Rainer Brockheimer Brockerhoff (Sorry, Rainer!) recently made a post on recent developments to utilize TrackBack and other related technologies. I'm in general agreement with Rainer and Tom Coates, whose writings he also cites in his post. The following quote I believe requires some clarification on my part being a proponent of this cause:
…the whole trackbacks are comments movement is an attempt to make weblogs more like bulletin-boards.
I can say this is not my primary motivation nor do I believe it is for others involved in this discussion though certainly these notions descend from its lineage. Furthermore, I don't see these efforts as a desire to claim a territory unexplored when its patently not.
To me this work is only an evolution or a reformulation of past.
Let me share my thoughts in an attempt to elaborate and perhaps clarify the matter.
First, I think it worth noting again and in more direct terms that the history of bulletin boards are not lost on me in the least. I have not specifically mention it and perhaps I should have. (I suppose I'm changing that right now.) The fact of the matter is that my experiences with bulletin boards drive my interest in TrackBack, weblogs and the convergence of these related technologies.
My personal opinion is that bulletin boards (as Mark Pilgrim would put it) suck. They are generally an unfocused collection of threads that, until RSS becomes commonplace, require me to come to it and use its interface to comment. The threaded display makes it even harder for me to grok particularly when it’s a highly active conversation.
Weblog comments only slightly improve on this by organizing the conversation to a single thread and quite often (and thankfully in my opinion) display them in a flat rolling manner. These discussions are also started by one or a select few individuals that typically increase their quality. While many are beginning to take advantage of the RSS generation functionality found in weblogs tools, weblog comments still require that I use their interface. Furthermore those comments are limited to that one weblog unless I cut, paste and post them elsewhere.
How are TrackBack-enabled comments different then past means? The most important is that, as a commentator (the not for us
Tom Coates writes about), I have options to the way in which I want to share my thoughts – through the interface of the weblog I'm commenting on, a post to my own weblog, or a specialized external application. This is significant because it allows information and knowledge to flow more efficiently and more frequently.
A key differentiator is that TrackBack-enabled comments have a standardized remote API. It's my belief that this capability could give rise to tools that allow prolific power commentators
to work from one interface. They also allow for me to comment
from a post to my weblog. It's also noteworthy that the distributed loosely coupled nature of TrackBack-enabled comments (quite a mouthful) can be organized and grouped by the individual. (This of course assumes that individual is so inclined. I would because I think some of my best thoughts are not on my weblog.) Bulletin boards and weblog comments alone are constrained to a specific site and grouped by a certain topic or theme.
I would not be making this post for I didn't even know of Rainer until he pinged one of my entries yesterday. (I'm glad I do now.) Nor did I know that Tom Coates wrote about the excesses of social software
earlier this year. It's situations like these that make the potential value of TrackBack-enabled comments come into focus and subject to exploration as an evolution of past mediums.
Note that in discussing TrackBack that I use words such as could and potentially. This notion is still a work in progress and not without its flaws.
So while I generally agree with the view Rainer and Tom expressed, we see the same circumstances differently. Social software like TrackBack-enabled comments are an evolution of the past not an isolated reinvention of the wheel. Innovation commonly happens in isolated pockets where similar discoveries are made until finally someone maps their triangulation and they come together. Social software
like TrackBack manufacture serendipity and bring them together faster then in the past.
<p>Rainer <del>Brockheimer</del> Brockerhoff (Sorry, Rainer!) recently made <a href="http://www.brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php?p=354#354">a post on recent developments to utilize TrackBack and other related technologies</a>. I'm in general agreement with Rainer and Tom Coates, whose <a href="http://www.plasticbag.org/files/comm/the_excesses_of_social_software.shtml">writings he also cites</a> in his post. The following quote I believe requires some clarification on my part being a proponent of this cause:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the whole <a href="http://www.timaoutloud.org/archives/000225.html">trackbacks are comments</a> movement is an attempt to make weblogs more like bulletin-boards.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I can say this is not my primary motivation nor do I believe it is for others involved in this discussion though certainly these notions descend from its lineage. Furthermore, I don't see these efforts as <q>a desire to claim a territory unexplored when its patently not.</q> To me this work is only an evolution or a reformulation of past. </p>
<p>Let me share my thoughts in an attempt to elaborate and perhaps clarify the matter.</p>
<p>First, I think it worth noting again and in more direct terms that the history of bulletin boards are not lost on me in the least. I have not specifically mention it and perhaps I should have. (I suppose I'm changing that right now.) The fact of the matter is that my experiences with bulletin boards drive my interest in TrackBack, weblogs and the convergence of these related technologies. </p>
<p>My personal opinion is that bulletin boards (as Mark Pilgrim would put it) suck. They are generally an unfocused collection of threads that, until RSS becomes commonplace, require me to come to it and use its interface to comment. The threaded display makes it even harder for me to grok particularly when it’s a highly active conversation.</p>
<p>Weblog comments only slightly improve on this by organizing the conversation to a single thread and quite often (and thankfully in my opinion) display them in a flat rolling manner. These discussions are also started by one or a select few individuals that typically increase their quality. While many are beginning to take advantage of the RSS generation functionality found in weblogs tools, weblog comments still require that I use their interface. Furthermore those comments are limited to that one weblog unless I cut, paste and post them elsewhere.</p>
<p>How are TrackBack-enabled comments different then past means? The most important is that, as a commentator (the <q>not for us</q> Tom Coates writes about), I have options to the way in which I want to share my thoughts – through the interface of the weblog I'm commenting on, a post to my own weblog, or a specialized external application. This is significant because it allows information and knowledge to flow more efficiently and more frequently.</p>
<p>A key differentiator is that TrackBack-enabled comments have a standardized remote API. It's my belief that this capability could give rise to tools that allow prolific <q>power commentators</q> to work from one interface. They also allow for me to <q>comment</q> from a post to my weblog. It's also noteworthy that the distributed loosely coupled nature of TrackBack-enabled comments (quite a mouthful) can be organized and grouped by the individual. (This of course assumes that individual is so inclined. I would because I think some of my best thoughts are not on my weblog.) Bulletin boards and weblog comments alone are constrained to a specific site and grouped by a certain topic or theme.</p>
<p>I would not be making this post for I didn't even know of Rainer until he pinged one of my entries yesterday. (I'm glad I do now.) Nor did I know that Tom Coates wrote about the excesses of <q>social software</q> earlier this year. It's situations like these that make the potential value of TrackBack-enabled comments come into focus and subject to exploration as an evolution of past mediums.</p>
<p>Note that in discussing TrackBack that I use words such as could and potentially. This notion is still a work in progress and not without its flaws.</p>
<p>So while I generally agree with the view Rainer and Tom expressed, we see the same circumstances differently. Social software like TrackBack-enabled comments are an evolution of the past not an isolated reinvention of the wheel. Innovation commonly happens in isolated pockets where similar discoveries are made until finally someone maps their triangulation and they come together. <q>Social software</q> like TrackBack manufacture serendipity and bring them together faster then in the past.</p>
Leave a comment