates the commentator that is truly intriguing? An idea starter is motivated by creativity; an amplifier or curator want to share but they also crave a very unstandable status and leadership recognition. A commentator is I think truly taking part they feel the desire to share and I believe realize that by sharing they get to also find what they want in return at some point. It is a mutually rewarding activity this may explain why the comments tend to be shorter, pithier less heavily invested but also so prolific as I say in many ways commentators are the true revolutionaries and the missing link. I would love to hear your thoughts on why commentators comment or why a troll trolls? and possibly explain why a large proportion of comments are also gibberish more I think than in real world conversations?
July 20, 2010 at 10:19 am
Interesting points Jon.
What fascinates me in many contexts is the presence of high emotion and strength of opinion in those comments. In some forums, particularly after news articles people articulate ‘extreme’ versions of an opinion in a fairly black and white way. Does it have correlation to how they would verbalise their opinion offline? I’m not sure. If yes, I’d love to meet them – imagine sitting next to them in the office…
I’m also interested in whether there is a turning point in sentiment, which then snowballs in comment flows – like the amazon example. A critical mass ensures that they cluster/gravitate other similar opinions to themselves and then self reinforce? Can that be ‘organised’ I wonder? A brilliant example is some fashion blogs where people continue to jump on the affirmation trip for a particular look or design – ‘love it!’
July 20, 2010 at 10:52 am
Two points. Firstly this extreme support or rejection of a comment is a phenomena that must impact the conversation. People are rarely as strong minded in real life conversation unless alcohol is involved. The strength of positive endorsement actually surprises me more than the negative. There is a post in the alochol induced behaviour of social media as I notice people also tend to be ruder and more aggressive in social media.
Secondly I think this magnification of emotions means online conversations develop momentum and emotion more quickly. When this emotional roll develops then it can be checked by a rational statement of facts or another opinion. This makes online conversation more volatile but more fun really.
July 20, 2010 at 10:54 am
I think commentators comment because it’s never been easier to, plus you get near instant gratification in seeing your comment on-line. Contrast that to pre-Internet days and the act of writing a letter with no certainty that it would be read let alone published.
The challenge is – I guess – how to encourage worthwhile commentators while discouraging Trolls. When you have a neutral site like Amazon (it’s just a retailer after all) there tends to be a natural balance where the odd pointless negative review is outweighed by well meaning, considered comments.
However, on the likes of Facebook (the idiots who joined the Raoul Moat group) and news websites the atmosphere is different and you can see in the tone of the different commentators that there are many different reasons for commenting.
For me, this means brands have to make decisions about trying to attract and nurture commentators; do they open up their content/feedback forums etc and let anyone in or do they keep closed and moderate. The trades off between the two approaches are obvious.
July 20, 2010 at 11:27 am
A good point commentators are clearly different according to different platforms. I am working on a grunt language for retweets and facebook is clearly a more social format but my point is that it is actually as you say the ease and gratification of commenting that is really different about social media. I do think that the way people reward each other with self esteem of comments explains an important dynamic in social media.
July 20, 2010 at 10:55 am
What I find interesting is the self-moderation of commenting. Using the HP example (client) in the Hit Print video, is how even without the creators (idea starters) engaging with the conversation, there are over 350 comments. As with any discussion there are a large number of people dissenting but what I find fascinating is how the crowd feels it necessary to moderate the discussion and argue against negative sentiment due to incorrect knowledge with fact-based statements.
This concept of self-moderation in commenting has matured into a standard set of rules and practices over the past decade. Individually the commentator has now voice, but collectively the power of their combined voice is far more significant and can help sway the discussion.
July 20, 2010 at 11:02 am
I think a lot of it actually has to do with power, the ‘commentator’ showing that they are on an equal pairing with the author.
The comment box lets Joe Bloggs be on the same platform as a more influential or better known voice and by chipping in with a ‘me too’ comment they perhaps get a sense that they are sharing some of the glory. Some may say much like this comment…
July 20, 2010 at 11:29 am
Agree. It is always back to the democratisation of influence and eroding of deference again why I would say the ability to comment is so revolutionary within the world media and conversation.
July 20, 2010 at 11:02 am
What are these rules then Jonny?
July 20, 2010 at 4:03 pm
You guys are raising good points in the comments here. I particularly agree with the notion of eroding deference.
Here are a few thoughts and reactions, in no special order:
• Some people just like to debate. Others like to antagonize. Still others like to defend. Motivations vary but the common thread among them, I think, is dialogue and interaction. That interaction can become a conditioned stimulus over time. The behavior begets itself in that sense. Peronsally, if I invest time in contributing thoughtful feedback to someone and they don’t reciprocate, I’m probably gone.
• Jon mentioned ‘skin in the game’ for commentors. This along with convenience is a critical point. I don’t think there’s currently enough, particularly for those who are borderline commentors. Technologies like Disqus and the former Facebook Connect are improving this by removing the need to create endless accounts and surfacing comments to one’s social circle, respectively, but there is a long way to go here. Harvard Business Review recently asked if they could feature one of my comments in its print edition – that was a nice incentive that will keep me going back there.
• Social status needs to be better harnessed in more commenting systems. There are plenty of rating systems for specific comments but haven’t seen many that reflect status built up over time. Weave in competition, ranking, quality ratings – whatever you want to call it – and make it more easily visible, and you’ll start pulling people off the sidelines.
Thanks for the interesting post, Jon, and thanks to others for the dialogue here.
Joseph Kingsbury
July 20, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Joesph really like the idea of commenting status does anyone know of any such ranking system. Also agreed that interaction needs response I guess it strengthens the equation of I comment because I will benefit from someone else’s comment at some time. The sooner the pay back the deeper the relationship that results? We should also talk about business-to-business aspects of this commentator dynamics.
July 20, 2010 at 5:44 pm
My client manages the XNA Creators Club Online forums: http://forums.xna.com/forums/
The commentators there are ranked by how often they comment and how active they are on the site.
July 20, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Yeah, I think you’re right about quick payback correlating to long term results. Imagining offline interactions seems useful here… taking *at* people and not responding to feedback certainly wouldn’t go over well face to face, and I think the same holds true for online interactions.
And we should definitely chat about B2B implications. Will write you separately.
July 21, 2010 at 9:53 am
Tahnks Christin I will check it out.
July 21, 2010 at 7:13 am
Agree with the fact that it was never easier to comment and also the fact that since the commentators are more or less anonymous, they often use a much stronger language than they would in real-life conversations. One example coming to my mind are the comments on the Facebook page of the referee at the Germany-Serbia world cup game. If Jon and others mention that commentators are being more honest that in real-life conversations we should differentiate between honesty and abuse – often commentators hide behind their screen name and simply abuse people verbally.This is where the self-regulation steps up: I really like the way other commentators step in and “discipline” those abusive commentators. That is an open-minded and open-voiced society at its (self-regulatory) best. However, a number of brands still have to get used to this idea of self-regulation. They want to protect their image and haven’t realized that an open discussion is the best way to do so.
July 21, 2010 at 9:54 am
Tanja I agree and some thoughts on how self regulation works in different would be really interesting.
July 22, 2010 at 11:12 am
I’m afraid I’m a bit cynical about the motivations of creators; I think the majority are motivated by either conscious or subconscious ego. I concede anonymous comments are not as easy to explain, but you could argue they are still clamouring for respect from their peers (I think the same logic that Andrew used in an earlier comment).
July 26, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Jonny,
Thanks for the post. Above all else, I am thankful for any article, post or comment that incites conversation and in the simplest terms, makes people THINK! (And to Niall’s point, even if the initial content was created with ego)
Personally, I have found that I never comment directly on sites/articles, though the most meaty, engaged conversation tends to appear there. I’m prone to incl. my comment and a link via Twitter so that circles *slightly* closer to me can 1) see my comment 2) digest the info / weigh in themselves 3) gain a sense for my interests and daily web crawling (this one is ego at it’s best I’d say). I’m guessing this motivation is pretty common.
Wondering what inspires people to actually comment below the content?
As I tweeted last week, Ethan Zuckerman said that the web is making us “imaginary cosmopolitans” in a recent TED talk (nice BBC summary http://bit.ly/bsQoOy). This is something that I’ve been chewing on regarding motivation for commenting. Could be me, could be you.
In the end, what made pre-Web cosmopolitans so much more informed, more ‘real’? Seems that our new access to information takes us beyond being cosmopolitans of our regional or industry niche, and into great new spaces.