DISQUS

Nice post -- I like your idea that comments can be nuanced, and it may be a function of the topic or niche at hand.

My feeling is that comments are what you make of it, and in turn proportional to the kind of community that the blog owner has fostered.

Plus, there's nothing wrong with moderating them as you see fit; moderation encourages the interesting and noteworthy contributions, while discouraging the ones that sound like they're from the inebriated mouth-breathing masses.

cheers
t @ dji

Actually, I have no problem with comments not belonging to me.

In fact, if you read my post carefully (which -- don't worry -- not many people did) I called bloggers that don't understand this fact (comments not being on-blog) as being both hypocritical and stupid, as this element of non-control is a vital part of understanding what social media is.

The problem is that Scoble tried to compare two different things: Comments being hosted off-blog (Louis Gray) and Sites which are rehosting all of bloggers content (Me) and a great deal of people ewre getting the two confused (including Scoble).

Cheers
tony.

Tony Hung's last blog post..I Love Techmeme But … (Part II)

@Hugh -- thanks. :)

... but my original post wasn't going off on where conversations are happening. They happen where they happen and this isn't the place where I'm going to crow about that specifically.

My beef was that a service was using my content -- all of it -- and was building a service around that. I almost feel obliged to describe an analogous situation where someone decided to create an online comics site with 100% pilfered comics, but that would be ham handed, inelegant and far too obvious. :)

I contend that if you're ok with "content" being free, you also have to be free with sploggers stealing your content, i.e the "real" content scrapers, and the wholesale "theft" (if you believe in such things) of your work and have it claimed by others.

Cheers
tony.

@JDavey -- wow. I am going to try really hard not to sound patronizing (I'm failing I know) when I say that monetization is only part of it.

I'm quite familiar with the "give it away and reap the later rewards" idea; on the other hand, I can tell you first hand that Twitter (and I have been Twitted by a few popular people) and Friendfeed *AND* Shyftr traffic (from people who I know who have been "shyfted") amount to a hill of beans compared to ...

... well, almost anything. Including a Scoble link. :)

Furthermore, since we're talking broadly, if the person taking your content *doesn't* provide a link back to your site or attribute the fact that you even wrote it, there will be *no* way your blog gets return traffic.

{note: shyftr actually does both, however}

Cheers
t @ dji

@Greywulf -- sir, you cannot have it both ways.

Either you allow your content to roam wild and free, or you don't, and place restrictions, albeit how mild, on it because (I presume that) you care how the content you created is being disseminated, you care about the company it keeps, and perhaps, you care about whose pockets its gilding.

And that's really no different than what other people who care about their content want.

So if you don't want your stuff being republished on spam sites, then yes sir.

That "counts". :)

cheers
t @ dji

@Robert -- actually, what I wrote was that if a service which is going to exist soley on and directly profit from the content of others, it should have the courtesy to ask the permission to repurpose and recopy that content.

Surely content owners deserve that courtesy at least -- particularly when they've thrown up a creative commons license? (as I have)

{And it was Frederic over at the LastPodcast
http://www.lastpodcast.net/2008/04/11/go-ahead-...
... who said "steal my content".}

Cheers
tony @ dji

Thanks for the kind compliments, Jason. :D

@Webomatica -- yeah, I just caught that.

To be honest, the first time listening to the podcast, I was also doing some hardcore studying, and I didn't listen to the rest.

Thanks. :)

{and ... oddly enough, I was thinking of writing a post about confused identities thereafter, using this very podcast -- and the infrequent confusing of my own name -- as a launching point. Then I got distracted with the whole WP vulnerabilities thing. Well, the week is still early, I guess :) }

@2:50 -- not to be an ass, but that's *TONY* Hung, not William Hung. Yes, we often get confused, but the other Hung don't blog. :)

Well, its one aspect of things -- if you freak out, and you have trouble doing work, having a normal relationship with your friends and family ... then yeah. Getting help might not be such a bad thing.

:)

Cheers
t @ dji
ps love your new design

I am not telling. :)

The milk from my cereal nearly came out of my nose when I read this piece. ;)

Thanks for the tip, Mat. You know my hero is Sanjay Gupta , right?

<KIDDING>

<well, not so much> :)

Actually I've seen them loads of times (therefore I guess its not just a US thing) ... they're actually pretty cool, and do add another dimension to the story sometimes. At other times, they allow people who only got a one-sentence sound-byte to expound on their positions. I've seen quite a few examples of this related to medical news, for example

It is truly and utterly fugly. I don't care what anyone says about holding it, or "people called the Nano fugly", or what have you. That thing was dropped out of the fugly tree and was hit numerous times on the way down. I mean jaysus, with all that beige and the hard edges, it practically *screams* beige-box PC, circa 1995. (Where's the Gateway logo, man?)

Not to be an ass (more so, rather) but any further comments on the reason why you left Twitter in the first place?

That is, what happened to your concerns about people being confused about TWiT and Twitter?

Cheers
Tony Hung.

Mark -- that's the blogosphere, man. ;)

Luckily, in this case, the questions *did* get answered fairly quick.

Plausible deniability is one thing -- but to think that this was premeditated as a rationale to drive up traffic? As in, he was never planning to come, but did this as a stunt to increase controversy and therefore links?

I'm not sure if I buy that. This is Techcrunch, not John Chow (all due respect to JC). I don't think Mike cares nor wants nor needs the links in this way.

Otherwise, good break down of the events. I suspect we'll see more evidence from both sides before the weekend is over.

Ha ha -- on a totally unrelated note, Marshall's comment almost sounds like blogspam like “Hey! Nice blog posting about *insert of your post here* I would have to agree with you on this one. I am going to look more into . This Thursday I have time.”

Not that it is, of course, but ... well, I guess I've been reading too much spam these days. :)

Yeah, with all due respect to Mike -- if he *wasn't* already an investor, did that mean he picked MC Hammer's name out of hat?

Of all the people in the world -- of all current and former pop/rap/dance/anything-stars in the world, why him and why *now* for TC40?

Its doth smack a little too much of a coincidence ... :)

t @ dji

Techmaiming -- heh, heh, dude, that's *me* :)

As for Scoble wanting to take a break, I'm not sure I'm entirely sympathetic. There's very little of we all do online that "makes a difference" -- not to say it doesn't exist, but for most of us its just fun. For someone in the business for so long its a bit surprising that Scoble hasn't had this epiphany yet. Or, perhaps, like most of us, he requires a bit of reminding every now and again.

I know I blog to blow off steam and to have a laugh -- because I *know* I don't take it too *too* seriously. But imagine if it was your life? Yeah, I'd have angst too.

Cheers
t @ dji

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who can see beyond all of the details for what this might represent about the future. ;)

Always a pleasure to work with someone who produces such great and earnest work! ... and quite frankly I'm surprised you weren't snapped up already. ;)

Cheers
tony @ dji/tbh

Ben,

Good angle in the final paragraph. A-listers -- or whatever you want to call them -- can be tremendously influential in generating buzz that can drive signups.

For some web2.0 outfits, getting the network effect in is absolutely critical for it to work ... and the benefit of having Guy Kawasaki or Jason Calacanis front your outfit can't be measured in dollars. Or, rather, it can, but you know what I mean. ;)

Cheers
t @ dji

Hit me up!

Tony Hung
aAF0kytSTimooIvh@spambox.us

Cheers
tony @ dji

Ok -- I'll go first.

You're wondering why the ad with Leo Laporte's different?

1. I don't think he is different -- he should be brought to task when the situation calls for it (hey, I did it: http://www.deepjiveinterests.com/2007/04/07/why...)

2. Its a function of the medium -- there are different expectations on traditional media. People already have a certain amount of savvy, or jadedness if you will. When you hear an ad on TV or radio, most people have enough media literacy to know that ... well, its an ad. It was paid for. And more importantly, celebrities "do" that kind of thing on TV and radio. Its accepted. In the blogosphere and amongst bloggers, its not. At least, not yet. The standards are different principally because of the *last* post you did. People view blogs as being a credible source of information -- more credible than other media because, for some reason, people think that bloggers are honest. Go figure, huh! :)

3. Its also a function of endorsement -- Leo Laporte endorsing GoToMyPc is pretty benign stuff. GoToMyPC doesn't have a terrible reputation. They're not recalcitrant spammers. They don't sell laptops that go on fire. They don't have a history of being the company everyone loves to hate. More importantly, Leo Laporte hasn't gone on record to previously say that he *doesn't* like GoToMyPc. If Leo Laporte were to endorse a company that he obviously had railed against? If he was endorsing a company that *everyone* took an exception to (thereby, implicltly making him also taking an exception to it if he had never said anything prior) -- that kind of endorsement would go over badly.

And the latter point is *exactly* what is wrong with Federated Media and *exactly* why the ad you heard on the radio is *not* the same as the "conversational marketing" hubaloo.

It has to do with the honest of the conversation or the sponsorship. Leo Laporte is being pretty plain and upfront about the commercial. And him doing it, given his track record about things like GoToMyPc is pretty bland. It doesn't impugn his integrity (that much), or more than any other product all things being equal. Its pretty benign stuff.

As for your assertion that bloggers are doing it to get links? Hey, I'm partly guilty as charged.

Having said that, I'll also say that it is an important conversation that I'dlike to chime in on -- conversational marketing as it applies to bloggers is an important topic.

And that's one thing that John Batelle got right -- its an evolving medium. And the level of discourse, if anything, should be more -- not less.

Cheers
Tony @ DJI