Of course, it's a little less repugnant when you take into account why I blogged about blogging on another blog. I've come to hate Why I Hate DC, a site that used to make me laugh, sometimes even think (although not often). Most importantly, it's a site that I help upkeep, a term I use loosely as I think I've only blogged about five times over there.
So why would I bite this proverbial hand that doesn't feed me? (I don't get any compensation.) This photo lifted from Sucka Pants via BikeSnobNYC sums it up:
To read the rest, CLICK HERE. It's sort of a letter of resignation, my Jay-Z style retirement from that site, if you will.
But speaking of Jay-Z, this video is a bit dated, but it's still effing cool:
16 comments:
maybe you should have selected those idiot commenters out and implement this comment moderation tool.. anyways, its good to have you "back home" though ^^
Comment moderation can work without creating a giant queue -- just delete the jerks' stuff...
Why do you give a shit about the comments?
Why write a blog and not give a shit about the comments would be a better question. You might as well keep a private journal. Of course, homophobic and racist commenters can ruin a blog.
When I happen to read a thoughtful and well written post, I will want to comment on it and I want to see other people's comments. But when I see comments written by grown men but read like they came from 10 year old boys, it ruins the whole experience for me. Epecially when there is no controle on these comments. It makes me think that the blogger doesn't care about his/her blog, so why should I. I'll just stop reading the blog.
This should have been awful, but it's somehow less than awful, and in the dark of the night, I can admit that yes, I like it.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1907543
Keep your chin up, and your e-quips honed.
lu--I just don't think it's my seen over there. I mean, what's the point of having two blogs, neither of which pay? Might as well just stick over here. I like it over here better anyway. More colors. (And of course, a sane readership.)
ben--I don't moderate comments here, but I never needed to. Over there, they need to...
patty duke--I more or less agree with you. While I don't write specifically to spark conversation (in fact, I probably stifle it more than anything), it's interesting to get reader feedback about what they liked or dislike about a post. More importantly, I like when they include relevant links...
Like you did victor9000!
When Liz starting ruining the site back in the fall, I saw a comment posted by someone named "theantidc." "How could this 'theantidc' person not be good people?", I thought to myself.
Ever since then (except for a few weeks back when you posted less and had less anger), this site has helped to fill my DC Hate quota in ways that WIHDC has still failed to do (except for your posts).
This is reason enough to support comments!
-brian
Hi Marissa, I left this over at the DC blog but want to leave it here as feel pretty angry that you have lumped me in with the anon idiots that have been destroying the dc blog for months now. That's a shame and you've got me wrong but still, here is the comments I left there. Take care.
"Thanks for the mention, disapointed that it is in the context you placed it. A few things:
My contribution to the comments over here is based on one thing and one thing only, the same thing you complain of but rather than blog on it, I took direct action, something the people running this blog should have done a long time ago.
That reason is the terrible attitude by the numerous anon posters to Matt's blog posts has been going on for ages.
I'm disapointed that you lump me in with the anon idiots who have been destroying this blog, considering that I am a proper blogger who one an award from The Times newspaper in London...but still...
I used to link here but got sick of the cesspit comments section that make it impossible for anyone else to contribute to a debate here but as a blogging comrade of M@ I'd journey back now and then and decided to fight fire with fire in the hope that the comment situation would come to a head with my behaviour and it has.
It's a damn shame it's taken my extreme act to garner this airtime because what you talk of above has been going on for months with no action taken and that is a disgrace.
The answer to your problem is simple, turn off anon comments. That'll shut down most of it. If it doesn't, turn comment modding on for a short spell. It really is that simple but for a while now, the people running this blog have looked like they think number of comments equals quality of the blog and that is just not the case.
The question is, are you and Dave going to take the action required to make this blog any better?"
brian--Thanks for the support. I'll try and keep myself angry.
dhg--I responded to your comment on WIHDC, but to summarize it went something, well, exactly like this:
OK, uh, so what I hate about the comments looks like it's springing up here [over at the WIHDC post] again in the last two comments. Is this now going to turn into a 100+ back-and-forth about what the Times said? If so, can you guys just trade emails and handle it that way? It's like when two monkeys are throwing poop at each other outside your house...I don't want to step outside into this shitstorm (after all, my poop isn't involved) but, you know, I have to get to the liquor store somehow.
And DHG, I know you were defending m@ -- fair enough. But it's also fair for people not to like him. What isn't fair is when the argument shifts from being about m@ and the blog to being about you and the "anonymous parasites." It just gets tiresome because the argument never even evolves beyond one-liners and various Google outings. And even though you may not start the personal attacks and may view it as defending yourself, the more you indulge, the more they indulge. It's very circular and ultimately goes nowhere. Not that this blog ever takes the higher road, but there must be a middle road...
Perhaps this?
To the anons obsessed with not just m@ but DHG too, you know he, himself, has a blog. If you want to leave comments focused on his life and career choices, then take your poop-throwing over to his house.
That is all.
Very disapointing and I've said so over there, you're skipping the issue and burying your head in the sand, I'm not the problem there, it's the vast faft of hateful anon comment abusers.
Close that and you'll have a better solution rather than sending them to me.
How you would you like it if I sent a whole wave of nasty commenters over to you?
How long have you been at this blogging stuff and what is the issue with closing anon comments?
DHG--First off, I have no control over the administrative function of WIHDC. I simply was asked to contribute every once in a while, which I didn't mind doing until lately when I realized it's redundant. I don't need two blogs, especially one that's turned into something of an embarrassment (um, I'm talking of WIHDC not this blog in case anyone was confused...).
Secondly, like I said, while you might not start these little fights, you do A LOT to fan the flames. While I wouldn't encourage these dicks to roll your way if you were simply an innocent victim in all of this, when you're responsible for posting up half of the over 100 comments involved in this stupid fight, then by all means. Deal with that somewhere more appropriate...then over there you can end it by moderating yourself. It sucks that WIHDC has turned into the referee for your and the various anon's business.
I'm posting this over at WIHDC too so you anon stalkers can see it.
Then who does? Dave? As a matter of urgency Dave should close the anon comments down.
On blogs that I also write for, well one, I am just a writer but I can also alter the format of the blog.
Obviously not in your case but you'd have made this discussion shorter if you just said that.
The great shame is that until I drew attention to the foul and abusive behaviour at that blog, no one would've done anything about it.
Fanning flames? Nah, just not letting consistent and foul behaviour stand.
Man of principle you see.
This blog will never stifle me from commenting. Being a DC Native, I will always have a comment or at least an opinion on blog site called The Anti DC. BTW, I find myself agreeing with you most of the time. You'll know either way.
DHG, you've seemed to have started a long back and forth thread with Marissa. Even though the posts were civil, I think that it would have been more civil if you had just stated that you were displeased in the in the comment section and linked a post to uyour own blog on why you were displeased. Therefore, it would not hve been neccesary to hijack this blog to do that.
I consider a gift when bloggers give feedback to their readers when they comment on a post. The bloggers write a post and someone takes the time to read the post and commnent on it. The blogger in turn gives their feed back. I think that's great. What I don't think is great is someone taking advantage of this and commenting excessively about one topic.
This is the last comment that I am going to leave on this post. The long back and forth is not my thing.
You seem to have missed the point, which is about the terrible situation at the other blog and I'm not going to waste my blog space with that nonsense, I'd rather blog about anti-terror hoardings.
All this is about is people taking the responsibility for the comments on the blogs they write for.
Simple as that.
Good God. No one's "missed the point," DHG. And really, it's quite condescending of you to say so. The fact is we're talking about two separate points. My point is about people not being obnoxious and engaging in cat fights on a blog that has nothing to do with the topic about which they're cat-fighting. Your point is about the need to comment moderation. I GET IT. And I'm all for it. I would've deleted 80 percent of the over 100 comments on that post...and half of them would've been yours.
But I think Patty Duke has the right idea. There's no logic in going back and forth about this as it seems we have hit a wall of disagreement about not just your personal role in the matter, but the subjects about which we're discussing.
Not everyone's going to agree with you 100 percent of the time. Sorry.
Marissa,
You were of course patronizing me when you suggested that you might be illiterate, while comparing my writing to that of a drunken horse speaking English as a second language.
That's fair enough. I like you. I'm just saying that when I "made light of rape" I was certainly not advocating violence. If anything, I'm very much against violence. I was simply describing a fraction of a state of mind at one moment in time. Like when your mother says she wants to "kill" you b/c you made a mess but not literally so. It's disappointing that morons take such things literally (and not literally)....
Well, good luck w/ your blog and your fans.
m@:
"I'm just saying that when I "made light of rape" I was certainly not advocating violence. If anything, I'm very much against violence. I was simply describing a fraction of a state of mind at one moment in time. Like when your mother says she wants to "kill" you b/c you made a mess but not literally so. It's disappointing that morons take such things literally (and not literally)...."
For the record, I have no idea what this particular sentence is pertaining to.
Post a Comment