I commented on Alan’s site that a conversation distributed across several blogs is difficult to track. It’s like having a houseful of kids, all of whom want to talk to you at the same time. Alan replied that “real-world” conversations are distributed and unstructured, so we should not impose artificial structures on them.
I don’t agree. The real world is full of highly structured conversations - formal debate, parlimentary procedures, round-tables, panel discussions, etc.. Those structures are artificial, but very useful. They exist to make the conversation orderly, and hopefully thereby more efficient. (Sometimes the structure deliberately makes the process inefficient, as in the U.S. Senate.)
A discussion that’s spread out over a number of blogs is sort of like a cracker-barrel session at a conference. You go from table to table picking up bits and pieces here and there, never quite sure if you’re getting all the pieces.
Now, that may not be a bad thing. But assuming that it’s automatically a GOOD thing is going a bit too far.
It’s plenty challenging for a participant in the conversation to keep tabs on what’s going on. Trying to track it as a lurker is even more difficult. Will Richardson pointed out that RSS is the glue that holds the conversation together. That’s spot-on; I would not have known about Alan’s response to my comment had I not gotten his reply via email. Having injected myself into the discussion, I can subscribe to the comments feed (NB: Alan’s blog has a comments feed, not all blog engines do.)
But what’s a poor lurker to do?
2 responses so far ↓
1
Alan
// Aug 19, 2005 at 1:32 pm
I did not suggest that there were NO structured conversations in the “real world” (the Senate as ‘reality’ as you and I know it might be a stretch), but I do suggest the world is full of more un-structured than structured conversations. When we meet up on the stret to catch up on old times, do we pull out our copies of Robert’s Rules? Do we issue roll call votes at the dinner table? It’s a mix of both.
Think of all the hallway conversations that go on at a conference while some people are holed up in formal (structured) sessions and “cracker-barrel’ ones (I am not sure I have been to one of those, but I’ll bring the crackers next time)– there’s a ot of information, introductions transmitted.
Or think of trying to wish structure on all the conversations at a crowded party or coffee shop, you do not want to m iss out on a single item, and you want it archived so you can pick through it a thread at a time??
It’s a rather moot point, and I am not sure it is even worth comparing. It is kind of fun to see how it plays out.
My point, is, if I have one and that is debatable, is that more of the world of information is unstructuerd, unorganized (think finding stuff on the web, as good as Google is it onoly sees a fraction), and unless we have people, lurkers, just try and bite off a small piece of the chaotic end, we do a disservice to not expand theor sources. I am not saying all chaos is a GOOD thing and I do think there are times for structure… oh well, I think I’ve lost track of the point myself.
And yes, while RSS is a key glue, its not the only one. It’s everyone’s challenge to find an approach that works for them.
2
Corrie
// Aug 19, 2005 at 2:44 pm
As a designer, I’m always trying to get at the roots; looking at first principles. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around what’s fundamentally different about blogging and the read-write-web in general. Through one lens, it’s just information collection, synthesis, publication, and feedback. It’s just easier, faster, and more wide-ranging. Does that in-and-of-itself make a fundamental difference?