Someone explain this to me because I'm just not getting it.
Why, as a news(ish) website, would you NOT enable comments on EVERY.SINGLE.POST?
Comments increase pageviews, sometimes substantially, and sometimes even lead or instigate further posts, or at least get ideas flowing.
Sure, sometimes you may have to moderate, but that's what interns are for.
It's mind blowing. But sadder still are the MSM sites that presumably get oodles of traffic, and have open comments, and yet no one posts comments because their stories are so vanilla and uninspiring.
Or what about sites that have inversely chronological commenting systems? Newest comment always pops up at the top, oldest comment at the bottom. Why read a discussion chronologically when you can read it incoherently!
And don't get me started on sites that don't date posts or content or comments...
Posted by: Johnny Debacle | June 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I couldn't agree more on all of those points.
On a different, but similar tangent, are the idiot MSM sites that restrict your access and "force" you to register to read most content (WSJ, FT, etc).
Of course, this can be completely and simply avoided if you just copy/paste the title in google, silly MSM, you really just don't have a clue...
Posted by: Anal_yst | June 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM