23 December 2004

Aggregator, PubSub, 23-Dec-04, UTC 19:17:49

The mysterious standards on what constitutes an acceptable blog comment.

Comment resolution, follow-up, linking. Site discussing importance of blogger comments deletes blogger comments.

Discussion

Isn't the idea of blogging to link to new information? Quick overviews. Fast transmission. Save time. Succinct. Call it like it is.

This blog is about improving things:

  • Scott McMullin remains open;

  • WeblogsInc likes new perspectives;

  • Jeff Barr's blog is open to other views; and

  • Scott Berlind also permits comments.

    Yet, perhaps blog comments at Jeff's, Scott's, Dave's and WeblogsInc.com's blogs are too long.

    And I wonder why the "link-back to extended comment-option" doesn't appear to work. Or remain palatable. Oh, you wonder why?

    Confirmation

    Let's consider the PubSub blog. It's interesting to see the reaction to a public display of "we love bloggers."

    Bob Wyman's original blog entry made me think that the RSS community didn't really wanted to hear the blogger's views on XML.

    Now, I have no doubt. "They don't want to hear it."

    Try posting a follow-up to Bob Wyman's blog. Why does Bob Wyman of PubSub delete the entry? Even LazyWeb doesn't want to hear ideas.

    Curious

    It is curious how a website that displays links to a site, can both remove a link; and ensure that there is no trace either between the site and the original link or any subsequent links confirming the link ever occurred. We wonder, "What is the concern?"

    PubSub's Bob Wyman doesn't want you to know this? It appears Bob has no comment. The original blog-response-link has apparently been deleted. We can only speculate.

    Theories

    Perhaps this is the explanation. Or perhaps there are some development-funding-related explanations for the "we don't want to really hear it" response:

    Theory 1: The open-suggestions are part of closed-door ongoing-development efforts, and they don't want to admit to the competition that the ideas have merit, nor state how the funds are being used.

    Theory 2: Developers do not like to have auditors show up and ask questions.

    Theory 3: They're getting close to funding review time and the last thing they want is an angel investor thinking or contemplating the gaps in the existing efforts.

    In 2005, we may find out how close Mud's Tests was to predicting what Bob Wyman was planning.
  • The mysterious standards on what constitutes an acceptable blog comment.

    Comment resolution, follow-up, linking. Site discussing importance of blogger comments deletes blogger comments.

    Discussion

    Isn't the idea of blogging to link to new information? Quick overviews. Fast transmission. Save time. Succinct. Call it like it is.

    This blog is about improving things:

  • Scott McMullin remains open;

  • WeblogsInc likes new perspectives;

  • Jeff Barr's blog is open to other views; and

  • Scott Berlind also permits comments.

    Yet, perhaps blog comments at Jeff's, Scott's, Dave's and WeblogsInc.com's blogs are too long.

    And I wonder why the "link-back to extended comment-option" doesn't appear to work. Or remain palatable. Oh, you wonder why?

    Confirmation

    Let's consider the PubSub blog. It's interesting to see the reaction to a public display of "we love bloggers."

    Bob Wyman's original blog entry made me think that the RSS community didn't really wanted to hear the blogger's views on XML.

    Now, I have no doubt. "They don't want to hear it."

    Try posting a follow-up to Bob Wyman's blog. Why does Bob Wyman of PubSub delete the entry? Even LazyWeb doesn't want to hear ideas.

    Curious

    It is curious how a website that displays links to a site, can both remove a link; and ensure that there is no trace either between the site and the original link or any subsequent links confirming the link ever occurred. We wonder, "What is the concern?"

    PubSub's Bob Wyman doesn't want you to know this? It appears Bob has no comment. The original blog-response-link has apparently been deleted. We can only speculate.

    Theories

    Perhaps this is the explanation. Or perhaps there are some development-funding-related explanations for the "we don't want to really hear it" response:

    Theory 1: The open-suggestions are part of closed-door ongoing-development efforts, and they don't want to admit to the competition that the ideas have merit, nor state how the funds are being used.

    Theory 2: Developers do not like to have auditors show up and ask questions.

    Theory 3: They're getting close to funding review time and the last thing they want is an angel investor thinking or contemplating the gaps in the existing efforts.

    In 2005, we may find out how close Mud's Tests was to predicting what Bob Wyman was planning.
    " />